HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-08-12 Dist No. 5COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P. 0. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708
10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY)
July 30, 1976
DISTRICT NO. 5 DIRECTORS AND ALTERNATES:
Chairman Mclnnis has asked that you be advised of his intention to
call a special meeting of County Sanitation District Ne. 5 at the
following time:
THURSDAYJ AUGUST 12J 1976J AT 5:00 P.M.
NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL
The purpose of the meeting will be to discusss sewerage service by
District No. 5 for the down-coast area. An official notice of the
meeting will be sent to you approximately one week preceding the
meeting date.
JWS:rb
Copy to: Chairman Don Mcinnis
Director Howard ~agers
Supv. Thooas Riley
Alternate Ray ~illiams
Alternate Ralph Diedrich
Irvine Company, Bill Soto
TELEPHDN ES:
AREA CODE 714
540-2910
962-2411
II
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts
of Orange County, California
DISTRICT No. 5
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 12~ 1976 -5:00 P.M.
NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL
(1) Roll Call
FILE •••••..•••••••• J2)
LETIER ············-
Appointment of Chairman pro tern, if necessary
Post Office Box 8127
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Volley, Calif., 92708
Telephones:
Area Code 714
540-2910
962-2411
AGENDA
AD~?Ufmr.~-~~:;,~,-~OS~;-:
CO:' .. P & ~ ... L.:..·.u1-.............. .
mrs :ET LP ......... !'(".' ...... ..
P.ESG~Ul :o;:s crn:1FIE.D ... -:-
LEl-;[:·.s v:;;m::.N ............. ~
MIN~:;::s ViRlHEiC ......... .
MINUTES ~ILE.D ................. .
(3) A/C .... TKLR ·-·
---··--·------
Discussion and consideration of policy relative to sewerage service
by District No. 5 for the down-coast area. (See enclosed staff
report)
(4) Other business and communications, if any
(5) Consideration of motion to adjourn ~'.'f I
CONFIDENTIAL STAFF REPORT
NEWPORT -IRVINE COASTAL AREA
PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE
.....
(Nor FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION)
J''
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P. 0. BOX 8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
(714) 540-2910
(714) 962-2411
July 30, 1976
STAFF REPORT
NEWPORT-IRVINE COASTAL AREA
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND SEWER SERVICE
I •
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P. 0. BOX 8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
(714) 540-2910
(714) 962-2411
In 1969, an Interim Master Plan Report was prepared for the District
by Donald Simpson and Associates. This Report outlined the District's
facilities which would be needed to serve what was then contemplated to be
the ultimate boundaries of the District.
In December, 1971, a supplemental report was filed with the Directors
to update the 1969 Interim Master Plan to reflect revisions in the develop-
ment plans for the coastal slope area between the Cities of Newport and
Laguna Beach. This supplemental report was required because of land use plans
developed by the Irvine Company for the development of this coastal slope area.
The ultimate District boundaries which are shown on a map enclosed with this
report, are the same tentative boundaries that were then decided by the two
cities to be used in the Irvine Company's studies of 1971. In these two
reports, the facilities then planned contemplated serving that area lying
outside District No. 5, which is comprised of approximately 4,300 acres.
In January, 1976, the Irvine Ranch Water District requested conditions
of annexation of the above-mentioned proposed service area to Sanitation
District No. 5 and included in their request the identification of political,
financial and engineering considerations. A special meeting of District
No. 5 was held March 3, 1976 to consider this request from IRWD and it was
ascertained at that time that there was not sufficient information available
to the Board to make a definitive decision. The District's staff was
instructed to work with IRWD personnel in this regard.
The District's staff has met on several occasions with representatives
of the IRWD, but more particularly with the staff from the Irvine Company.
This report summarizes the efforts of the Sanitation District's staff and
that of the Irvine Company in analyzing the alternatives to be considered by
the Directors of Sanitation District No. 5 in response to the initial request
for sanitary sewer service in the coastal area between Newport Beach and
Laguna Beach.
11.
METHODOLOGY OF ANALYSIS
Because of the need for sewer service for this Newport-Irvine coastal
area and the necessity for County Sanitaticn District No. 5 to im~lement master
planning of facilities in the event this area is to be served by the District.
Staff Report
July 30, 1976
Page Two
and the Joint Works facilities of the Districts, certain assumptions were made
based on the premise that the area would be annexed to the Sanitation District.
From this premise, the following basic assumptions were made in analyzing the
various alternatives presented herein. These assumptions were considered valid
for all of the alternatives.
1. That the ultimate boundaries of the City of Newport Beach and
Sanitation District No. 5 must be coincidental.
2. That the local water and sewer service will be provided by the
City of Newport Beach.
3. That the basic existing Sanitation District annexation policies
must be complied.with for all areas considered.
4. That the general land use plans presently proposed by the
Irvine Company, which have been tentatively approved by the
County Planning Department and the staff of the Coastal
Commission, shall be embraced by the City with consideration
of the proposed developme~t to be compatible with the present
development within the City of Newport Beach (sp. Cameo
Shores and Cameo.Highlands).
There are approximately 4,300 acres of undeveloped land in this study
area. Approximately 800 acres of undeveloped land are presently within the
boundaries of Sanitation District No. 5 but not within the City of Newport
Beach. The Irvine Company TICMAP land use plan was assumed as a basis for
development of this subject area. Of the 3,522 acres outside of the Sanitation
District's boundaries, 1,987 acres, or approximately 56 percent are designated
as open space and l ,535, or approximately 44 percent, are designated for
development according to the present TICMAP plan.
