Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout24 - Emerson Island Annexation Public Commentsr-Ir -, %rte' F- ,{ i/? Jf¢9EiJOV E�1/.AFTER AGEIN00 PRHNUDI tt -�27- z CommeN&NdrfErh1bPs01i Island Annexation (PA2012 -034) Comments by: Jim Mosher;(,)immosher(c7yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) General Comments This item, involving proposed amendments to the City of Newport Beach ( "CNB ") General Plan and Zoning Code, has been described as a precursor to a request to annex all or a portion of a small area of currently unincorporated development claimed to have been placed in CNB's "sphere of influence" by the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission ( °LAFCO ") in 2002. The item was given a cursory hearing by the CNB Planning Commission ( "CNB PC ") on November 8, 2012, and by the Airport Land Use Commission ( "ALUC ") November 15, and is scheduled to be heard by the CNB City Council on November 27. Assuming the Council approves the pre - zoning, an application for annexation will apparently be presented to LAFCO in January. At the first two hearings, I had a number of questions, but found the materials too confusing to ask them in an intelligent way. Having studied the public notices and agenda handouts, I would like to make the following comments prior to the Council hearing. My confusion stems primarily from my observation that the existing development in most of the area to be annexed (which is at the boundary between CNB and Costa Mesa) seems a much better match to the neighboring properties Costa Mesa than to those in CNB. My comments are related to the following questions: 1. Who is asking for the annexation and why does CNB want it? 2. Why was the area excluded from the previous annexations by CNB and Costa Mesa? 3. What happened to the prior CNB General Plan and Zoning Code amendments? 4. Exactly what land is being proposed to be annexed? 5. Why was the line drawn the way it was? 6. Are there any alternatives that remain available to CNB, the County and the City of Costa Mesa? Why Annex this Land? The staff report is unclear as to why CNB is, after eight years, resuscitating this annexation request, which could, apparently, have been made in 2004, but was not pursued at that time despite similar pre- zoning having been in place. Why do we want to proceed now? Emerson Island Annexation (PA2012 -034) -- comments by Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Although the entire area is nicely kept up, the annexation does not seem logical. Only the residences fronting Tustin Avenue resemble the neighboring ones annexed into Newport Beach in 1968 ( "Moden" annex, 6/17/1968 per CNB Annexation Map), and even of the ones fronting Tustin Avenue, only 2078 Tustin closely matches the size and shape the neighboring CNB lots. Why 2078 Tustin was not included in the 1968 annexation is unclear, but there seems to have been limited logic to that annexation (why was Paloma Drive, paralleling Irvine Avenue, arbitrarily split into one end failing in Costa Mesa and one in CNB? And why was the dividing line between Costa Mesa and CNB along Tustin Avenue set in some blocks on the Costa Mesa side, in others on the CNB side, and in still others along the centerline of the road, with no apparent rhyme or reason ?) and the addition of the Emerson Island area only adds to the illogic. "Emerson Street" itself appears to be private shared access alleyway with little to distinguish the small units on the south side (annexed into Costa Mesa at some unknown time in the past) from those on the proposed CNB side. Is LAFCO asking CNB to proceed with the annexation? Or do the existing residents on the north side of "Emerson Street" want Newport Beach addresses? In either case, of what benefit is the annexation to CNB? The "Council Policy D -2 Analysis" provided as Attachment No. PC 5 to the November 8 PC staff report suggests about $10,000 per year property tax revenue offset by unknown infrastructure maintenance costs. Precisely what is being annexed? Beyond the logic or illogic of annexing Costa Mesa like development into CNB, there seems considerable confusion about precisely what is being proposed to be annexed. The notice of the November 8, 2012 Planning Commission hearing posted at the site informs residents of quite a different annexation boundary than that shown in the subsequent staff reports. In particular, it shows the western boundary line running down the centerline of Tustin Avenue (rather than encompassing the Costa Mesa sidewalks), and the southern boundary roughly bisecting what may be Costa Mesa lots on the south site of "Emerson St" (including all of 2056 Tustin and the northern halves of 411, 415 and 421 Emerson St). It also shows the annexation area including parts of two or three lots in the fenced off multi- family development to the southeast, but only a part of 416 -420 Emerson St. By contrast, the annexation maps in the staff reports to the CNB PC and ALUC are different, but fairly consistent, suggesting CNB is not proposing to annex any of the existing