HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPHERE OF INFLUENCE111111111 lill 11111111111111111111111111 lill III lill
*NEW FILE*
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
OTY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
ROLL CFLL
Present
Absent
Motion
Ayes
Abstainer
Motion
All Ayes
Motion
All Ayes
Motion
All Ayes
Motion
All Ayes
MINUTES
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
PLACE: Council Chambers
TIME: 2:00 P.M.
DATE: September 26, 1994
INDEX
x
x
x
x
x
x\Readin
LL
x
x
of Minutes of Meeting of September 12,
x
x
x
x
xas
waived, approved as written, and
filed.
x
x
in full of all ordinances and
ons under consideration was waived,
Clerk was directed to read by titles
WH CH A COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD LIRE
STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING:
Council ember Hedges requested expanded
informat n regarding party house
ordinance calls/disturbance advisory
cards and ome ideas toward improving
the ordinan when the Police Department
completes th it study.
With regard t the foregoing, Council
Member Debay s gested that perhaps an
hour be establi ed where parties have
to go inside a vacate the outside
yard/patio area; and also establish
regulations reg ding cars and
motorcycles parked n front yards and
landscaped areas, in proving the party
house ordinance.
Mayor Turner revitalize his suggestion
that a 5010 Corporation a set up which
would be controlled by th City enabling
citizens to make tax deductible
contributions/donations to that
corporation with the funds o be spent
on specific projects thro hout the
city. He will have a writt report
presented at the next meeting.
i
MATTERS WHICH A COUNCIL MEMBER MAY SH TO
PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND\nd
REPORT: None.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS - Receivefiled:
x
1. Harbor Quality Committee Meet(24)
August 11, 1994.
X%
2. Old Newport Boulevard Specific Are(24)
Ad Hoc Committee Meeting - Augus
1994.
STAFF REPORTS
3. each SplLeyp of Tnft , .n _
(21)
'I
Report from Planning Department.
The City Manager asked for direction to
proceed on the course of action
recommended in the staff report.
x
Motion was made for staff to commence
preparation of necessary application
-components of the four potential Sphere -
of -Influence changes as recommended in
i
the staff report.
I
Volume 48 - Page 337
i CITY OF NEWPORT HEA010
MINUTES
COUNCIL MEMBERS
MSV40�1�\Oqlkv
September 26, 1994
CATV Regulations Update - Report from
Assistsnt City Manager.
Assistant City Manager ton Delino gave
an overview of soma of the problems with
the supposed re -regulation, stating that
the City will continue to monitor what
other cities are doing. He advised that
the Finance Department is conducting a
keparata audit of the CATV franchises to
a aura payment of adequate franchise
Co ail Member Sansone expressed his
con rna regarding consistent complaints
that neither one of the two cable
comps es adequately advertise the basic
servia which is approximately $12.50,
and ev yone gate the impression that
they ha to take the $23 subscription,
Also, cu omers are told by COMCAST that
they will al
to pay $45 to cut back to
the very asic service. He requested
that an n£ormation sheet ba put
together fo residents of the City.
Council Membe
calls from p
in the City
wherein the
advised that
name and tel,
Hart stated that she gets
pie that there is no one
hear their complaints,
sistant City ?tanager
h secretary gets their
to a number, and this is
d either cable company
late y 991 of these
)ond to. He added that
if a subscriber writ s a latter, this is
"faxed" over to a cable company
managers for their a Lion or response,
and from past records, he gets very few
re -calls.
Council Member Hedges ma a reference to
the penetration rate f the cable
companies, stating that OMCAST has a
monopoly of service and n alternative
competition, wherein the As istant City
Manager advised that the until gave
non-exclusive City-wide fra chises to
both cable companies, and b ors this
they had exclusive franchis within
their respective districts,
Otting, 17 Hillsborou h Drive,
ferenca to an article Xdated
r 14, 1994 in the Orange Qpunty
south -county cities for basic se ce
and installation from September 1, 1 3
to July 14, 1994. She stated that h
rate went up 12% without a 30-day notic
and is now told that there is no)
thin
she can do because the City doesn't
have any authority. She was emphatic
about the fact that the City doesn't go
out to bid for auditing services
regarding franchises, and that there are
no available records of the last cable
audit done in 1990 performed by
Mooreland and Associates.
Volume 44 - Page 338
(42)
City Council Meeting September 26, 1994 _
Agenda Item No.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Newport Beach Sphere -of -Influence
Discussion of scheduling relative to the potential expansion of the Newport
Beach Sphere -of -Influence.
Airport Area Sphere -of -Influence Review
On September 12, 1994, the City Council reviewed a request by Councilmember Hart related to
various adjustments to the Newport Beach Sphere -of -Influence (SOI). At the conclusion of that
discussion, staff was directed to proceed quickly with a request to the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) on a SOI change to include John Wayne -Orange County Airport in the
City's Sphere. It was hoped that this issue could be placed on the agenda and acted on by
LAFCO prior to the end of Councilmember Hart's term as a member of LAFCO in November,
1994.