The TICMAP land use plan, as presently proposed, envisions a permanent
population of 35,790 within the undeveloped area (4,320 acres) west of Muddy
Canyon. A breakdown of the key statistics related to the plan is shown below:
Urban Acreage
Open Space
Regional (State}
Loca 1 (City/County)
TOTAL ACREAGE
Land Use Statistics
Population
Dwelling Units
Local Commercial
tourist ~ecre~~idn~\
Hotel Rooms
Flows
Existing SD #5
Area (acres)
660 (83%)
38 (5%)
100 ( 12%)
798 ( 100%)
10,472
3' 168
11 acres
1 l acres
150
1.02
2.
Additional Service Total Service
Area (Acres) Area (Acres)
1,535 (44%) 2, 195 (51%)
100 (3%) 138 (3%)
l, 887 (53%) 1, 987 (46%)
3,522 ( 100%) 4,320 ( 100%)
25,318 35,790
9,672 12,840
37 ~cres 48 acres
121-: a·c·r·es
:I,
1~5 acres
2,250 2,400
3.03 4.05 (Average)
7.50 (Peak}
----,~ ~ .., -q·· -
I II .
ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATE
Annex the entire 3,522 acres to the boundaries of the sphere of influence
of the City of Newport Beach and the entire area be subject to the present
annexation fees of approximately $1,250 per acre.
Advantages of thi.s Alternative:
By annexing the entire area a~ this time and payment of all
of the subject annexation fees, all of the provisions of
the basic annexation fees of the District would be met.
This would mean a payment by the present landowner of
approximately $4,402,500.
Disadvantages of this Alternative:
The areas designated as open space would be subject to the
annexation fees and these areas are designated to be ultimately
controlled by the City or County which could result in an
exchange of local tax dollars.
In the event that the Directors consider deferment of annexation fees on
the designated open space areas as presently shown on the TICMAP general land
use plan, the following alternatives were considered:
ALTERNATE I I
Annexation, in its entirety, of the 3,522 acres to the boundaries of the
sphere of influence of the City of Newport Beach with the following conditions:
A. All proposed areas to be developed (1,535 acres) shall be
subject to the present annexation fees. The areas subject
to annexation and the areas where annexation fees are
deferred must be definitively defined for control purposes.
The owner shall pay approximately $1,918,750 based on a
proposed current annexation fee of $1,250 per acre.
B. Annexation fees to be deferred by contract between District
No. 5 and the Irvine Company on the open space areas (1 ,987
acres) until (charges payable at time of development equal
to then existing annexation fees):
(1) Change in land use of designated open space areas
(2) Change in ownership
(3) For a period not to exceed 25 years
3.
Advantages of this Alternative:
By annexing the entire area at this time, both Sanitation
District No. 5 and the Irvine Company could proceed with
definitive plans for sewering the needs of the area.
The initial annexation fee of approximately $2 million would
provide the monies now for Sanitation District No. 5 to
proceed with the implementation of those facilities that are
needed to serve this area.
Disadvantages of this Alternative:
The areas between the undeveloped and open space areas
must be definitively defined based on the TICMAP and would
be subject to modification as development proceeds. This
would be a difficult administrative procedure.
The encumbrances on the open space areas would be a future
liability of the Irvine Company which may affect their future
plans as to transfer of title or payment of annexation fees
for areas which may never utilize the sewer system.
ALTERNATE I I I
Adopt a sphere of influence for Sanitation District No. 5 coincidental with
the sphere of influence of the City of Newport Beach. The territory outside of
District No. 5 would be annexed in segments as the development proceeds and the
annexation fees be predicated upon those fees applicable at the time of
annexation.
Advantages of this Alternative:
The District's Directors would be able to approve annexations
based upon definitive development plans rather than a general
land use plan.
Disadvantages of this Alternative:
Although a sphere of influence does indicate the intent of
the annexation, it does not provide the same iecurity for
inclusion within an area as actual annexation.
The annexation fees would be paid over a longer period of
time.which would be detrimental to the cash flow situation
of Sanitation District No. 5.
The need for sewer facilities would be created in advance
of the funding and construction of the required facilities
by the District.
4.
ALTERNATE IV
Annex only the proposed developed areas (l,535 acres) at this time as shown
on the present TICMAP.
Advantages of this Alternative:
The District would receive approximately $2 million to proceed
with the implementation of the Master Plan facilities required
for this area.
The designated open space areas would not be subject to any
deferred annexation fees and no encumbrances would be placed
thereon, as outlined in Alternate I I, Paragraph B.
Disadvantages of this Alternative:
This type of annexation would provide a very irregular boundary
of Sanitation District No. 5 and the boundaries would be solely
predicated at this time on proposed general iand use plans.
As definitive developments did occur, there might be a con-
siderable amount of conflict between the District's boundaries
which were definitively established on a general plan and those
which would be required for a precise development. This may
create an undue administrative problem in boundary adjustments.
ALTERNATE V
Annex the entire subject area at this time and annexation fees be based
on the percentage of development as now shown on the TICMAP land use
(1,535 acres x approximately $1 ,250/acre = $1 ,918,750) and as definitive
development occurs, the a~nexation fees be credited to the amount initially
paid.
Advantages of this Alternative:
The initial payment of approximately $2 million by the land-
owner would al low District No. 5 to proceed with the
implementation of the Master Plan facilities to serve the
downcoast area.
Annexation of the entire area would provide the assurances
needed by the landowner for sewer service to Sanitation
Dist r i ct No. 5.
Acting upon definitive developments would allow the Directors
to then establish those areas which may be considered not subject
to annexation fees or deferment thereof.
Definitive legal boundaries of annexation negate the admini-
stration problems. as defined in Alternates 11 and IV.
5.
..
