HomeMy WebLinkAbout24 - Emerson Island AnnexationCITY OF
°� m= NEWPORT BEACH
Agenda Item No. 24
City Council Staff Report
November 27, 2012
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Community Development Department
Kimberly Brandt, AICP, Director
949 - 644 -3226, kbrandt @newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Fern Nueno, Associate Planner
APPROVED:
TITLE: Emerson Island Annexation Located at the Northeast Corner of
Tustin Avenue and Emerson Street (PA2012 -034)
ABSTRACT
The project consists of the annexation of the Emerson Island, which is located in
unincorporated Orange County between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach at
the northeast corner of Tustin Avenue and Emerson Street. Emerson Island consists of
nine (9) lots totaling less than two (2) acres in area developed with single- and multiple -
unit residential dwellings. On November 8, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing and recommended City Council approval of the General Plan
Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment (prezoning).
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing; and
2) Adopt Resolution No. 110 approving General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -001
(Attachment A); and
3) Introduce Ordinance No. 23 approving Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012 -002
(Attachment B), and pass to second reading on January 8, 2013; and
4) Adopt Resolution No. 111 requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission to
initiate proceedings for the annexation (Attachment C); and
5) Adopt Resolution No. 112 approving a property tax exchange agreement with the
County of Orange (Attachment D).
I
2
Emerson Island Annexation (PA2012 -034)
November 27, 2012
Page 2
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
A budget amendment is not required. There is minimal fiscal impact related to this item.
Due to the small size of the Emerson Island, the annexation is not expected to result in
substantial property tax revenues, one -time or continuing expenses.
DISCUSSION
Vicinity Map
3
11
Emerson Island Annexation (PA2012 -034)
November 27, 2012
Page 3
Project Setting and Description
The Emerson Island is located in unincorporated Orange County between the cities of
Costa Mesa and Newport Beach at the northeast corner of Tustin Avenue and Emerson
Street. The area to be annexed consists of 9 lots totaling less than 2 acres in area
developed with single- and multiple -unit dwellings.
The project is for the annexation of the Emerson Island. No site grading or construction
is proposed with this application as the entire area is fully developed. The project
includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment (prezoning), initiation of
the annexation process with the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission
( "OC LAFCO "), and a property tax transfer agreement with the County of Orange and
related agencies.
Background
The Emerson Island is currently part of unincorporated Orange County and was placed
in the Newport Beach sphere of influence ( "SOI ") by OC LAFCO in September 2002.
On July 17, 2003, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council the
initiation of amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code to facilitate the
annexation of the Emerson Island.
On July 22, 2003, the City Council approved the initiation of amendments to the General
Plan and Zoning Code relating to the annexation of the Emerson Island.
On November 20, 2003, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval
of a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment for the annexation of the
Emerson Island.
On January 13, 2004, the City Council adopted a resolution approving the General Plan
Amendment and an ordinance approving the prezoning for the Emerson Island.
Notwithstanding these approvals, no application to annex the area was filed with OC
LAFCO. Staff is now currently processing the application to complete the project. Due to
the General Plan update in 2006 and subsequent Zoning Code rewrite in 2010, revised
General Plan and Zoning Code (prezoning) Amendments are required.
Planning Commission Action
On November 8, 2012, the Planning Commission voted (7 ayes, 0 noes) to recommend
City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -001 and Code
Amendment No. CA2012 -002 (the resolution and draft minutes are provided as
Attachments E and F). At the meeting, the Commission considered the existing
development, existing County land use and zoning designations, and the existing
9
Emerson Island Annexation (PA2012 -034)
November 27, 2012
Page 4
development on and zoning of surrounding properties. The Commission discussed the
Emerson Island being within the SO] since 2002 and other islands in the area that may
be annexed by Costa Mesa in the future.
The Planning Commission Staff Report is available online at:
http: / /newportbeachca.gov /PLN /PLANNING COMMISSION/11-08-
2012/4.0 Emerson %201sland %20Annexation PA2012- 034.pdf
Analysis
General Plan and Zoning Code
Section 20.66.060 ( Prezoning— Annexations) of the Zoning Code requires prezoning
before annexation to the City. The zoning is required to be in compliance with the
General Plan; therefore General Plan and Zoning Code Amendments are required prior
to Emerson Island annexation.
The Orange County General Plan designates the properties as Suburban Residential
(1 B), which allows for a wide range of housing types from 0.5 to 18.0 dwelling units per
acre. The Orange County Zoning Code designates the properties as R2 (2400) Multi -
Family Dwellings, which allows single - family dwellings and multifamily projects of four or
fewer dwelling units. The 2400 in parenthesis following the R2 designation refers to the
2,400 square feet of land area required per unit.