Staff has contacted Sara Anderson, Executive Director of LAFCO, and discussed the scheduling
of a SOI review by LAFCO. The following outlines the steps and timing to be placed on the
LAFCO agenda:
Application: An application must be prepared and submitted to LAFCO. The application
must include:
• Environmental Analysis
• Discussion of justification, including what circumstances have changed to warrant the
change of sphere
• Plan of Service: In this case the City will have to describe in detail how and at what
level all public services will be provided, such as police and fire.
• Land Use Compatibility analysis
• "Conceptual" approval of General Plan Land Use Plan designations
• A $2,500 fee
2. Application review: LAFCO has thirty days to review the submitted application for
completeness.
TO: Maor and Members of the City Council - f
3. Upon determination of a complete application, LAFCO would circulate the request for review
by interested agencies, including the County of Orange, and the Cities of Santa Ana, Costa
Mesa and Irvine. The Executive Director estimates this review to take 4 weeks.
4. LAFCO Staff Review: After comment by interested agencies, LAFCO staff would analyze the
request and schedule for public hearing. The Executive Director estimates an additional 2 to 3
months will be required for this review.
Based upon this information, It can be anticipated that the earliest a Sphere -of -Influence review
could be heard by LAFCO is in six months, or approximately March of 1995.
Irvine/Newport Ridge Sphere -or -Influence
At the September 12th meeting, the City Council indicated that the staff should include Planning
Area 26 (northeasterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road) in the discussions with
the City of Irvine regarding potential alterations to the SOI. Staff has recently been advised by
The Irvine Company of its intent to submit applications to the City of Irvine in the near future for
the entitlements in this area. Staff will keep the City Council informed of the progress of the
applications for this Planning Area.
Suggested Action
Direct staff to commence preparation of the necessary application components of the four
potential Sphere -of -Influence changes, including preliminary discussions with the Cities of Costa
Mesa and Irvine, in order to process a Sphere -of -Influence review as soon as possible in 1995.
Respectfully submitted,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAWS D. HEWICKER, Director
By & rdg
Patricia L. Temple
Advance Planning Manager
PLT ..\WIN W0RD\CCIS0I2.D0C
TY OF NFUORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES
ROLL CRLL
Motion
All Ayes
Motion
All Ayes
September 12, 1994
INDEX
needs more time. The Police Department
will be hosting an informational meeting
to anyone affected by the proposed
recommendations, in the Council Chambers
t 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 21,
th the comments directed back to
C oil.
Dol as Otting, 17 Hillsborough,
Comme ted that she has high regards for
the P ice Chief, but questioned what
constit tes a false alarm, and how much
money i being asked for here, as she
doesn't ally see any reason for fee
increases or anything in the City right
now. Sh cited a recent Budget
Amendment r uest for $100,000 for a
consulting co any to look at the Police
Department co uter system and another
Budget Amendme for $43,000 to study
the City system nd make changes after
that.
With regard to th foregoing, Police
Chief McDonell a wised that the
Municipal Code reg lations states:
"False Alarm means the ctivation of an
alarm system through mec anical failure,
accident, misoperation, malfunction,
misuse, or the negligence f either the
owner or lessee of the al system or
any of their employees or ag nts. False
alarms shall not include al s caused
by acts of God, the malfu tion of
telephone lines, circuits other
causes which are beyond the co rol of
the owner or lessee of the alarm
system." He added that the dget
Amendments are necessary to devel a
systematic integration of an effee ve
Management Information System o
communicate between Finance and Polic
Departments.
x
Following discussion, motion was made
that the Police Chief proceed with the
recommendations in the staff report.
(21)
9. City's Sphere of Influence - Report from
Planning Department.
Discussion began regarding John Wayne
Airport and the City's interest in
including JWA in the Sphere of
Influence.
x
Due to the electric power outage caused
by the Edison Company, motion was made
to defer further discussion to the
evening session at 7:00 p.m.
ADJOURNED AT 4:05 P.M. TO CLOSED SESSION
[Refer to separate agenda from City Attorney]
CLOSED SESSION REPORT PRESENTED: None
RECESSED AT 4:45 P.N.
RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M.
Volume 48 - Page 317
CITY OF NEWPORT BUC6
COUNCIL MEMBERS
CRLL
September 12, 1994
Motion
All Ayes
x
Council Member Cox was in attendance.
9. City's Sphere of Influence - Report from
Planning Department.
Patricia L. Temple, Advance Planning
Manager, summarized the subject staff
report noting there are three (3) areas
within the City's Sphere of Influence,
i.e., Santa Ana Heights, West Newport
Oil Company property, and the Newport
Coast. In response to a request by
Council Member Hart, she did investigate
potential expansion of the City's Sphere
in four other areas, i.e., 1) Costa
Mesa/Irvine Avenue Boundary; 2) John
Wayne Airport; 3) City of Irvine/Newport
Ridge; and 4) Crystal Cove State
Park/Laguna Greenbelt, which she
described as met forth in her report.
