Irvine’s Bid to Annex Base a Thorny Issue : El Toro: Supervisors cautious when talking about the city’s proposed annexation of the Marine Corps Air Station.

The sensitivity of the issue was underscored by the reluctance of the Board of Supervisors to deal with it during its meeting last week. It took up only 33 seconds at the end of a 90-minute debate over the structure of the new planning agency for the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station.

Supervisor William G. Steiner told the other board members that in exchange for Irvine’s agreement to join the agency that will decide the future of the base, the county had agreed to make a “good faith effort to move in the direction” of phasing in Irvine’s annexation of the 4,700-acre site.

Board of Supervisors Chairman Harriett M. Wieder quickly interrupted. “I would rather not make that a part of the (board’s motion),” she said.

Steiner agreed. He said he had brought up the annexation issue because he thought it should be a “matter of public record” before the supervisors voted to create the El Toro agency.

But the board’s initial hesitation to include the annexation issue as a part of its formal motion raised questions: Had the county promised to help Irvine annex the property? Or had it simply committed to begin the discussions on a possible annexation agreement?

Now, hoping to remove skepticism by critics of the El Toro plan that this point could become a potential “deal breaker,” both sides are negotiating the language of a new agreement that should clarify the county’s commitment on the annexation issue and shore up their fledgling alliance.

“We agreed to sit down and talk and resolve this (annexation) issue,” said Supervisor Roger R. Stanton, who helped negotiate the tentative agreement.

One of Irvine’s negotiators, Councilman Barry J. Hammond, said he would “probably put it on a little higher tier. It’s definitely discussions, but definitely discussions that I would say are geared toward accomplishing the annexation, rather than just discussions about whether we should do it or not.”

It is an important point for both sides.

A previous bid two years ago by Irvine to begin annexation proceedings was rejected outright by the county--a bad memory that still lingers in the minds of city officials. Now, they want assurances that this round will be more than just token “discussions.”

But the financially strapped county, which has seen its tax base erode in recent years due primarily to the creation of new South County cities, does not want to simply give away land that has the potential of creating millions of dollars in new revenues once it’s redeveloped.

Both sides predict they will have no trouble resolving the question by late next month--in time for the new El Toro board to hold its first meeting. The nine-member board will include all five county supervisors and three Irvine representatives, with Lake Forest also invited to send one representative.

“I think our negotiating process was constructive on both sides,” Steiner said. “I don’t think either of us was looking for any ‘out’ or any way to sabotage this effort.”

Irvine Mayor Michael Ward agreed that there is no conflict between the two major parties that must be part of the El Toro agency to win federal approval.

Ward said the city and county are drawing up new language describing the annexation agreement so that his council colleagues can use it when they vote to join the El Toro agency and the supervisors can adopt it when they take a follow-up vote to clarify their position.

“There’s some language that we are working on,” Ward said. “We want to make sure that what we do is legally binding.”

But officials said the success of the new agreement may depend on how far Irvine will push for a pledge to be allowed to annex the base.

Irvine Councilwoman Paula Werner, for example, did not participate in the negotiations but was under the impression that the county had agreed to cooperate with Irvine when the city moves to annex unincorporated land within its sphere of influence, which includes the base.

“We wanted to begin the annexation process a couple of years ago, but we were really slapped down,” Werner said.

Councilwoman Christina L. Shea did not see the county’s commitment as being definite, but said she was nonetheless pleased that the county had agreed to begin discussing the possible annexation.

“As long as they are willing to go forward and they are willing to look at it and consider it, that’s fine with me,” Shea said. “Originally, they had said they were not willing to look at (annexation).”

County Administrative Officer Ernie Schneider warned that any notion that the county can promise outright to let Irvine annex the base property is “out of the question.”

“Irvine would have to reach agreement with the county on a tax (revenue) exchange before it goes to the Local Agency Formation Commission,” which approves annexations before a final vote by the supervisors, Schneider said. Next spring, the makeup of the LAFCO board will be expanded, with county supervisors having only two of the seven total votes.

Because the tax revenue potential depends on the type of development that will actually occur after the Marines leave in 1999, Schneider said he did not know how much is at stake but expected it would be significant.

“Annexations are killing (the county government) financially,” Schneider said. “We are going to want to cut a pretty good deal before agreeing to let that (site) go.”

Wieder said the possible annexation “is so far down the road, that I will not be a party” to any agreement that might bind the county.

Stanton and Steiner emphasized that they do not expect the annexation issue to be a stumbling block. But the county does have a “fall back” position--a second plan favored by North County cities that includes the supervisors, five city representatives and a “public member” on the El Toro governing board, with no guaranteed position for Irvine.

“I certainly would not want to say anything that would be misunderstood, but in a very responsible way, I think it’s probably very clear to everybody that there’s a great deal of interest in our ‘option two’ if ‘option one’ falls apart,” Stanton said.