The following first report to the Irvine City council summarizes the issues and process for annexation.
Click here for later information and the Millennium Plan II EIR summary.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MCAS El Toro was recommended for closure by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission in 1993, and was confirmed for closure by Congress and the President in the same year. Closure is set for July 1999.
Reuse planning activity has proceeded since 1994, first in cooperation by the County of Orange, and the cities of Irvine and Lake Forest through the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority (ETRPA), then exclusively by the County as the federally recognized Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) since 1995. ETRPA expanded its membership in 1995 to include the cities of Laguna Hills, Mission Viejo, Laguna Niguel, Dana Point, and most recently the City of Laguna Beach. Pursuant to Measure A, adopted in 1994, the LRA has been promoting and planning for an airport at the base. Most recently, ETRPA initiated the preparation of a non-aviation plan in order to provide the residents of the County with a choice of land use alternatives.
MCAS El Toro comprises approximately 4700 acres, of which approximately 440 acres are presently located in the City. The remainder of the base is located in Irvine’s sphere of influence (vicinity map attached). In November 1996, Irvine adopted a general plan amendment and zoning for the portion of the base in the City consisting of visitor serving uses such as a sports stadium, an arena, and a convention facility. More traditional uses such as commercial and employment were also included in the plan.
All of the base is presently in the City, or is expected to be in the City in the foreseeable future because it is in the City’s sphere of influence. This designation means that the base represents the logical extension of Irvine’s ability to provide urban services. Therefore, the City Council may wish to consider annexing the base to gain a greater control over the planning and development of the land.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Issue 1: Project Area
As noted above, MCAS El Toro consists of approximately 4700 acres. With 440 acres already in the City, the potential annexation area would be approximately 4260 acres.
If the City Council wishes to proceed with the annexation, consideration should also be given to annexing the James A. Musick Branch Jail . The Musick facility is located on approximately 100 acres adjacent to the intersection of Alton Parkway and Irvine Boulevard (attached vicinity map depicts this location). The site is presently located within the City’s sphere of influence. Annexing the Musick site would prevent the creation of a "county island" if the base is annexed. The policy of both the County and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is either to prevent the creation of county islands or to annex county islands to the adjacent city.
Issue 2: Planning for MCAS El Toro
Planning is currently underway for MCAS El Toro, with the County preparing an aviation master plan and ETRPA preparing a non-aviation plan. Since the County has not yet prepared a schedule for the completion of the aviation plan, having recently hired a scheduling consultant to develop a master calendar, staff’s best estimate for the completion of a preferred aviation plan is during the early part of 1998. That plan would then be analyzed in an environmental impact report, which is expected to be certified in the Winter of 1999. The Board of Supervisors has offered to include an ETRPA prepared non-aviation plan in the County’s EIR as an alternative to the aviation plan, in the event that there is a "fatal flaw" in the latter.
The current City general plan designation for the site is "Military". However, LAFCO may require prezoning of the site as a condition of annexation. If prezoning is required, environmental documentation would be necessary to evaluate the impacts of the prezoning. Since the annexation itself requires environmental documentation, the two actions (annexation and prezoning) can be combined in one environmental document. Assuming that the ETRPA plan meets the requirement for prezoning, the environmental documentation can be accomplished in various ways: (1) the City could use the environmental analysis contained in the County’s EIR, to be completed in 1999; (2) the technical studies for air quality, noise and traffic to be completed by ETRPA in support of its non-aviation plan by April 1998 can become part of an EIR prepared by LAFCO; or (3) the City can proceed to work independently or with ETRPA, to complete an EIR for submittal to LAFCO in the early part of 1999. Generally, the planning and environmental information would then be used by LAFCO in evaluating the development potential for the area to be annexed.
Issue 3: County’s Interim Policy Guidelines for Annexations and Incorporations
On October 7, 1997, the Board of Supervisors approved interim guidelines for annexations and incorportations. As it relates to the consideration of the annexation of MCAS El Toro, the relevant portion of the guidelines state that the County will work with cities annexing land within their spheres of influence, but that "(t)he County will oppose annexation requests which impact regional facilities necessary for core business functions (e.g. landfills, existing or proposed aviation facilities)." Therefore, the City can expect opposition from the County, should it decide to proceed with base annexation.
Issue 4: Reorganization Process
The Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act, adopted in 1985, established the requirements for County LAFCOs. A LAFCO is empowered to adopt spheres of influence for local governments and approve annexations, detachments, and reorganizations. The annexation process for MCAS El Toro would proceed as follows:
1. Initiation of Annexation: The City initiates an annexation through a "resolution of application."
2. Contents of Application: In addition to the resolution of application, a completed "Justification of Proposal" questionnaire is included. This questionnaire provides information on the area to be annexed, including existing and proposed land uses (including prezoning), environmental setting and impacts, and a "Plan for Services." In addition, a map and legal description of the reorganization area, filing fee, and property tax transfer resolution agreeing to the sharing of property tax revenues are provided.