Following comments by the City Manager
and Council Member Sansone, Council
Member Hart stated that LAFCO will be
having only two more meetings this year,
October 9 and November 2, and she would
like the Council to consider asking
LAFCO to review the City's Sphere of
Influence on one of those dates. She
stated that even though John Wayne
Airport is not likely to be a part of
the City's Sphere, she felt it was
important to show an intent of being
willing to annex it and take the
responsibility for its future growth in
that area, as this could very well go to
another City, such as Irvine or Costa
Mesa.
Following discussion, notion vas made by
Council Member Sansone to direct the
City Manager to establish a staff
committee to discuss Sphere -of -Influence
boundary/annexation issues relative to
the Costa Mesa boundary, the Newport
VVM1LM61J, O\\M VV111l WI JI\O 61LlIVL M• i\\�+
committee shall develop issue/position
papers on each under the guiding
principals of logical and definable
boundaries, service impacts and fiscal
sustainability. The City Ranager's
office shall also initiate discussions
with the Cities of Irvine and Costa Masa
regarding boundary issues, with the
intent of developing mutual agreement on
logical and appropriate municipal
boundaries. Due to the actions taken by
the City of Irvine regarding the Newport
Ridge boundary, this area should be
addressed as soon as possible. In
addition, staff to aggressively pursue
the feasibility of including John Wayne
Airport in the City's Sphere of
Influence, and request that LAFCO
schedule a public hearing on this matter
at the earliest possible date.
Volume 48 - Page 316
MINUTES
(21)
City Council Meeting September 12, 1994
Agenda Item No. 9
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Newport Beach Sphere -of -Influence
Discussion of issues and opportunities relative to the potential expansion of
the Newport Beach Sphere -of -Influence.
Pursuant to the provisions of State law and the actions of the Orange County Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO), the City of Newport Beach has three defined areas within its
Sphere -of -Influence (SOI), Santa Ana Heights, the West Newport Oil Company property, and the
Newport Coast area. At the request of Councilmember Hart, this report has been prepared to
discuss potential modifications to the defined Sphere -of -Influence.
A local Sphere -of -Influence is determined by LAFCO on the basis of appropriate municipal
organization as it relates to physical configuration and the provision of public services to an area.
For example, Santa Ana Heights and the West Newport Oil Company property are in the
Newport Beach SOI because the areas are wholly surrounded by the City, and the Newport Coast
is included because its orientation and drainage go through the City.
In order to change the City's Sphere -of -Influence, the City will need to petition LAFCO for the
change, with the provision of supporting documentation as to why the City of Newport Beach is
the logical and appropriate service provider to the area.
Councilmember Hart has requested information regarding the potential expansion of the Newport
Beach SOI in four areas, each of which is discussed below.
Costa Mesa/Irvine Avenue Boundary There has long been an interest by some communities in
the unincorporated portions between Newport Beach and Costa Mesa in annexation to the
City. These unincorporated islands are within the Costa Mesa Sphere -of -Influence. The City
may wish to pursue a realignment of the SOI boundary in this area. This could address the
potential Bay Knolls Annexation area, as well as any other neighborhoods interested in
incorporation to the City of Newport Beach. In order to pursue this item, the City should
commence meetings with the City of Costa Mesa to discuss the appropriate municipal
boundary in this area. If the two Cities could develop a proposal, it could be forwarded to
LAFCO for action, If concurrence with the City of Costa Mesa can not be. achieved, The City
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council - 2.
will have to develop the arguments to justify the boundary realignment and convince LAFCO
to alter the SOI boundary over the possible objection of the City of Costa Mesa.
2. John Wayne Airport The John Wayne Airport is not currently within the SOI of any
municipality. According to LAFCO staff, this is a deliberate decision due to the ownership of
the airport by the County of Orange. The City could develop a rationale for inclusion in its
SOI, but it should be anticipated that the County would object to such a designation.
Additionally, it is possible that the three other communities with common boundaries to the
airport, Costa Mesa, Irvine and Santa Ana, may have concerns over a stronger Newport
Beach influence in the area.
It is the opinion of staff that even if the SOI boundary were changed, that the likelihood of
actual incorporation is slim, due to the fact the property owner, the County of Orange, has
veto authority over an annexation. It is, therefore, suggested that staff resources not be
allocated to pursue a SOI boundary adjustment for this area.
3. City of Irvine/Newport Ridge The current SOI boundary between the Cities of Newport
Beach and Irvine in the area of the Coyote Canyon landfill area and the Newport Ridge
development was established many years ago, with little knowledge of the actual configuration
of roadways and development in the area. It is, therefore, the opinion of some that the SOI
boundary should be examined in this area.
Coincidentally, the City of Irvine has recently raised the issued in the Environmental Impact
Report prepared for its comprehensive General Plan Update currently in process. The Irvine
staff has proposed two alternatives to boundary realignment in the area. The two proposals
are depicted on the maps attached to this report.