Seven of the nine lots within the Emerson Island are developed with single -unit
dwellings. The four properties on Churchill Court were developed as a planned
development with a Use Permit and Parcel Map approved by the County. These lots
are smaller than the other lots in the vicinity and are developed with one unit on each
lot. In addition, 410 Emerson Street is developed with two dwelling units and 416 -420
Emerson Street is developed with three dwelling units. The property owner of 410
Emerson Street requests that the City's land use and zoning allow for two dwelling units
to maintain the status quo. The property owner of 416 -420 Emerson Street requests
that four units be allowed under City Zoning Code standards. Under County Zoning
Code standards four units could be built and the property previously had a fourth unit
that was demolished. The property owner intends to construct a fourth unit on the lot in
the future.
As to the three lots along Tustin Avenue, the Planning Commission recommends a
Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) General Plan Land Use Element designation
and Single -Unit Residential (R -1) zoning designation with the purpose of maintaining
consistency with the existing development on site and with surrounding properties. In
order to avoid creating any nonconforming properties in regards to number of dwelling
units, the proposed land use designation for the remaining properties along the two
private streets is Multiple Residential (RM) and the proposed zoning designation is
Multiple Residential (RM), with a cap of ten dwelling units total for all six residential lots.
NO
Emerson Island Annexation (PA2012 -034)
November 27, 2012
Page 5
Table 1 compares the existing development to the existing and proposed Zoning
Districts. Table 2 compares the development standards under the existing Orange
County Zoning Code to the development standards under the proposed City Zoning
Code designations.
Table 1
Zoning Comparison
Address
Existing
Development
County Zoning
Proposed CNB
Zoning
2078 Tustin Ave.
One dwelling unit
R2 (2400)
R -1
2074 Tustin Ave.
One dwelling unit
R2 2400
R -1
2072 Tustin Ave.
One dwelling unit
R2 2400
R -1
410 Emerson St.
Two dwelling units
R2 2400
RM
2071 Churchill Ct.
One dwelling unit
R2 2400
RM
2072 Churchill Ct.
One dwelling unit
R2 2400
RM
2074 Churchill Ct.
One dwelling unit
R2 2400
RM
2075 Churchill Ct.
One dwelling unit
R2 2400
RM
416 -420 Emerson St.
Three dwelling units
R2 (2400)
RM
Table 2
Development Standards Comparison
Adjacent properties to the northwest along Tustin Avenue are designated as R2 -MD
Multiple Family Residential (Medium Density) in the City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code.
The properties located southwest of the Emerson Island are designated as Single
Family Residential by the City of Costa Mesa's Zoning Code. The Planning
Commission believes the proposed City Zoning designations are compatible and
consistent with the current County Zoning, the existing development, the surrounding
development, and the City of Costa Mesa Zoning Districts.
Pre - Annexation Right of Way Improvements Agreement
Public Works Department staff has identified right -of -way improvements that should be
completed by the County of Orange prior to or shortly after annexation. These
N
County R2
CNB R -1
CNB RM
24' flat, 29'
Height Limit
35'
sloped
28' flat, 33' sloped
Front Setback
20'
20'
20'
Side Setbacks
5'
3' or 4'
8% of lot width
Rear Setback
25'
10'
10'
Floor Area Limit
NA
2 X buildable
1.75 X buildable
area
area
Adjacent properties to the northwest along Tustin Avenue are designated as R2 -MD
Multiple Family Residential (Medium Density) in the City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code.
The properties located southwest of the Emerson Island are designated as Single
Family Residential by the City of Costa Mesa's Zoning Code. The Planning
Commission believes the proposed City Zoning designations are compatible and
consistent with the current County Zoning, the existing development, the surrounding
development, and the City of Costa Mesa Zoning Districts.
Pre - Annexation Right of Way Improvements Agreement
Public Works Department staff has identified right -of -way improvements that should be
completed by the County of Orange prior to or shortly after annexation. These
N
Emerson Island Annexation (PA2012 -034)
November 27, 2012
Page 6
improvements are identified in the attached Public Works Memorandum (Attachment G)
and include the installation of sidewalks and street trees along Tustin Avenue. Staff
recommends that the City Council direct staff to work with the County of Orange on a
right -of -way improvements agreement that would include the improvements identified in
the Public Works Memorandum and an understanding as to the timing of installation.
Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP)
The Emerson Island is located within the Planning Area for John Wayne Airport in the
Airport Environs Land Use Plan ( "AELUP "). The Airport Land Use Commission ( "ALUC ")
has found the City of Newport Beach to be a consistent agency with the AELUP.