Disadvantages of this Alternative:
The decision would have to be made at this time as to the
amount of the credit to be given as the areas progressively
develop in accordance with the TICMAP land use plan, and
the p~licy of annexation fees of the open space areas.
IV.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As previously stipulated in the 11 Assumptions 11 in formulating the above-
mentioned alternatives, it was stipulated that the basic annexation policies
of the District cannot be changed. Based upon precedent, not only in
District No. 5, but in the other Sanitation Districts, the Directors may
consider deferment of annexation fees based on the following:
1. Locally owned and operated (City and/or County) open space
areas such as parks, golf courses, etc., may not be subject
to annexation fees as long as those areas are owned and
operated in accordance with the approved open space land
use. Payment of annexation fees of locally owned open space
areas would result in basically an exchange of local tax
dollars. In the event that the land use does change and the
changed land use does contribute to the sewer system, then
the area would be subject to the appropriate annexation fees
enforceable at that time. An example of this deferment is
that of the Anaheim Hills Golf Course, owned and operated by
the City of Anaheim, in Sanitation District No. 2.
2. Open space lands which are owned and operated by public
entities which are not local (i.e. state or federally owned
properties) should not be exempt from annexation fees. The
tax base of these entities is much larger than the Sanitation
District. An example of this policy is the payment by the
State for annexation to District No. 11 for Balsa Chica State
Park.
3. Deferment of annexation fees on privately held open space areas
such as golf courses, can be conditioned based upon a recent
policy of Sanitation District No. 7 in the Lazy B Golf Course
annexation, wherein the annexation fees are only deferred for a
prescribed period of time in order to allow the property owner
to develop without a large initial capital investment in
annexation charges where open space areas do not contribute to
the sewer system.
There are other alternatives which could be presented, but the five
alternatives contained in this report seem to be the most appropriate ones
available for consideration. Because of the uncertainty of the actual ownership
and definitive limits of the open space areas, it does appear that Alternate V
may provide the best vehicle at this time to assure definitive boundaries, in
order that the District, as well as the landowner, can proceed to implement the
respective plans to provide the Sanitation District with the initial monies to
6.
..
implement those facilities as required and to allow the Directors to act upon
definitive land uses as they develop. In any annexation policy for this area,
the Directors must establish definitive guidelines as to any consideration
for deferment of annexation fees on the open space areas if that is considered
at the time of annexation. Deferments may result in agreements between the
Sanitation District, the landowner and the City to insure compliance with
the policy established by the Board.
It is also recommended that the Pacific Coast Highway, which is owned by
the State of California, be fully exempt from annexation fees, but be included
within the boundaries of any proposed annexation.
v.
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
Present assessed value of District No. 5 (1976-77 FY) is
$506,326,490 and with the proposed tax rate of $0.2564, will
raise $1,234,032.
The present assessed valuation of the 3,522 acres of undevel-
oped area proposed for annexation is $3,412,030 which, based
on the present tax rate, will raise approximately $8,813.
Using the present tax rate of $0.2564, the projected assessed
valuation of the total TICMAP developed areas would add an
additional tax revenue of $790,000 annually.
The estimated cost of the Master Plan facilities to serve this
area is $2.8 million.
The landowner has requested that the Board of Directors of the
District consider this matter at the special adjourned meeting
of August 12th with the possibility of initiation of annexation
proceedings to be considered at the regular Board Meeting of
September 8th. This schedule would coincide with the sphere of
influence of the City of Newport Beach now presently being
considered by the Local Agencies Formation Commission.
1.
~ !
~Jj r-
~< O>
I• ~z :J
" j' ~m
c.
M c 10 C/)
~ CP
O>
~
CJ) :J
};! c.
() r--· '"'I
)> /i
(')
Jj c: -•! m O>
I. )> -ii CJ) 0
-I :J
c
~
l ~~D ,,
m
(/)
5
~~ E~ E'1: ~~ m z
... )> • C') • rn ..,m 4 g~~~~e~~ ;
>O ~mc :C ~J:: r
~~~z >o · -V>•Vl~m -5 ~ ~ ~ ~
, ~
• ~ ~ z
(/) :::;
"'
I l l ~ ,, ... 5 m
'" 0 ,,
n c ~ ,, ,, Q
'" ~ ,...
?; )>
r a ,,
z '" "' 0 ,, ...
8~ z
(/)
4
=i
§~ " c
"' 4
"'I: z i5 '" ~ .. ,, z Zz ~ ""' )> _,, r ,, ..
"' n x
8 ,...
~!I 0
'?' " m ,. z
11\o ,, 0 (/)
~;t :ii 0 ~
,;;~ ,, ~ (") m m
?; ,, m
~ a ~ z a z
~
0 I I ()
;:;
() c
-~ g .. r
::!? . ~ 81: '!l ~
IC ~~ ~! m 0
c
,,
j;!• '"z ~ z .. ~re a ~ .. ,,
VI " ,, ~ Cl .. 0 "'
! •
I
f ~ , ...
-
lomprom1se nan tor
lrv~ne Coast Adopted
County Planners Urge More Open Space
1n l 0, 150 Acres Between Newport, Laguna·
BY DALE FETHEHLING
limes !>ldlf Wriler
l
SANTA ANA -A compromi:-:e plan for rlc\'clopin):! the 10.150-acrc Irvine
Coast land was approved Tuc~day hy the County l'l:rnning Commission;
Comrnisioncrs voted 5 to 0 to c;ill for more public U!'e and open ~pace than that
urged Ly the lrrine Co. but less than that snug ht by many conscrvatiomsts. ·
The proposed general plan amend-
1 l!.os 11 nrrt!rs J
nnes1
ORANGE COUNTY
cc PART II t
WEDNESDAY. AUGUST 4. 1976
ment now goes to the Board of Supcr-
vi.sors on Aug. 18 for a final decision.