Staff has not had the opportunity to have more than preliminary discussions regarding the
implications of the Irvine proposals. It is the opinion of staff, however, that the issue of the
boundary between the two cities should be addressed, in light of the roadway and
Transportation Corridor alignments, as well as the development plans for the areas. Staff of
affected departments are in the process of developing an issuelposition paper to initiate
discussions with the City of Irvine staff. Some areas to discuss are:
• Appropriate service boundaries: Fire, Police, General Services
• Role of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor as service area boundary
• Service and Liability issues, if any, related to the closed Coyote Canyon landfill and the
San Joaquin Reservoir
• Park and Recreation opportunities in SOI expansion areas
4. Crystal Cove State Park2aauna Greenbelt The area between the current Newport Beach SOI
boundary for Newport Coast and the Laguna Beach City boundary is not currently designated
in the SOI of any municipality. This land includes the Crystal Cove State Park owned by the
State of California and the phased dedication area associated with the Irvine Coast (Newport
Coast) Planned Community. Some small commercially designated sites adjacent to Laguna
TO: Mayor#d Members of the City Council - 3. •
Canyon Road are within this area. Otherwise, the entire area is either state park; or areas
which will be dedicated to the County of Orange for regional park purposes. No significant
amount of development is planned within this area.
Staff has discussed this area with the Laguna Beach City Manager's Office. It is his opinion
that the area is appropriately left to the jurisdiction of the County. While the City of Laguna
Beach has no interest in annexation of this area, Laguna Beach would object to the possibility
of incorporation by any other City. In that circumstance, it would be likely that Laguna Beach
would seek to add the area to its Sphere -of -Influence.
It is the opinion of staff that potential expansion of the City's service area boundary as far
south as Laguna Canyon Road would greatly increase the demands for essential public
services, such as police and fire service, with little, if any, revenue producing land use. As
such, expansion of the City SOI would be inadvisable. The City should, however, request a
clarification from LAFCO of the existing SOI boundary to verify that all the development
areas of the Newport Coast, including those on the easterly side of Sand Canyon Avenue, are
in the Newport Beach SOI. If this is not the case, a revision to the boundary to include these
areas should be requested.
Sueeested Action
Direct the City Manager to establish a staff committee to discuss Sphere -of -Influence
boundary/annexation issues relative to the Costa Mesa boundary, the Newport Ridge
boundary, and the Newport Coast boundary. This committee shall develop issue/position
papers on each under the guiding principals of logical and definable boundaries, service
impacts and fiscal sustainability. The City Manager's Office shall also initiate discussions with
the Cities of Irvine and Costa Mesa regarding boundary issues, with the intent of developing
mutual agreement on logical and appropriate municipal boundaries. Due to the actions taken
by the City of Irvine regarding the Newport Ridge boundary, this area should be addressed as
soon as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
Patricia L. Temple
Advance Planning Manager
Attachment: Excerpt for Irvine EIR pertaining to Newport Ridge Boundary Adjustments
PLT:..\W IN WORMCOSOI I .DOC
E
6.0 CITY AND SPHERE OF
BOUNDARY CHANGES
INFLUENCE
Part of the proposed project involves possible changes to the southern boundaries of the City and its
sphere of influence. The sphere of influence is an area designated by the Orange County Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) for possible future annexation by the City of Irvine. The City currently
has a large northern sphere of influence (approximately 20,850 acres) and a relatively small southern
sphere of influence (approximately 1,000 acres). Boundary changes are only being considered along the
City's southern boundary and sphere of influence.
6.1 DESCRIPTION OF POSSIBLE BOUNDARY CHANGES
Two possible changes to the City's southern boundaries and sphere of influence are under consideration.
These possible boundary changes are referred to as City Boundary Alternatives 1 and 2. The boundary
alternatives are displayed in Figures 6.1-1 and 6.1-2.
City Boundary Alternative 1: San Joaquin Hills Road/Landfill/Existing City of Irvine Boundary
Realignment of the existing southern City boundary- to follow the centerline of San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) west to San Joaquin Hills Road. The new boundary would follow San
Joaquin Hills Road west to the existing southern sphere of influence boundary to the Coyote Canyon
Landfill, then north along the western boundary of the Coyote Canyon Landfill and west along the existing
City boundary to Old Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. This alternative would result in the
detachment of 249 acres from the City's southern sphere of influence and the annexation of 677 acres.
Table 6.1-1 describes the proposed land uses to be affected by this alternative.
City Boundary Alternative 2: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor/New Ford Road Boundary
Realignment of the existing southern City boundary to follow the centerline of the San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor west to New Ford Road. The new boundary would follow New Ford Road to the
existing City boundary at MacArthur Boulevard. This alternative would result in the detachment of h276
acres from the City and the southern sphere of influence and the annexation of 74 acres. Table 6.1-1
describes the proposed land uses to be affected by this alternative.