However, the AELUP requires that General Plan and Zoning Code Amendments for
consistent agencies be referred to the ALUC for a determination prior to City action. At
its November 15, 2012, meeting the ALUC voted to find the proposed amendments
related to the annexation consistent with the AELUP.
Tribal Consultation
Pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, a local government is
required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage
Commission ( "NAHC ") each time it considers a proposal to adopt or amend it's General
Plan. If requested by any tribe, the City must consult for the purpose of preserving or
mitigating impacts to cultural resources. The City received comments from the NAHC
indicating that seven (7) tribe contacts should be provided notice regarding the
proposed project. The appropriate contacts supplied by the NAHC were provided notice
on May 18, 2012, to allow contacts an opportunity to request consultation. Section
65352.3 of the California Government Code requires 90 days to allow the contacts to
respond to the request to consult unless the contacts mutually agree to a shorter time
period. That 90 -day period ended on August 17, 2012, and the City did not receive any
contacts or responses regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment.
Charter Section 423
Council Policy A -18 establishes guidelines for implementing Section 423 of the City
Charter (Protection from Traffic and Density). Policy A -18 requires that any proposed
General Plan amendments be reviewed to determine if a vote of the electorate would be
required. If a project (separately or cumulatively with other projects over a 10 -year span)
exceeds any one of the following thresholds, a vote of the electorate would be required:
if the project generates more than 100 peak hour trips (AM or PM); adds 40,000 square
feet of nonresidential floor area; or adds more than 100 dwelling units in a statistical
area.
The proposed General Plan Amendment is not subject to Section 423 of the City
Charter because the proposed amendment is translating the existing development and
County land use designations to City land use designations. The amendment does not
0
Emerson Island Annexation (PA2012 -034)
November 27, 2012
Page 7
provide for any increase in density from what is allowed under the Orange County
General Plan; therefore, it will not result in increases in peak hour trips, dwelling units,
or square footage.
Council Policy D -2
Council Policy D -2 sets forth annexation guidelines and requires 14 items to be
evaluated, including land use, demographics, services, and traffic. The items and
relevant information are provided as Attachment H.
Subsequent Action
Should the City Council approve the project, the annexation application to OC LAFCO
will be finalized. If the annexation is approved by OC LAFCO, after the mandatory
reconsideration and protest periods totaling 51 days, the OC LAFCO will record a
certificate of completion and the annexation will be complete. At that time, the
amendments will be effective and Emerson Island will be within the City's corporate
boundaries.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that all significant
environmental concerns for the proposed project have been addressed in a previously
adopted Negative Declaration (Attachment 1).
The Initial Study /Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council
Policy K -3. The Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day comment period
beginning on July 19, 2003, and ending on August 18, 2003. The contents of the
environmental document and comments on the document were considered by the
Planning Commission on November 20, 2003. The City Council considered the Initial
Study and Negative Declaration of the environmental impact for the project, and
determined that the document adequately addresses the potential environmental effects
of the proposed project. The City Council adopted the Negative Declaration on January
13, 2004.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative
Declarations) and Public Resources Code Section 21166 (Subsequent or supplemental
impact report; conditions), notwithstanding the passage of time since the City Council
adopted the negative declaration on January 13, 2004, no subsequent or supplemental
environmental document is required because there have been no substantial changes
to the project, no substantial changes to the circumstances, or any new information of
substantial importance.
I
Emerson Island Annexation (PA2012 -034)
November 27, 2012
Page 8
NOTICING
Notice of this project was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the property, mailed to relevant agencies, and posted at the site a minimum
of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally,
the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and
on the City website.
Submitted by:
Rimberly Brand O.
Director
Attachments: A. Draft Resolution Approving General Plan Amendment No. GP2012-
001
B. Draft Ordinance Approving Code Amendment No. CA2012 -002
C. Draft Resolution Requesting the OC LAFCO to Initiate Proceedings
for the Annexation
D. Draft Resolution Approving a Property Tax Exchange Agreement
with the County of Orange
E. Planning Commission Resolution
F. Planning Commission Minutes (Unofficial)
G. Public Works Memo
H. Council Policy D -2 Analysis
I. Negative Declaration
10
City Council
Attachment A
Draft Resolution Approving General Plan
Amendment No. GP2012 -001
11
12
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2012 -001
TO ESTABLISH LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED EMERSON ISLAND (PA2012 -034)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. City of Newport Beach ( "City ") desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the
Cortese- Knox - Herzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000,
commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for annexation
of territory known as Emerson Island to the City.