The i~uc is perhaps the most exten-
sive land-use question the county had
had to grapple with in one cteci~ion.
E.5timatcs of the ,·;llue of the property
range as high ;1s S 100 million.
PLAN FOR IRV~NE COAST
The commission's decision comes
about a year after the In·ine Co ..
owner of the entire parcel, un\'eilecl its
proposal for the 3.5-mile-long unde-
veloped site between Corona de! ~Iar
and Laguna Beach.
The firm urged a residential.
commerical and resort (hotels. rc:;tau-
rants and shops) development having
a population of almost 50.000 in 20 to
30 years. About 65% of the open hilly
area would be left in open space. pro-
vided some public agency would buy
il
However, the commission, after a
long series of hearings and the ama_..:s-
ing of pounds of documents. opted
Tuesday for a diff ercnt ver::;ion
prepared by county staff.
That plan foresees about 38,000
residents and 75~; open sp;~ce.
It also would shift drvclopmrnt
away from Pacific Coast Highway and
away from the L..1guna Beach end of
the parcel and push it more toward the
San Joaquin Hil:s ridgclinc. The: idea.
the 'staff said, is to preserve ocean
views from Coast Highway, lessen the
project's impact on the road, and re-
flect recent state and local acquisition
proposals.
Thus, for example, the number of
privately developed "resort" areas near
the coast was cut back from a total of
three to just one at Crystal Cove. Cer-
tain proposed rrsidcntial areas'' ere
moved further inland.
But unsettled questions remain.
For one thing, government purchase
of 1,0rJO acres -including most oi the
acreage seaward of Co:u;t Highway -
hinges on the re;-;ults of a $280 mil11on
bond issue on the Novcmbt'r ballot.
Another state purchase of 1.300 acrt's
for a park is held up hy an h·,·ine Co.
stockholders' suit.
. Als0, a UC ll'vinc-kd study on how
Orange County shoulrl deal with the
Laguna Grrcnbrlt has not yrt ?een
released. The greenbelt is an unotf1cial
protcctoratr rncompas:::in;:; much of
the southeastern Irvine Coast.
Some conservationist groups. like
Friends of the Irvine Coast. havr
argued for public purchase of .the
whole 10,000 acre.~. Othrrs, such as the
Lcar,ur of Women Voters and thr
Laguna Grrenl1elt Inc .. had sOU[!ht a
ban on drvclopnwnl southeast of }.!oro
Canyon and more open space than that
rcflrctcd in the staff's proposal.
After months of hearings, Tuesday's
meeting was anticlimatic.
The commission's fonclne~{s for the
staff's plan had !';lll'faC'cd <'arlier. and
there was little advocacy Tuesday by
Continued from First Page
the Irvine Co. or others for a different alterna-
live.
Instead, dozens of supplemental policies aimed
at guiding C\"Cntual development were debated.
Those policies cover everything from ways to
protect marine water quality to the need to
educate e\'cntual homeowners on how to keep
their domestic pets from harassing wildlife.
~Iorc importantly. the policies also placed, for
rxample, requirements on the Irvine Co. for
donating rights-of-way for roads in the area and
=-ct time periods after which lands to be labeled
open space -if not acquired -might be de-·
Ycloped.
The adopted land-use plan, road plan, policies
and (>l1Vironmental impact report now go to the
::·Jpervisors. If approved, the county general p_lan
thus would be changed to reflect the overall
development concept., / .
Soccific construction plans would be submitted
m~ch later and would have to be consistent with
the. general plan. (Company officials say it
probably will -be 1979 or 1980 before any dcvck
opmcnt will begin.) . ·
Coastal commission approval_..:. if the Legisla-
ture extends the lif 2 of that agency or creates a
successor -also will be required for both the
development concept an<i specific building plans.
A major question in the county deliberations
has bt:cn th-:-effect of the project on traffic. The
supen·~or.~ i·eccntly ga\'c conceptual approval
to a San Joaquin Hills "corridor,'' or freeway-type
route, along the ridge which would serve the
south county in general and the Irvine Coast
project as well.
In the plan approved .by the planning commis-
sioners, exten~ion of Culver Drive and San
Canyon Road to Coast High\•:ay al~ arc foreseen
in addition to local roads scn·in.~ the site.
Another question is what city will seek to
incorporate the area.
Newport Beach, Irvine and Laguna Beach
about the Irvine Coast s:tc, and the Local Agency
Formation Commis.::ion, which oversees annexa-
tions, later this month will hold hearings to
redefine the cities' spheres of influence.
LAGUNA
BEACH
'>
i
L.-
" COASTLAND--Shoded oreo shows the l 0, 150-ocre !~vine Coast pr~ject.
· Times niap by Gus }\eller
-~
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
10844 ELL..:IS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY)
August S, 1976
NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
DISTRICT NO. 5
THURSDAY) AUGUST 12) 1976 -5:00 P.M.
NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH) CALIFORNIA
TELE PH ON ES:
AREA CODE 714
540-2910
962-2411
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of August 11, 1976, the Board
of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 will meet in an adjourned
regular meeting at the above hour and date.
The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss sewerage service by District
No. 5 for the down-coast area.
II
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts
of Orange County, California
DISTRICT No. 5
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 12~ 1976 -5:00 P.M.
NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL
(1) Roll Call
(2) Appointment of Chairman pro tern, if necessary
Post Office Box 8127
10844 Ellis· Avenue
Fountain Volley, Calif., 92708
Telephones:
Area Code 714
540-2910
962-2411
AGENDA
(3) Discussion and consideration of policy relative to sewerage service
by District No. 5 for the down-coast area. (See enclosed staff
report)
(4) Other business and communications, if any
(5) Consideration of motion to adjourn
lomprom1se r1an tor
Irvine Coast Adopted
County Planners Urge More Open Space ·
in 10, 150 Acres Between Newport, Laguna:
BY DALE FE'TllE1'LING
Times Stall Writer
SANTA ANA -A compromisr plan for de\'eloping the 10.150-acre Irvine
Coast land was approYed Tuesday hy the County Planning Commission:
Commisioners voted 5 to 0 to call for more public use and open space than that
urged by the Irrine Co. hut less than that sought by many conservationists. ~
The proposed ~eneral plan amend-
1 1Lo5' 11 ngrlts
11nes
ORANGE COUNTY
cc PART 11 "" ' WEDNESDAY. AUGUST 4. 1976
ment now goc:: to the Board of Super-
visors on Aug.18 for a final decision.
The issue is perhaps the most exten-
sive land-use question the county had
had to grapple with in one decision.
Estimates of the value of the property
range as high as $100 million.
PLAN FOR IRV~NE COAST
The commission's deci~ion comes
about a year after the lrYine Co ..
owner of the entire parcel. unveiled its
proposal for the 3.5-mile-long unde-
veloped site bet ween Corona del _jfar
and Laguna Beach.
The firm urged a residential,
commerical and resort (hotels, restau-
rants and shops) development having
a population of almost 50,000 in 20 to
30 years. About 65% of the open hilly
area would be left in open space, pro-
vided some public agency would buy
il
However, the commission, after a
long series of hearings and the ama;,s-
ing of pounds of documents. opted
Tuesday for a different vrr;,ion
prepared by county staff.
That plan foresees about 38,000
residents and 75% open space.
It also would shift development
away from Pacific Coast Highway and
away from the Laguna Beach end of
the parcel and push it more toward the
San Joaquin Hills ridgclinc. The idea,
the staff said, is to preserve ocean
views from Coast Highway, lessen the
project's impact on the road, and re-
flect recent state and local acquisition
proposals.
· Thus, for example. the number of
privately developed "resort" areas nea~
the coast was cut back from a total or
three to just one at Crystal Cove. Cer-
tain proposed residential areas were
moved further inland.
But unsettled questions remain.
For oile thing. government purchase
of 1,050 acres -including most of tr,e
acreage seaward of Coast I lighway ..:__
hinges on the results of a $280 million
bond issue on the 1\o,·ember ballot.
Another state purchase of 1.300 acres
for a park is held up by an Irvine Co.
stockholders' suit.
Also, a UC Irvine-led study on how
Orange County should deal with the
Laguna Greenbelt has not yet been
released. The greenbelt is an unofflci~tl
protectorate encompa!=sin~ much oi
the southeastern Irvine Coast.
Some conservationi:::t groups .. like
Friends of the lrnne Coast. ha,·c
argued for public purchase of _the
whole 10,000 acres. Others, such ~s the
League of Women Voters and the
Laguna Greenbdt Inc .. had sou~ht a
ban on development southrast of ~loro
Canyon and more open :-:pace than that
reflect rel in the staffs propos:11.
After months of hrarings, Tuesday's
mectmr. was anticlimatic.
The commi~ion's fondness for thr
stafrs plan had surfaCl'd C'arlier, and
, there was little advocacy Tuesday by
Continuctl from .Firs! Page
the Irvine Co. or others for a different alterna-
tiv~.
Instead. dozens of supplemental policies aimed
at guiding eventual development were debated.
Thos-e policies cover everything from ways to
protect marine water quality to the need to
educate eventual homeowners on how to keep
their domestic pets from harassing wildlife.
~.iore importantly, the policies also placed. for
example, requirements on the Irvine Co. for
donating rights-oi-way for roads in the area and
:::c.:t time periods after which lands to be labeled
open space -i( not acquired -might be de-·
Ycloped.
The adopted land-use plan. road plan, policies
~.nd environmental impact report now go to the
::upervisors. If approved, the county general plan
thus would be changed to reflect the overall
development concept.. ~ .
Specific construction plans would be submitted
much later and would have to be consistent with
the general plan. (Company officials say it
Abo/one Point
oc-
. f' ~l\t'
probably will ~be 19n or 1980 before any dcvek
opment will begin.) . ·
Coastal commission approval ....: if the Legisla-
ture extends the life of that agency or creates a
successor -also will be required for both the ·
development concept and specific building plans.
A major question in the county deliberations
has been the effect of the project on traffic. The
supervisor.' recently gave conceptual approval
to a San Joaquin Hills "corridor." or freeway-type
route. along the ridge which would serve the
~outh county in general and the Irvine Coast
project as well.
In the plan approved.by the planning commis-
sioners, extension of Culver Drive and San
Canyon Road to Coast Highway also arc foreseen
in addition to local roads serving the site.
Another question is what city will seek to
incorporate the area.
Newport Beach, Irvine and Laguna Beach
about the Irvine Coast site, and the Local Agency
Formation Commission, which oversees annexa-
tion~. later this month will hold hearings to
redefine the cities' spheres of influence.
LAGUNA
BEACH
.. COASTl.AND-Shaded area shows the l 0, 150-acre Irvine Coast pr~ject.
Times map by Gus Kelle• ·~
f •
July 30, 1976
STAFF REPORT
IRVINE COASTAL AREA
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND SEWER SERVICE
I •
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P. 0. BOX 8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
(714) 540-2910
(714) 962-2411
In 1969, an Interim Master Plan Report was prepared for the District
by Donald Simpson and Associates. This Report outlined the District's
facilities which would be needed to serve what was then contemplated to be
the ultimate boundaries of the District.