Irvine Comprehensive General Plan Update (Phase 2) Master EIR 6-1 4
6.0 Cih' and Spherr of btfloets dundary danger •
BLANK PAGE
6.2 trvine Comprehensive General Plan Update (Phase 2) Master BIR
Im
1400 PAESERYA110 /
1500 REIXREATIOM
law WAiFA BDp1EB
2200 LAW DEKWN
2400 MEDWM DBiSAY
2500 MEDIUM•fI!GH DENSITY
3100 MULTI -USE
eM PUBLIC FAC1LffY
CITY BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVE •
I
San Joaquin' Hills Road/Landfill/Existing City Boundary
aISO N
FORD ROAD
1400
/
103.456
1600
43.33
����+•� PROPOSED CITY BOUNDARY ALT. 1
EbSRM(i CITY BOUNDARY
EXSTING MY SPHERE
�0t1
S'
2400
77.164
2500
�O • • , Illy I��� 34.939
S plr
2500
G I I.'II.IlI 'I!III!��II h} f 2.400
• • 'f I! III �� �,1, i'` \/ : b.-s{ •';.'--.T1X'-4.: 'n,.v..
• • • II f'11�1 11i'' ff��il�I�il 6� '�i't � I � 400 1 !
� 669
t '..
...1i II' I;{'li II�� ItPll . �I��fi II IlI f I U 1 2200
�
1400 \` 05) �
G I , I�i��III {I IIIII�II;Iii7�Il .� C�t,_; <� 118.876JIM
Ili I!!III�I.'��i' iI ' �I"�• • � „�� I
� , r`�� ' 20.812 1400
�F"'u-'L�h ` 1 10
IRD
,�
r
S1N ! AN
So
`r 0 A 00
0 U ' 6900 2200 1400 ' R
53.820 5.254 10.78 15.549
2200 1400% 1400
10.928 1.359 5.307 1
1400
34.771
Figure 6.1-1
ri
I i >
3100
.409
CITY BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVE 11
San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor/New Ford Road
61S0R
,D RDAD
2500
' 36.461 1
1400
125.314
1400 PRESERVATION
15W RECREATION
1500 WATER BODIES
2200 LOW DENSITY
2400 MEDIUM DENSITY
2500 MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY
3100 MULTI -USE
6960 PUBLIC FACILRY
�� • I PROPOSED CITY BOUNDARY ALT. 2
EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY
•' .. �' • EXISTING CITY SPHERE
. I
.1
�i
c`
2500
58.201
2500
.� 2400
1400
�••••• 4.669
III !� :� �:::-':?L""• Or�.O
`14oQ
1600
43.33 l` .i n iiilill I�IIIIII��jI'U i!i�Ji . • • •
'il .I III lii1 fr :• • • 10�869 • S^`-3-'�.` /
1400
6900 2200 15.549
�:. 5.254 10.78
1400,
1.353
16 0 N 1 : "
1400
20.812 1400
10
ANSP
oR
TA
ON
1400
5.307
1400
34.771
Figure 6.1-2
0O
L R I D5Tr
TABLE 6.1-1 -
SOUTHERN SPHERE OF INFLUENCEICITY OF IRVINE - BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT ANALYSIS
Planea Land Uae Category
P603,
Acreage
Annexed
Detachment
Ares
D a
City Sphere
AREAS OF IMPACT- CRY BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVE 1
26 ConservatioroOpen Space - Recreation Landfill Overlay (Existing Coyote Canyon Landfill)
289
X
ConservationlOpen Space - Preservation
103
X
ConservationlOpen Space - Water Body (Existing San Joaquin Reservoir)
43
X
Medium Density Residential
150
77
X
27 ConservationlOpen Space - Recreation Landfill Overlay (Existing Coyote Canyon Landfill)
55
X
•
Waste Faci ily (E)isting Waste To Energy Facility)
5
X
Medium -High Density Residential
630
36
X
'
Low Density Residential
264
88
X
Low Density Residential
ConservationCpen Space - Preservation
ConservationlOpen Space - Preservation
28 ConservationlOpen Space - Preservation
19 11 X
15 X
155 X
49 X
AREAS OF IMPACT - CITY BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVE 2
26 Medium -High Density Residential
508 36
X
Conservationlopen Space - Recreation Landfill Overlay (Existing Coyote Canyon Landfill)
110
289
X
Medium Density Residential
420 109
77
X is
ConservalioM7pen Space - Preservation
21
103
X
ConservationlOpen Space - Water Body (Existing San Joaquin Reservoir)
43
X
27 ConservationlOpen Space - Recreation Landfill Overlay (Existing Coyote Canyon Landfill)
55
X
Waste Facility (Existing Waste To Energy Facility)
5
X
Conservatan)Open Space Preservation -
98
150
X
ConservationlOpen Space Preservation
25 X
Medium -High Density Residential
412 23
36
X
Low Density Residential
250 23
98
X
28 Conservation0pen Space - Preservation
49 X
�ti
6.0 Chy and Sphere of Influence Doundan• Cha nSes
The land area which is detached from the Irvine city limits under each alternative would revert back to
the jurisdiction of the County of Orange and land area currently within the'sphere of Influence would
remain under the County's control. it is possible that land detached from Irvine and its sphere could be
added to the sphere of influence of the City of Newport Beach and then eventually annexed into the
Incorporated boundaries of Newport Beach.