3. LAFCO Review and Vote on Application: LAFCO has 30 days to review an annexation application and determine that it is complete for the purpose of processing. During this time, coordination with the County Assessor’s Office and Auditor/Controller takes place. Once the application has been accepted as complete, LAFCO staff prepares a report evaluating the merits of the annexation based on the criteria in State law and LAFCO policies. LAFCO then votes on the proposed reorganization.
4. Conducting Authority: After LAFCO approval of the annexation application, the City Council, acting as "conducting authority," holds a public hearing solely to receive protest to the annexation. A protest can come from the property owner, the United States Navy (the Marine Corps being a branch of the Navy) and/or the registered voters who live on the base. In prior discussions with the Marine Corps, it has indicated a neutrality to jurisdictional changes, provided that the change did not interfere with the military mission. Whether or not this neutrality would be maintained if Irvine were to proceed with annexation remains to be seen, since the base is now closing and the military would likely be sensitive to any political change that could even potentially affect closing activity. Registered voters can also protest an annexation. Marines quartered on the base would potentially qualify if they are registered to vote in local elections. Whether or not it makes a difference that the marines are temporary residents on federal property is an issue that staff will work with the City Attorney to resolve. Based on the amount of protest, the City Council must take one of the following actions: 1) approve the annexation; 2) terminate the annexation; or 3) order election on the proposal.
5. Final Certification: When the LAFCO Executive Officer is satisfied that all elements of the Act have been properly addressed; that the annexation approved by the City conforms with the annexation proposal approved by LAFCO; and that all conditions have been met, the annexation will be deemed complete and certified. The City is responsible for providing LAFCO with the State Board of Equalization (SBE) filing fee. This fee along with the Statement of Boundary Change is sent to the SBE by LAFCO. The SBE reassigns the property taxes to reflect the jurisdictional changes.
As noted under the discussion of Issue 2, the LAFCO application must include a request for annexation with a proposal for the allocation of public services between the City and County. LAFCO may also require prezoning for the site. Both of these can be covered by one environmental document. The prezoning requirement can be met by the completion of the ETRPA non-aviation plan, scheduled for April 1998. Therefore, the earliest submittal of a completed application to LAFCO would be April 1998. However, this assumes that LLAFCO would prepare the environmental documentation (i.e. EIR). If the City were to prepare the EIR, the earliest submittal wuld be during the first part of 1999.
Issue 5: Agreement Affecting the Annexation Process
The City is party to a 1980 agreement with the County of Orange which establishes a ratio for sharing property taxes. The City/County historic tax sharing ratio is approximately 18% (City) to 82% (County). To use the agreement, the property must be considered undeveloped. The purpose of the property tax transfer agreement is to ensure that proceeds are divided between the jurisdictions so that funding would be available to maintain both County and City services. A significant amount of discussion would have to occur on the future value of the property tax. The base has no property tax value at this time because it is in federal ownership. The property tax value would vary depending on the reuse plan implemented.
Issue 6: Fiscal Impact Analysis
The fiscal impact of annexing MCAS El Toro is presently unknown. The ETRPA non-aviation plan work program includes a fiscal impact analysis for a plan that will promote a balance of land uses with revenues covering the cost of municipal services. ETRPA’s consultants will use the County’s fiscal impact model for evaluation purposes to ensure that there is consistency of data being used to evaluate both the County’s aviation master plan and ETRPA’s non-aviation plan. Irvine’s fiscal impact model will not be used because of reconciliation difficulties with the County’s model and because the County will not use it in the evaluation of the aviation master plan. However, the City Council can direct staff to also use the City’s model for comparison purposes.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The City Council could decide not to purse annexation of MCAS El Toro at this time. However, pursuing annexation could potentially increase the City’s role in guiding the planning and development of the base.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff time, filing fees, and legal description costs for processing the annexation are unknown and would have to be compiled, should the City Council wish to proceed. Existing Community Development Department work programs and staff resources for the remainder of FY97-98 would also have to be reevaluated and coordinated with the ETRPA non-aviation plan work program. The ETRPA non-aviation plan could be used by the City in its application to LAFCO.
January 8, 1998 report to Irvine City Council with timetable and roadblocks for annexation of El Toro and Musick jail.
The political spin on annexation from the Orange County Business Journal
Environmental Impact Report summary for annexation