In December, 1971, a supplemental report was filed with the Directors
to update the 1969 Interim Master Plan to reflect revisions in the develop-
ment plans for the coastal slope area between the Cities of Newport and
Laguna Beach. This supplemental report was required because of land use plans
developed by the Irvine Company for the development of this coastal slope area.
The ultimate District boundaries which are shown on a map enclosed with this
report, are the same tentative boundaries that were then decided by the two
cities to be used in the Irvine Company's studies of 1971. In these two
reports,. the facilities then planned contemplated serving that area lying
outside District No. 5, which is comprised of approximately 4,300 acres.
In January, 1976, the Irvine Ranch Water District requested conditions
of annexation of the above-mentioned proposed service area to Sanitation
District No. 5 and included in their request the identification of political,
financial and engineering considerations. A special meeting of District
No. 5 was held March 3, 1976 to consider this request from IRWD and it was
ascertained at that time that there was not sufficient information available
to the Board to make a definitive decision. The District's staff was
instructed to work with IRWD personnel in this regard.
The District's staff has met on several occasions with representatives
of the IRWD, but more particularly with the staff from the Irvine Company.
This report .summarizes the efforts of the Sanitation District's staff and
that of the Irvine Company in analyzing the alternatives to be considered by
the Directors of Sanitation District No. 5 in response to the initial request
for sanitary sewer service in the Irvine coastal area.
I I .
METHODOLOGY OF ANALYSIS
Because of the need for sewer service for this Newport-Irvine coastal
area and the necessity for County Sanitation District No. 5 to implement master
planning of facilities in the event this area is to be served by District No. 5
Staff Report
July 30, 1976
Page Two
and the Joint Works facilities of the Districts, certain assumptions were made
based on the premise that the area would be annexed to the Sanitation District.
From this premise, the following basic assumptions were made in analyzing the
various alternatives presented herein. These assumptions were considered valid
for all of the alternatives.
1. That the ultimate boundaries of the City of Newport Beach and
Sanitation District No. 5 must be coincidental.
2. That the local water and sewer service will be by the City of
Newport Beach.
3. That the basic existing Sanitation District annexation policies
must be complied.with for all areas considered.
4. That the general land use plans presently proposed by the
Irvine Company, which have been tentatively approved by the
County Planning Department and the staff of the Coastal
Commission, shall be embraced by the City with consideration
of the proposed development to be compatible with the present
development within the City of Newport Beach (sp. Cameo
Shores and Cameo.Highlands).
There are apprxoimately 4,300 acres of undeveloped land in this study
area. Approximately 800 acres of undeveloped land are presently within the
boundaries of Sanitation District No. 5 but not within the City of Newport
Beach. The Irvine Company TICMAP land use plan was assumed as a basis for
development of this subject area. Of the 3,522 acres outside of the Sanitation
District's boundaries, 1,987 acres, or approximately 56 perGent are designated
as open space and 1 ,535, or approximately 44 percent, are designated for
development according to the present TICMAP plan.
The TICMAP land use plan, as presently proposed, envisions a permanent
population of 35,790 within the undeveloped area (4,320 acres) west of Muddy
Canyon. A breakdown of the key statistics related to the plan is shown below:
Urban Acreage
Open Space
Regional Ownership
Local Ownership
TOTAL ACREAGE
Land Use Statistics
Population
Dwelling Units
Local Commercial
tourist ~ecrea~idn~l
Hotel Rooms
Flows
Existing SD #5
Area (acres)
660 (83%)
38 (5%)
100 ( 12%)
798 ( l 00%)
10,472
3' 168
l l acres
l l acres
150
1.02
Additional Service Total Service
Area (Acres) Area (Acres)
l '535 (44%) 2, 195 (51%)
100 (3%) 138 (3%)
1'887 (53%) l '987 (46%)
3,522 ( l 00%) 4,320 ( l 00%)
25,318 35,790
9,672 12,840
37 acres 48 acres
121; a·c r'es : 1.
135 acres
2,250 2,400
3.03 4.05 (ADWF)
7.50 (PWWF)
II I .
ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATE I
Annex in its entirety the 3,522 acres to the boundaries of the sphere
of influence of the City of Newport Beach with the following conditions:
A. All proposed areas to be developed (1535 acres) shall be
subject to the present annexation fees. The areas subject
to annexation and the areas where annexation fees are ·
deferred must be definitively defined for control purposes.
The owner shall pay approximately $1,918,750 based on a
proposed current annexation fee of $1,250 per acre.
B. Annexation fees to be deferred on the open space areas
(1987 acres) until:
(1) Change in land use of designated open space areas
(2) Change in ownership
(3) For a period not to exceed 25 years
Advantages of this Alternative:
By annexing the entire area at this time, both Sanitation
District No. 5 and the Irvine Company could proceed with
definitive plans for sewering the needs of the area.
The initial annexation fee of approximately $2 million
would provide the monies now for Sanitation District No. 5
to proceed with the implementation of those facilities
that are needed to serve this area.
Disadvantages of this Alternative:
The areas between the undeveloped and open space areas
must be definitively defined based on the TICMAP and would
be subject to modification as development proceeds. This
would be a difficult administrative procedure.
The encumbrances on the open space areas would be a future
liability of the Irvine Company which may affect their
future plans as to transfer of title or payment of annex-
ation fees for areas which may never contribute to the
sewer system.
ALTERNATE I I
Sphere of influence for Sanitation District No. 5 coincidental with
the sphere of influence of City of Newport Beach. The territory outside of
District No. 5 would be annexed in segments as the development proceeds and
the annexation fees be predicated upon those fees valid at the time of
annexation.