6.2 DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS
Each of the boundary alternatives would result in fewer residential units constructed in the study area at
build -out due to the detachment of land designated for residential development. The non-residenUal
development potential of the City of Irvine and sphere would not change. The most likely scenario is that
the residential units detached from Irvine would be built under Ure laird use authority of the County of
Orange or, possibly, the City of Newport Beach (if area is annexed to Newport Beach). If these units are
built under Ure jurisdiction of the County or Newport Beach, they would probably still affect the area In
die same way in terms of traffic generation and impacts to local circulation, conversion of open space to
urban development, changes to hillside landform, loss of natural habitat, demand for public services, and
other typical impacts of residential development, Another possibility is that the City of Irvine would allow
the owner of the land to be detached (The Irvine Company) to transfer the permitted number of residential
units to another portion of the City or sphere or influence, in this circumstance, the units would not be
built in this location and the area would remain as open space (subject to agreement between the City and
The Irvine Company). As a result, the effects of residential development would not occur In this area,
but instead would occur In some other, unspcclncd area of the City or sphere of influence.
City Boundary Alternative 1
Alternative 1 would result in the detachment of 249 acres from the City's southern sphere of influence
and the annexation of 677 acres for a net Increase of 428 acres. All annexed areas would be Incorporated
into the City and there would be no remaining southern sphere of influence.
Detached Areas
The detached land area consists of ConservatimVOpen Space lands (161 acres) and land designated for
Low Density and Medium Density Residential development (11 acres and 77 acres, respectively). The
existing San Joaquin Reservoir located in Planning Area 26 would also be detached from the City's sphere
of influence. All lands proposed for detachment are currently vacant. This boundary change would result
In the removal or transfer of 150 units from the total number of residential units which could be
constructed in Planning Area 26 and the removal of 19 residential units from Planning Arc& 27. for a total
reduction of 169 units. if these units are not constructed in Irvine or its sphere. the total residential build -
out of the study area would amount to 103.841 units. If these units are transferred to another location in
the City or sphere, there would be no change In residential build -out potential.
6.8 Irvine Comprehensive General Plan Update (Phase 2) Master EiR
0
6.0 City and Sphere of Influence Boundary Changes
Under the scenario in which the detached units are not constructed in Irvine (meaning they are not
transferred to another part of the City), the total build -out population of the General Plan would be
reduced by about 472 persons. As a result, there would be a proportionate reduction in the demand for
City services, such as parks and recreation and police and fire protection. There would also be no City
maintenance responsibilities for the detached area. If the units are transferred and no development occurs
in this area, there would be no substantial changes to the landform and other natural qualities of the area.
Infrastructure and other public facilities would not be extended into the area. Traffic would not be
generated from the area and, therefore, would not affect streets in the vicinity. If the units are transferred
elsewhere, the minor amount of traffic which would be generated by these units might affect other streets
in the study area. Since it is assumed that the units would be constructed either in this area or elsewhere,
impacts of a more regional nature, such as water consumption and solid waste and wastewater generation,
would remain unchanged with this boundary change.
Annexed Areas
Under bits alternative, a total of 677 acres would be annexed to the City of Irvine. The entire area
encompassed by the closed Coyote Canyon Landfill would be located within the City and the existing
waste -to -energy facility adjacent to the former landfill would also be annexed to the City. All other lands
are vacant. About 36 acres of land designated Medium -High Density Residential development and about
88 acres of -land designated Low Density Residential development would be annexed to the City under
this proposal. Other annexed lands would consist of Conservation/Open Space areas where no future
development would occur.
Due to environmental constrninis and the addition of infrastructure in this area, maximum building
potential will be difficult to achieve. Therefore, an estimated average, based on the existing intensity
range, has been used to determine the number of potential dwelling units for this area. The annexed
Medium -High Density Residential area would have an estimated build -out potential of 630 units and Low
Density Residential area would have a build -out potential of 264 units for potential total of 894 annexed
dwelling units. Based on an average of 2.795 persons per unite, these future dwelling units would be
expected to house a population of 2,499 persons. With the exception of some Conservation/Open Space
areas adjacent to the alignment of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and a few acres of vacant
land designated for Low Density Residential development, the land proposed for annexation to the City
under this alternative is located within the City's current sphere of influence (see Figure 6.1-1).
The future population of the annexed areas would receive public services from several agencies, including
the City of Irvine. The City would be responsible for the provision of police services, as well as the
provision of local recreation services and the maintenance of any future public park facilities. The City
would also be responsible for contracting for solid waste collection services. Maintenance of the City's
existing ratio of police officers to population (1.06 officers per 1,000 population) would require the
addition of 2.6 officers to serve the annexed area. To achieve the City's goal of providing two acres of
Irvine Comprehensive General Plan Update (Phase 2) Master EIR 6-9
/D
6.0 City dnd Sphert ollnputhre Boundary Changes
community packs and three acres of neighborhood parks per 1,000 population, a total of 5.9 acres of
community parkland and 7.5 acres of neighborhood parkland would eventually be needed to serve the
build -out population of the annexed area. Some of this park acreage might be provided outside of the
annexed area.
