Loading...
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