2. City has submitted an application to the Orange County Local Agency Formation
Commission ( "OC LAFCO ") to annex the unincorporated Emerson Island.
3. The Emerson Island is 1.88 acres of unincorporated territory located northeast of
Tustin Avenue and Emerson Street immediately south of the City's boundary.
4. The Emerson Island is within the City's Sphere of Influence.
5. Including this territory within the Land Use Element of the General Plan is a
necessary component of the annexation process.
6. The concurrent amendment to the Zoning Code will provide consistency with the
proposed General Plan Amendment.
7. On July 25, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006 -76 approving a
comprehensive update to the Newport Beach General Plan.
8. On October 25, 2010, the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Update to the Zoning
Code (Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 20) bringing consistency between the
Zoning Code and the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
9. On January 13, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004 -5 approving a
General Plan Amendment for the Emerson Island. Due to the General Plan update
in 2006 and subsequent Zoning Code update in 2010, a new General Plan
Amendment is required. The land use designations approved by this resolution
supersedes the previous land use designations approved by Resolution No. 2004 -5.
10.This General Plan Amendment is not subject to Section 423 of the City Charter
(Protection from Traffic and Density) because the proposed amendment is
13
City Council Resolution No. 2012 -
Page 2
translating the existing development and the County land use designations to City
land use designations. The amendment does not provide for any increase in density
from what is allowed under the Orange County General Plan; therefore, it will not
result in increases in peak hour trips, dwelling units, or square footage.
11. Pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the appropriate
tribe contacts identified by the Native American Heritage Commission were provided
notice of the proposed General Plan Amendment on May 18, 2012. The California
Government Code requires 90 days to allow tribe contacts to respond to the request
to consult unless the tribe contacts mutually agree to a shorter time period. The
response period ended on August 17, 2012. No requests for consultation were
received.
12. At the November 8, 2012, public hearing, the Planning Commission received public
comments and on an affirmative motion (7 ayes, 0 noes), forwarded a
recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed General Plan
Amendment.
13. The Orange County Airport Land Use Commission held a meeting on November 15,
2012, and voted to find the proposed amendments consistent with the Airport
Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport.
14.A public hearing was held on November 27, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers,
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and
purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal
Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the
City Council, including the testimony of the interested parties, affected agencies, and
the evaluation and recommendations by staff.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. An Initial Study /Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council
Policy K -3.
2. The Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day comment period beginning on
July 19, 2003, and ending on August 18, 2003. The contents of the environmental
document and comments on the document were considered by the Planning
Commission on November 20, 2003.
3. The City Council considered the Initial Study and Negative Declaration of the
environmental impact for the project, and determined that the document adequately
addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed project.
4. The City Council adopted the Negative Declaration on January 13, 2004, with
Resolution No. 2004 -5.
14
City Council Resolution No. 2012 -
Page 3
5. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will not
have a significant effect upon the environment, and there are no known substantial
adverse effects on human beings that would be caused.
6. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative
Declarations) and Public Resources Code Section 21166 (Subsequent or
supplemental impact report; conditions), notwithstanding the passage of time since
the City Council adopted the negative declaration on January 13, 2004, no
subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required because there
have been no substantial changes to the project, no substantial changes to the
circumstances, or any new information of substantial importance.
7. The document and all materials, which constitute the record upon which this
decision was based, are on file with the Planning Division, City Hall, 3300 Newport
Boulevard, Newport Beach, California.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS
1. Amendments to the General Plan are legislative acts. Neither the City nor State
Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such
amendments, unless they are determined not to be required for the public necessity
and convenience and the general welfare. The subject application was reviewed to
determine if the amendment would be beneficial to the Emerson Island and
surrounding area and to ensure that the annexation would not be detrimental to the
City.
2. The Emerson Island is developed with single- and multiple -unit dwellings. The
amendment provides land use designations consistent with existing land uses and
designations in the area and the existing development within Emerson Island. The
amendment will provide for preservation of the area's character and living
environment for residents and property owners.
3. The amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare of the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves General Plan
Amendment No. GP2012 -001 establishing land use designations of RS -D (Single -
Unit Residential Detached) and RM (Multiple -Unit Residential) to apply to land within
the Emerson Island as depicted in Exhibit "A."
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council,
and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
15
City Council Resolution No. 2012 -
Page 4
Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on
the 27th day of November, 2012, by the following vote to wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
NANCY GARDNER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
IIaIWa.0 3:z r�m►I to] I WK01 I : I V rl
10
Costa
Mesa
RS -D .