Fire protection and emergency services would be provided to the area by the Orange County Fire
Department. Provision of additional personnel, equipment, and facilities will need to occur as demand
is created by future growth. Orange County Fire Department Stations 4 and 27 provide primary service
to the CIty's southern sphere of influence. A new station (Station 52) is scheduled to open later this year
(1994) to provide additional service to the southern sphere of Influence. These stations will provide
adequate service for the annexed area; however, service needs will need to be evaluated on an ongoing
basis as development occurs in order to ensure adequate service levels in the future,
The residentially -designated areas in the southern sphere of Influence are located within the boundaries
of the Newport -Mesa School District (NMSD). Using a student generation factor of .23 students per unit,
an estimated 206 students would be generated in the annexed areas. The NMSD currently has no plans
for the construction of additional schools in the southern sphere of influence; however, it Is anticipated
that a new elementary school (grades 1(-6) will eventually be needed to serve the southern sphere area,
as well as adjacent unincorporated areas outside the sphere.
Water and wastewater service for the annexed area would be provided by the Irvine Ranch Water District
(IRWD). The IRWD Water Resources Master Plan, adopted in 1991, identifies the water distribution
facilities required to provide water service to the southern sphere of influence. The IRWD SewerSystem
Master Plan, prepared in 1992, identities wastewater collection facilities needed to serve anticipated
development in the sodthem sphere of Influence through 2020. These master plans do not Include local
facilities needed to connect new development to IRWD's planned water distribution and wastewater
collection systems.
For additional discussion of the public service requirements for the City and sphere of influence, the reader
Is referred to Chapter 4.0 (Section 4.9 - Public Services and Utilities) and Chapter 5.0 (Infrastructure and
Public Service Needs in the Sphere of influence).
City Boundary Alternative 2
Alternative 2 would result in the detachment of 1,276 acres from the City and the southern sphere of
influence and the annexation of 74 acres for a net reduction of 1,202 acres. Ail annexed areas would be
Incorporated into the City and there would be no remaining southern sphere of influence.
6.10 lrvine Comprehensive General Plan Update (Phase 2) Master Elk
0
6.0 City and Sphere of Influence Boundary Changes
Detached Areas
The detached land area consists of Conservation/Open Space lands (869 acres) and land designated for
Low Density (121 acres), Medium Density (186 acres), and Medium -High Density Residential (95 acres)
development. The five -acre waste -to -energy facility located in Planning Area 27 and the entire area
encompassed by the closed Coyote Canyon Landfill would also be detached from the City's sphere of
influence. Except for the waste -to -energy facility, all detached lands are currently vacant. In total, this
boundary change would result in the removal or transfer of 928 units from the total number of residential
units which could be constructed in Planning Area 26 and the removal of 662 residential units from
Planning Area 27. for a total reduction of 1.590 units. If these units are not constructed in Irvine or its
sphere, the total residential build -out of the study area would amount to 102,420 units. If these units are
transferred to another location in the City or sphere, there would be no change in residential build -out
potential.
The general effects of the detachment of land under this alternative are very similar to Altemative 1,
except they would be of greater magnitude because a larger land area and more residential units would
be involved. Under the scenario in which these units are not constructed in Irvine, the total build -out
population of the General Plan would be reduced by about 4A44 persons. As a result, there would be a
proportionate reduction in the demand for City services, such as parks and recreation and police and fire
protection. There would also be no City maintenance responsibilities for theActached area. Jf the units
are transferred and no development occurs in this'area,,there would be no substantial changes to the
landform and other natural qualities of the area. Infrastructure and other public facilities would not be
extended into the area. Traffic would not be generated from the area and, therefore, would not affect
streets in the vicinity. If the units are transferred elsewhere, the minor amount of traffic which would be
generated by these units might affect other'strects in the'study area. Since it is assumed that the units
would be constructed either in this area or elsewhere, impacts of a more regional nature, such as water
consumption and solid waste and wastewater generation, would remain unchanged with this boundary
change.
It is expected that the majority of the detached lands would remain under the jurisdiction of the County
of Orange for the foreseeable future. However, an area proposed for detachment from the City of Irvine
along the southern side of Ford Road is located adjacent to the incorporated boundaries of the City of
Newport Beach and could reasonably be added to Newport Beach's sphere of influence. This area
encompasses about 36 acres and is designated for Medium -High Density Residential development.
Annexed Areas
Areas to be annexed to the City under this alternative consist of ConservatioNOpcn Space areas where
no future development would occur. Some of these areas, along the alignment of the San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor, are located outside the City's current sphere of influence (see Figure 6.1-2).