3.
Advantages of this Alternative:
The District's Directors would be able to approve annex-
ations based upon definitive development plans rather than
a general land use plan.
Oisadvantages of this Alternative:
Although a sphere of influence does indicate the intent of
the annexation, it does not provide the same security for
inclusion within an area as actual annexation.
The-annexation fees would be paid over a longer period of
time which would be detrimental to the cash flow situation
of Sanitation District No. S.
The need for sewer facilities would be created in advance
of the funding and construction of the required facilities
by the District.
ALTERNATE Ill
Annex only the proposed developed areas ·(1535 acres) at this time as
shown on the present TICMAP.
Advantages of this Alternative:
The District would receive approximately $2 million to
proceed with the implementation of the Master Plan facilities
required for this area.
The designated open space areas would not be subject to any
deferred annexation fees and no encumbrances would be placed
thereon.
Disadvantages of this Alternative:
This type of annexation would provide a very irregular
boundary of Sanitation District No. 5 and the boundaries
would be solely predicated at this time on proposed general
land use plans.
As definitive developments did occur, there might be a
considerable amount of conflict between the District's
boundaries which were definitively established on a general
plan and those which would be required for a precise
development. This may create an undue administrative
problem in boundry adjustments.
ALTERNATE IV
Annex the entire subject area at this time and annexation fees be based
on the percentage of development as now shown on the TICMAP land use
(1 ,535 acres x approximately $1,250/acre = $1,918,750) and as definitive
development occurs, the annexation fees be credited to the amount initially
paid.
I.
Advantage~ of this Alternative:
The initial payment of approximately $2 million by the land-
owner would allow District No. 5 to proceed with the
implementation of the Master Plan facilities to serve the
downcoast area.
Annexation of the entire area would provide the assurances
needed by the landowner for sewer service to Sanitation
District No. 5.
Acting upon definitive developments would allow the Directors
to then establish those areas which may be considered not
subject to annexation fees or deferment thereof.
Definitive legal boundaries of annexation negate the admini-
stration problems as defined in Alternates I and I I I.
Disadvantages of this Alternative:
The decision would have to be made at this time as to the
amount of the credit to be given as the areas progressively
develop in accordance with the TICMAP land use plan.
IV.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENTATIONS
As previously stipulated in the "Assumptions" in formulating the above-
mentioned alternatives, it was stipulated that the basic annexation policies
of the District cannot be changed. Based upon precedent, not only in
District No. 5, but in the other Sanitation Districts, the Directors may
consider deferment of annexation fees based on the following:
1. Locally owned and operated (City and/or County) open space
areas such as parks, golf courses, etc., may not be subject
to annexation fees as long as those areas are owned
and operated in accordance with the approved open space land
use. Payment of annexation fees of locally owned open space
areas would result in basically an exchange of local tax
dollars. In the event that the land use does change and the
changed land use does contribute to the sewer system, then
the area would be subject to the appropriate annexation fees
enforceable at that time. An example of this deferment is
that of the Anaheim Hills Golf Course, owned and operated by
the City of Anaheim, in Sanitation District No. 2.
2. Open space lands which are owned and operated by public
entities which are not local (i.e. state or federally owned
properties) should not be exempt from annexation fees. The
tax base of these entities is much larger than the Sanitation
District. An example of this policy is the payment by the
State for annexation to District No. 11 for Balsa Chica State
Park.
s.
3. Deferment of annexation fees on privately held open space
areas, such as golf courses, can be conditioned based upon
a recent policy of Sanitation District No. 7 in the Lazy B
Golf Course annexation, wherein the annexation fees are only
deferred for a prescribed period of time in order to allow
the property owner to develop without a large initial capital
investment in annexation charges where open space areas do not
contribute to the sewer system.
There are other alternatives which could be presented, but the four
alternatives contained in this report seem to be the most appropriate ones
available for consideration. Because of the uncertainty of the actual
ownership and definitive limits of the open space areas, it does appear that
Alternate IV may provide the best vehicle at this time to assure definitive
definitive boundaries, in order that the District, as well as the landowner,
can proceed to implement the respective plans to provide the Sanitation District
with the initial monies to implement those facilities as required and to allow
the Directors to act upon definitive land uses as they develop.
It is also recommended that the Pacific Coast Highway, which is owned
by the State of California, be fully exempt from annexation fees, but be
included within the boundaries of any proposed annexation.
6.
MEETING DATE August 1 2, 1976 TIME 5:00 p .m. DISTRICTS __ 5 ______ _
DISTRICT 1
(EVANS) ••..••••• GARTHE ..•••• _____ _
(EDGAR) ...•...•• SHARP ...•.. ----__
DIEDRICH •.. _____ _
RIMA.······· ------
DISTRICT 2
(GROOT). ••. ) .•.•• WEDAA ••••••• _____ _
HOLLI NDEN ....• SCOTT ••••••• _____ _
DIEDRICH) •••..• CLARK .•.••••
GARTHE) ••.••.•• EVANS ••.••.• ------·
WEDDLE) ••.•••.• FOX .....••••• ------
DE J[:SUS) •..••• HOLT .•..••••• == == ==
THOM) • • . . . . . . • . KAYWOOD •..•.