2�S
TS
T
RM
10 du
• Existing City Boundary
-----Proposed City Boundar
le
/ P
P�
O�
GP2012 -001 (PA2012 -034)
r6wvpe�
General Plan Amendment
Emerson Island Annexation
GP2012 -001 RM ExhibitANovember /2012 Exhibit A
0 50 100
mmmmmmK== Feet
E)
12
City Council
Attachment B
Draft Ordinance Approving Code
Amendment No. CA2012 -002
19
20
ORDINANCE NO. 2012-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH APPROVING ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2012 -002
FOR PREZONING THE UNINCORPORATED EMERSON ISLAND
(PA2012 -034)
WHEREAS, City of Newport Beach ( "City ") desires to initiate proceedings
pursuant to the Cortese - Knox - Herzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000,
commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for annexation of
territory known as Emerson Island to the City; and
WHEREAS, City has submitted an application to the Orange County Local
Agency Formation Commission to annex the unincorporated Emerson Island; and
WHEREAS, the Emerson Island is 1.88 acres of unincorporated territory located
northeast of Tustin Avenue and Emerson Street immediately south of the City's
boundary; and
WHEREAS, the Emerson Island is within the City's Sphere of Influence; and
WHEREAS, prezoning this territory is a necessary component of the annexation
process; and
WHEREAS, the concurrent amendment to the Land Use Element of the General
Plan will provide consistency with the proposed Zoning Code Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006 -76
approving a comprehensive update to the Newport Beach General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2010, the City Council adopted a Comprehensive
Update to the Zoning Code (Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 20) bringing consistency
between the Zoning Code and the Land Use Element of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2004-
1 approving a Code Amendment (prezoning) for the Emerson Island. Due to the
General Plan update in 2006 and subsequent Zoning Code update in 2010, a new
Zoning Code Amendment (prezoning) is required; and
WHEREAS, at the November 8, 2012, public hearing, the Planning Commission
received public comments and on an affirmative motion (7 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent),
forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed Zoning Code
Amendment; and
21
Ordinance No. 2012 -
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission held a meeting on
November 15, 2012, and voted to find the proposed amendments consistent with the
Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 27, 2012, in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time,
place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach
Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by,
the City Council, including the testimony of the interested parties, affected agencies,
and the evaluation and recommendations by staff.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The City Council does hereby approve Code Amendment No.
CA2012 -002, establishing prezoning of R -1 (Single -Unit Residential) and RM (Multiple
Residential) Zoning Districts to apply to land within the Emerson Island as depicted in
Exhibit "A."
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall supersede the prezoning previously approved by
Ordinance No. 2004 -1 for the Emerson Island.
SECTION 3: The approval of the Zoning Code Amendment set forth in this
ordinance shall become effective on the date the annexation described herein is
effective and only if the annexation is approved by the Orange County Local Agency
Formation Commission at which point the Zoning Map shall be amended as provided in
Exhibit "A."
SECTION 4: The City Council finds that:
1. Amendments to the Zoning Code are legislative acts. Neither the City nor State
Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such
amendments, unless they are determined not to be required for the public necessity
and convenience and the general welfare. The subject application was reviewed to
determine if the amendment would be beneficial to the Emerson Island and
surrounding area and to ensure that the annexation would not be detrimental to the
City.
2. The Emerson Island is developed with single- and multiple -unit dwellings. The
amendment provides zoning designations consistent with existing land uses and
zoning in the area and the existing development within Emerson Island. The
amendment will provide for preservation of the area's character and living
environment for residents and property owners.
3. The amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare of the
City.
22
Ordinance No. 2012 -
Page 3
SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section,
subsection, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases be declared unconstitutional.
SECTION 6:
1. An Initial Study /Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council
Policy K -3.
2. The Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day comment period beginning on
July 19, 2003, and ending on August 18, 2003. The contents of the environmental
document and comments on the document were considered by the Planning
Commission on November 20, 2003.
3. The City Council considered the Initial Study and Negative Declaration of the
environmental impact for the project, and determined that the document adequately
addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed project.
4. The City Council adopted the Negative Declaration on January 13, 2004.
5. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will not
have a significant effect upon the environment, and there are no known substantial
adverse effects on human beings that would be caused.
6. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative
Declarations) and Public Resources Code Section 21166 (Subsequent or
supplemental impact report; conditions), notwithstanding the passage of time since
the City Council adopted the negative declaration on January 13, 2004, no
subsequent or supplemental environmental document is be required because there
have been no substantial changes to the project, no substantial changes to the
circumstances, or any new information of substantial importance.
7. The document and all materials, which constitute the record upon which this
decision was based, are on file with the Planning Division, City Hall, 3300 Newport
Boulevard, Newport Beach, California.