Irvine Comprehensive General Plan Update (Phase 2) Master EIR 6-11
1Z
6.0 Cily and Sphere of hi lue+ke Domklary Changes
Since no future development would occur in the annexed area, public service needs for the area are
minimal. The City of Irvine would be responsible for any needed police services in the area and the
Orange County Fire Department would provide fire protection services. These services would most likely
only be needed in the event of an emergency, such as a brush fire in the hillsides. No other public
services or utilities would be required to serve the area
Under this alternative, the detached residential areas are located within the Irvine Unified School District
(IUSb) boundaries, Even though these lands would be detached from the City, the IUSD would retain
responsibility for students residing in these areas.
6.3 CONCLUSION
Neither of the alternatives would result in any significant environmental impacts. Public services and
utilities could be provided equally well whether the proposed annexation and detachment areas are located
within the City of Irvine or unincorporated County territory. With the exception of police and recreation
services, public services and utilities would be provided by the same agencies which currently provide
services and all pertinent master plans for the provision of services and construction of facilities would
remain in effect. Police and recreation services for the proposed annexation areas would be transferred
from Orange County to the City of Irvine. The areas proposed for detachment from the incorporated
boundaries of the City of Irvine in Alternative 2 would need to be provided police and recreation services
from the County of Orange. These areas are adjacent to existing unincorporated territory where these
services are currently provided by the County. There are fiscal considerations for both the City and
County associated with the transfer of these services which are not addressed in this analysis.
The decision whether to move forward with the proposed boundary revisions is a policy matter for the
Irvine City Council. Any revisions to the boundaries of the City or the sphere of Influence would be
subject to negotiations with the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, and the Irvine Company (the
property owner) and would also require approval from the County of Orange and LAFCO.
6.12 hvhte Comprehensive General Plan Update (Phase 2) Master BIR
/3
0 0
6.0 City and Sphere of Influence Boundary Changes
TABLE 6.3-1
COMPARISON OF BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT ALTERNATIVES
CITY BOUNDARY
CITY BOUNDARY
ALTERNATIVE 1
ALTERNATIVE 2
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
Acreage
Conservative/Open Space
161 acres
Conservation/Open Space
869 acres
Detached
Medium Density Residential
77 acres
Medium Density Residential
186 acres
Low Density Residential
11 acres
Low Density Residential
121 acres
Medium -High Density Residential
95 acres
Waste -to -energy facility
5 acres
Acreage
Conservation/Open Space
548 acres
Conservation/Open Space
74 acres
Annexed
Low Density Residential
88 acres
Medium -High Density Residential
36 acres
Waste -to -energy facility
5 acres
Dwelling
Units detached:
169
Units detached:
1,590
Units and
Units annexed:
894
Units annexed:
0
Population
Net change in dwelling units:
725
Net charge in dwelling units:
.1,590
-
Net change in City build -out population: 2,027
Net change in City build -out population: -4,444
PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILITY NEEDS OF ANNEXED AREAS
Police
Service provider: City of Irvine Police Dept.
Service provider: City of Irvine Police Dept.
Services
Estimated demand for 2.6 additional officers.
No development would occur in the annexed
areas; therefore, there would be no specific
demand for the provision of police services.
Fire
Service provider: Orange County Fire Dept.
Service provider: Orange County Fire Dept.
Protection
Area currently served by Stations 4 and 27.
Fire services may be needed for periodic
New Station 52 to open in 1994.
brush fires in undeveloped hillside areas.
Water
Service provider: Irvine Ranch Water District.
Service provider: Irvine Ranch Water District.
Service
Estimated daily water use: 406,770 gallons.
Estimated daily water use: None. -
Wastewater
Service providef: Irvine Ranch Water District.
Service provider: Irvine Ranch Water District.
Estimated daily wastewater generation:
Estimated daily wastewater generation: None.
227,970 gallons.
Solid Waste
Collection service: City of -Irvine (contracted).
Collection service: City of Irvine (contracted).
Disposal: Frank Bowerman Landfill (operated
Disposal: Frank Bowerman Landfill (operated
by Orange County).
by Orange County).
Estimated daily solid waste generation: 4.47
Estimated daily solid waste generation: None.
tons.
Parks and
Service provider: City of Irvine.
Service provider: City of Irvine.
Recreation
Park acreage demand:
Park acreage demand: None.
Community Park - 5,9 acres
Neighborhood Park • 7.5 acres
Schools
Service provider: Newport -Mesa School
Service provider: Newport -Mesa School
District. Student generation: 206 students.
District. Student generation: None.
Libraries
Service provider: County of Orange.
Service provider: County of Orange.
Area served by the University Park Branch
No service required.
library.
Irvine Comprehensive General Plan Update (Phase 2) Master EIR 6-13
0 0
6.0 OtY and Sphere of Inllaenee nuWulaty Change
ENDNOTES
1. State Department of Finance estimate of the average number of persons per unit for the City of Irvine
(January 1994).
6-14 lrvhre Comprehensive Genera! Plan Update (Phase 1) Master EIR
1