Costa Mesa lots, but (strangely) does want the sidewalks fronting the Costa Mesa properties on the northwest side of Tustin Avenue, and most of "Emerson Street" (the boundary apparently running along the north edge of the concrete drainage channel ?) — even though public testimony at the November 8 PC hearing suggested "Emerson Street" is jointly owned by the Costa Mesa residences on the south and the proposed CNB lots on the north (each, according to the testimony, owning 15 feet to the centerline of the 30 foot right of way — although the CNB GIS maps show a different pattern of Emerson Island Annexation (PA2012 -034) -- comments by Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 ownership, with 410 Emerson and 416 -420 Emerson owning the full segment to be annexed in front of their properties, and the remaining segments of the alleyway of uncertain provenance). Adding to the confusion, the maps provided in the public notices of the CNB PC and Council hearings designated the most southeasterly lot to be annexed as "422," even though no such number is mentioned in the staff reports where the lot is described as "416, 418 and 420 Emerson Street" (perhaps "422° is the unbuilt fourth unit ?). Meanwhile, the notice published in the Daily Pilot on Saturday November 17 shows no discernable annexation boundary; and the letter from CNB Senior Civil Engineer David Keely (Attachment No. PC 6 to the November 8 PC staff report) suggests LAFCQ documents may refer to "Giouchester[sic] Drive" as the southern boundary of the CNB sphere of influence, although that may be an error. Gloucester Drive would, indeed, be a more logical boundary, since it would include the similar properties on both sides of the Emerson Street alleyway, and not divide what was, as unincorporated County land, a cohesive community. Given this level of confusion regarding the boundary, it would seem wise, before presenting an annexation request to LAFCQ, to carefully verify what land was previously annexed to Costa Mesa, so that overlapping jurisdictions are not being created. Why was the line drawn the way it was? Per the preceding discussion, there seems little logic to why the proposed Costa Mesa — CNB boundary is being drawn as it is. The small and multi - family units that comprise the bulk of the proposed CNB annexation area are quite similar to nearby land uses in Costa Mesa, but unlike anything close by in CNB (where everything is R- 1 /RS -D). Since 2078 Tustin Avenue is the only lot closely resembling (in size and use) those in CNB's adjacent 1968 "Moden" annexation, why no simply move the 1968 boundary line paralleling Holiday Road enough to the south to encompass that one lot, and offer the remainder of the "island" to Costa Mesa, to which (in view of subsequent annexations) it would seem more logically to belong. But even assuming the annexation proceeds as proposed, why would CNB be wanting to take ownership of the sidewalks adjoining the Costa Mesa homes on the northwest side of Tustin Avenue? The fact that may have been done in drawing the 1968 line in the segment of Tustin Avenue to the north does not make it any more logical to me. And does not placing the Costa Mesa — CNB boundary down "Emerson Street" (especially if it is even partially owned in common by the two sides) physically divide an established community, in contradiction to the CEQA finding on handwritten page 55 of the November 8, 2012 CNB PC staff report? As indicated above, wouldn't it have been more logical to annex the entire tract facing Emerson Street, which would have placed the southwest boundary at Gloucester Drive? Emerson Island Annexation (PA2O12-834) ~^ comments hy Jim Mosher Page 4of4 What alternatives remain available? It is unclear from the staff reports if there are alternatives to proceeding with the annexation as proposed. Could CN8 propose toL4FCOu different, more logical boundary? |f so, what would happen b} the uDenn8oedproperty? Could Costa Mesa annex it? [)r could it remain unincorporated County land? Alternatively, to avoid dividing a community, could CNB ask to annex the area on the south side of Emerson Street, Gloucester Drive, which seems to have been previously annexed by Costa Mesa? And could the existing odd and inconsistent Costa Mesa ~~CNR boundary along Tustin Avenue be regularized (f om OY�X8p{e,t0g8d0vvn the centerline 0f the street h>Santiago Drive/22nd Street)? Finally, the staff reports say that 410 Emerson Street is currently developed with two units, while the property designated as "416-418-420 Emerson" has room for four, but is currently developed with only three. Why is staff proposing to combine these two lots with the four single-family lots between them /2071,2U7Z.2D74.Z8T5 Churchill Court) a88 single "RK8/10dU\"Zoning/General Plan designation 8Fea.Y |f preserving the existing development is the intent, wouldn't it be more logical to designate 410 Emerson Street oa"R&1(7dW),' "41G^478-4?0 Emerson" a8''RM/4dUY' and 2071,2O72,2O74. 2O75 Churchill Court 8S8n''Fl-1/RS~Q"area? Why hasn't this been presented as an alternative?