SECTION 7: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the
official newspaper of the City.
This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Newport Beach, held on the 27th day of November, 2012, and adopted on the 11th
day of December, 2012, by the following vote, to wit:
23
Ordinance No. 2012 -
Page 4
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NANCY GARDNER, MAYOR
U421143n
LEILANI BROWN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
AARON HARP, CITY ATTORNEY
24
®I
®I
rS,
.} r
Costa
Mesa
R -1
R -1 -1000
�y2 RM PQO�
10 du 0
-- Existing City Boundary
-- Proposed City Boundary
'The number following "R -1" represents the minimum lot
size for newly created lots
CA2012 -002 (PA2012 -034)
rpwroq�
F4 m� Zoning Code Amendment
Emerson Island Annexation
CA2012 -002 RM ExhibitBNovember /2012 Exhibit A
P
0 75 150
Feet
E)
\1\ Itl
M
City Council
Attachment C
Draft Resolution Requesting the OC
LAFCO to Initiate Proceedings for the Annexation
27
22
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH MAKING APPLICATION TO AND REQUESTING THE ORANGE
COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE
PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 1.9
ACRES OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS EMERSON ISLAND WITHIN ITS
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
(PA2012 -034)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. The City of Newport Beach ( "City ") desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the
Cortese - Knox - Herzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000,
commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for annexation
of territory known as Emerson Island to the City.
2. The Emerson Island is 1.88 acres of unincorporated territory located northeast of the
intersection of Tustin Avenue and Emerson Street immediately south of the City's
boundary.
3. The proposed annexation area is within the City's Sphere of Influence.
4. A notice of intent to adopt this Resolution of Application has been sent by mail to
affected and interested agencies.
5. The principal reasons for the proposed annexation are as follows:
• The City anticipates that it can provide more efficient municipal services,
especially in the areas of law enforcement and community recreational services,
to the area than currently provided.
• The City seeks to assist the County of Orange and the Orange County Local
Agency Formation Commission ( "OC LAFCO ") in improving and simplifying the
service delivery, jurisdiction, and governance of the unincorporated "island" to the
City.
6. The territory included within the boundaries of the annexation is inhabited and a
description of the boundaries is set forth in Exhibit A and attached hereto and by this
reference incorporated herein.
29
City Council Resolution No. 2012 -_
Page 2
7. It is desired that the proposed annexation be subject to terms and conditions
established by the OC LAFCO.
8. This proposed annexation is subject to the following terms and conditions: The
annexation shall be consistent with Government Code Section 56375.3(a) and other
applicable law(s) existing as of the date of the filing of this Resolution.
9. At a public hearing on November 8, 2012, the Planning Commission received public
comments and on an affirmative motion (7 ayes, 0 noes), forwarded a
recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed General Plan
Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment for the land use and prezoning of the
Emerson Island.
10. The Orange County Airport Land Use Commission held a meeting on November 15,
2012, and voted to find the proposed amendments consistent with the Airport
Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport.
11.A public hearing was held on November 27, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers,
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and
purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal
Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the
City Council, including the testimony of the interested parties, affected agencies, and
the evaluation and recommendations by staff.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. An Initial Study /Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council
Policy K -3.
2. The Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day comment period beginning on
July 19, 2003, and ending on August 18, 2003. The contents of the environmental
document and comments on the document were considered by the Planning
Commission on November 20, 2003.
3. The City Council considered the Initial Study and Negative Declaration of the
environmental impact for the project, and determined that the document adequately
addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed project.
4. The City Council adopted the Negative Declaration on January 13, 2004, with
Resolution No. 2004 -5.
30
City Council Resolution No. 2012 -
Page 3
5. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will not
have a significant effect upon the environment, and there are no known substantial
adverse effects on human beings that would be caused.
6. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative
Declarations) and Public Resources Code Section 21166 (Subsequent or
supplemental impact report; conditions), notwithstanding the passage of time since
the City Council adopted the negative declaration on January 13, 2004, no
subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required because there
have been no substantial changes to the project, no substantial changes to the
circumstances, or any new information of substantial importance.
7. The document and all materials, which constitute the record upon which this
decision was based, are on file with the Planning Division, City Hall, 3300 Newport
Boulevard, Newport Beach, California.