PERRY ..•..•. ------
(HOYT) ••..•.•••• SMITH ....••• ------
!TIPTON) ..••..•• WINN ...•.••• ------
WARD) •.•...••.• WOOD •••••••• ------
GRAHAM) ••.••••• YOUNG • . • • • • • == == ·
DISTRICT 3
(WARD) •••.. ." .•.• WOOD ........ _____ _
(HOLLINDEN ) · · · · SVALSTAD· .•• __ · ___ _
(GRAY) ••. ·• ... ·· BLACKMAN···· _____ _
(WEDDLE) .•.. ···• COOPER ······ _____ _
(SYLVIA) •••...•. COX·········· _____ _
CULVER ······ ------
(GARTHE) · · · · · · · · EVANS · • · · · • • _____ _
!PRIEST).······· FRESE······· _____ _
THOM) · · · • · • • • · · KAYWOOD····· _____ _
LACAYO)········ MAC LAIN···· --___ _
· DAVIS)········· MEYER······· _____ _
. OLSON······· __ . ___ _
DIEDRICH) ...... SCHMIT······ _____ _ !WIEDER)~······· PATTINSON··· _____ _
YOUNG)········· STEVENS·····
MILLER)········ WE I SHAU PT ··· == == ==
DISTRICT 5 I
MC INNIS ..•• ~
(DIEDRICH) ..•... RILEY ....... =g;z == ==
(WILLIAMS) ...... ROGERS •...•• _____ _
DISTRICT 6
RIMA .•••••••
(ROGERS) ...•...•. RYCKOFF ••... == == ==
DIEDRICH · · · _____ _
DISTRICT 7
!ED GAR) ..•....•• SALTARELLI .
ROGERS).······· BARRE TT····· == == ==
SILLS) ••....... BURTON ...•••
DIEDRICH) ..• ··· CLARK······· ------
EVANS)········· GARTHE · · · • • • == == ==
GLOCKNER····
(HOYT)·········· SMITH······· == == ==
DISTRICT 11
(DIEDRICH) ...... SCHM IT ...... _____ _
SHENKMAN .••. _____ _
WIEDER •...•. _____ _
DISTRICT 8
(DIEDRICH).. •... RILEY ...•...
EDWARDS ...•.
(J OHNSON) ....... SWEEN EY ...•.
7 /14 /76
JOINT BOARDS
(ROGERS~.· •.• ··· BARRETT· ...•. ___ _
DIEDRICH ·• •
GRAY)) ....•.•... BLACKMAN ••• :== ==
SILLS .. ·~ .•.... BURTON ..•••• ___ _
D I ED R I CH J ...... CLARK ...•••• WEDDLE~ .•.••••.. COOPER ••.•••• == ==
SYLVIA .•.•••••. COX •.•.•••.•• ___ _
CULVER .••••••
!GARTHEl .•••••.•• EVANS .....••• == ==
WEDDLE ....••••. FOX ..•..•.••• ___ _
PRIEST .••.••••. FRESE .•.••.••
EVANS) •...•••••. GARTHE. •.•••• == ==
GLOCKNER ••••
!DE J[:SUS) ...••. HOLT ....•.••• == ==
THOM) .•.•...•••• KAYWOOfi..... ·
LACAYOL .....•• MAC LAIN ...• ====
MC INNIS .•••
(DAV IS) .......... MEYER ........ == ==
OLSON ...••..•
(WIEDER) ....••.. PATTINSON ••• == ==
PERRY .....•..
(DIEDRICH) ...••. RILEY ..•.•••• ====
RIMA ••......•
WILLIAt1S) ....•. ROGERS ......• == ==
ROGERSl •.•.•••• RYCKOFF ..... .
EDGAR) ••......•• SA LTARELLI •. ----
DIEDRICH) ....•. SCHMIT ....... ----
HOLLI NDEN) ..... SCOTT ...•...• ----
EDGAR) •..•••••.. SHARP .....•.• ___ _
SHENKMAN ..••
!HOYT) ........•.. SMITH ....• ; .. ----
YOUNG) .....•.•.. STEVENS ••..• ----
HOLLINDEN) •••.. SVA LS TA D ••.• == ==
(GROOT) ....•.••.. WEDAA ..••....
(MILLER} ..•...•. WEISHAUPT •.• == ==
WI EDER ••.•.. ___ _
(TIPTONL .•..... WINN ••••••..•
(WARD) .•...•.•... WOOD ....•.... == ==
(GRAHAM) ..••.... YOUNG ....•••• ___ _
OTHERS
r,; I HARPER
<(e 1 ~ SYLVES TER
LEWIS SvP$·', 1r;J CLARKE
~. TAYLOR jJ (/J Cif/,.(f BR ~WN
(J I I ( Q ,,,,.."'" ) '~( VJl If//'-?\}_ WOODRUFF
rpj·\-f-HOHENE R
~() HOWARD
HUNT
II ·/ (2t_.e.,c.c_ KEITH
I~ KENNEY
LYNCH
MADDOX
MARTINSON
PIERSALL
ST EVEN S
TRAVERS
--""""11111
FORM P·507 iCRC(H) P•S07•9 tOU,-fl
~
~·GP.dA. SYSTEMS C£LUU1 0 OHIO -DALLAS· LOS ANGf-:LCS ·...,__;
INITIALS CATE
PREPARED BY
APPROVED BY
~ ,~\k\ ~ ~ 4\/\.\~ ~~
-------·-··----·---·--·--.... ---··-· .. ----... -.... .._. ____ .. _______ ···--···-.. ·--··------...,_·-----·--·-· ==-~·-==--===-=----------·--·-· ·-------·-----·---------_::_k .. ~o ~ J1 ____ .. _ ----·---------------·-----·--------·-·-··--·----·---
: ( 1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
L
~II 11--------------·---·••-·-
E
N ll-----·-------11 11-------11 ., _____ _
0
2 3 4 5
L
I -·llN _______ ., __ ------.. -II~
__,.___ 0
36
37
38
39
6 7