SECTION 3. DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, hereby adopts and
approves this Resolution of Application, and the OC LAFCO is hereby requested to
initiate proceedings for the annexation of territory as illustrated in Exhibit "A" (the
"Emerson Island Annexation to the City of Newport Beach "), according to the terms
and conditions established by OC LAFCO and in the manner provided by the
Cortese- Knox - Herzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council,
and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on
the 27th day of November, 2012, by the following vote to wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
NANCY GARDNER, MAYOR
31
ATTEST:
LEILANI BROWN. CITY CLERK
City Council Resolution No. 2012 -
Page 4
S2
0
5
N
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT `A'
Emerson — Churchill Annexation No. CA 02 -12
to the City of Newport Beach
That portion of land situated in the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana recorded in Book 3, Pages
420 thru 423 of Patents, Records of Los Angeles County on June 28, 1884; in the
territory of the County of Orange, State of California, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at an angle point in the existing boundary of the City of Newport Beach as
created by "Moden Annexation- Boundary No. 59 ", said angle point being the northwesterly
terminus of that certain course shown as "N50 °00'00 "W 226.95 "' in said annexation, said angle
point also being a point on the northwesterly right of way line of Tustin Avenue (60.00 feet
wide), a tie to said angle point bears North 37 °54'01" West, 1315.90 feet to the Orange County
Surveyor's Horizontal Control Station GPS No. 6228; having a coordinate value (U. S. Survey
Foot) of North 2182036.092 and East 6058216.492 based upon the Califomia Coordinate Syster.
(CCS83), Zone VI, 1983 NAD (1991.35 epoch O. C. S. GPS adjustment) as shown on Tract Ma;
No. 15468 recorded in Book 757, Pages 9 through 11, inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the
office of the County Recorder of said County;
Thence, along said existing City boundary per "Moden Annexation- Boundary No. 59",
through its various courses in a generally southeasterly, southwesterly and southeasterly
direction to the intersection with the northeasterly terminus of that certain course shown as
"N40 °E 165.08 "' on "Aliso No. 1 Annexation" to the City of Costa Mesa, being a point on a
common boundary line between the City of Newport Beach and the City of Costa Mesa,
Thence, leaving said common cities boundary and along the existing boundary of the City
Costa Mesa as created by "Aliso No. 1 Annexation ", "Emerson No. 1 Annexation" and
"Annexation No, IA O1 -15" through their various courses, in a generally southwesterly,
northwesterly and northeasterly direction to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT `A'
Emerson — Churchill Annexation No. CA 02 -12
to the City of Newport Beach
The above described parcel of land contains 1.88 acres, more or less.
Unless otherwise noted, all distances are ground based on the California Coordinates Systei
(CCS83), Zone VI, 1983 NAD (1991.35 epoch OCS GPS adjustment). To obtain grid distances
multiply ground distance by 0.99996972.
All as shown on Exhibit `B ", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.
This document was prepared by me or
under my direction and supervision.
Dated this OAday of 2006
Wanda Bale, L.S. 7695
My license expires 12/31/2006
This document does meet the approval of
the Orange County Surveyor's Office
Dated this y of 2006
UP. 12131/06
N0.7695
Pymond L. Mathe, County Surveyor L.S. 6185
My license expires 3/31/2008
Page 2 of 2
W
vl
EXHIBIT "B"
EMERSON - CHURCHILL ANNEXATION No. CA 02 -12
TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
CPS NO.6228 THIS PROPOSAL WAS PREPARED BY ME
N 2182036.092 DF UNDER MY DIRECTION.
6058218.492 IN
PER TR 15468
NM 757/9.11 WARDA BALE. L.S. 95
$A -7AANA '^AVENUE MY LICENSE EXPIRES 12/31/2006
COUNTY SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
SHEET IOF 2
ft
EIP W13V06
THIS PROPOSAL DOES MEET THE APPROVAL OF THE
ORANGE CDq0Y SURVEYORS DFFI
�
DATED i 9K= DAY OF 2006.
MOND L. MAINE. COUNTY SURVEYOR. L.S. 6185 LNED
MY LICENSE EXPIRES 3/31/2008 L4IP1'B wYf�o
W60
[ID.3/30E®
J+
OF Cll��p
THIS PROPOSAL CONTAINS 1.88 ACRES. MORE OR LESS
APN: SEE SHEET 2
LEGEND
11 INDICATES RECORD DATA PER
ADJOINING ANNEXATION.
ANNEXATION BOUNDARY
'•'7•''••7�•f EXISTING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
BOUNDARY,
EXISTING CITY OF COSTA MESA
BOUNDARY.
'�`•�� *•(��f EXISTING COMMON BOUNDARIES BETWEEN
THE CITIES OF COSTA MESA Mo
NEWPORT BEACH.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.ALL DISTANCES ON THIS MAP ARE
GROUND AND ARE BASED UPON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE
SYSTEM (CCS83). ZONE V1. 1983 NAD 11991.35 EPOCH OCS CPS
ADJUSTMENT).
TO OBTAIN GRID DISTANCE, MULTIPLY GROUND DISTANCE
BY 0.99996972
0' 50'
®�
- - -Hy� - --
100•
too,
��
�Q O"--
�4
GRAPHIC SCALE
®��
-
Y•100'
00
A
o ,
No. [A
A ,
�
1�
I'D A ME
TO IxE CITY Of COSTA MESA
rIS40-31 '2Y'W 729.97'1
BOB
�p�'�
I
N40.38.22 "E 235.08'
1235.59'1
\
}.1.�.3�.. '�.Ll•'�SiJT
4
o m
.�1
1131.65')
— _�-----
- - - - --
c
TUSTIN AVENUE � —
— _— _— _ —_ —_�
°
e=
EXISTING R/W
�
Z.
O
y
P'g4 MTV OF
°a
nom
w
�m
a
m
NEWPORT REACH
w
F
�
®�
e i a
s $
CHURCHILL
C.L.
'YOOEH ANN ExAlION- BOUNDARY No. 59-.'qv
— _�
_
TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
"w
N40. 00'OG•w!
O em540.30'22
70.00'
C ®�4Sf
L�COURT
0
I�
>
BONA RE wY
—C
-ALISO No.I
ANNEXATIDH"
S00. 38'22 "W 4
TO THE CITY
OF COSTA MESA
IN40 -E 165.08'1
165.08' 6
COUNTY SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
SHEET IOF 2
ft
EIP W13V06
THIS PROPOSAL DOES MEET THE APPROVAL OF THE
ORANGE CDq0Y SURVEYORS DFFI
�
DATED i 9K= DAY OF 2006.
MOND L. MAINE. COUNTY SURVEYOR. L.S. 6185 LNED
MY LICENSE EXPIRES 3/31/2008 L4IP1'B wYf�o
W60
[ID.3/30E®
J+
OF Cll��p
THIS PROPOSAL CONTAINS 1.88 ACRES. MORE OR LESS
APN: SEE SHEET 2
LEGEND
11 INDICATES RECORD DATA PER
ADJOINING ANNEXATION.
ANNEXATION BOUNDARY
'•'7•''••7�•f EXISTING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
BOUNDARY,
EXISTING CITY OF COSTA MESA
BOUNDARY.
'�`•�� *•(��f EXISTING COMMON BOUNDARIES BETWEEN
THE CITIES OF COSTA MESA Mo
NEWPORT BEACH.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.ALL DISTANCES ON THIS MAP ARE
GROUND AND ARE BASED UPON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE
SYSTEM (CCS83). ZONE V1. 1983 NAD 11991.35 EPOCH OCS CPS
ADJUSTMENT).
TO OBTAIN GRID DISTANCE, MULTIPLY GROUND DISTANCE
BY 0.99996972
100' 0' SO' 100'
GRAPHIC SCALE
1'•100'
604tl
Ip
la
r
MIM
A
EXHIBIT "B"
EMERSON - CHURCHILL ANNEXATION No. CA 02 -12
TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
rlol 0 w
1,
f� �t
44 _10 THE X CITY N OF COSTA ESA
426- 243 -17
e_ o
-ALISO No.I ANNEXATION'
TO THE CITY OF COSTA MESA
CPS NO.6228
PER TR 15468 ��
GM 757/9.11 rn
SAN'T'A ANA AVENUE
—� N
r
r
EXISTING R/W n
0
N K
�
NEWPORT (MIUM
-Y TO E CITY ION- BWPORT BEACH
59."li
0 i0 THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
r r
BONAIRE WY
SHEET 2 OF 2
PROJECT SITE F I
IIJLiLJ
ooao-
�
- CP
nnrn�nn
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO s u
LEGEND
MN ASSESSORS PARCEL MAP NUMBER
11 INDICATES RECORD DATA PER
ADJOINING ANNEXATION.
ANNEXATION BOUNDARY
'e •'7'•'�••1'•f EXISTING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
BOUNDMY.
EXISTING CITY OF COSTA ESA
BOUNDARY.
1���•!•�•!{ EXISTING COMMON BOUNDARIES BETWEEN
THE CITIES OF COSTA MESA AND
NEWPORT BEACH.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEO.ALL DISTANCES ON THIS MM ME
GROUND AND ME BASED UPON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE
SYSTEM ICCS83). ZONE V1. 1953 HAD (1991.35 EPOCH DCS CPS
ADJUSTMENT).
TO OBTAIN GRID DISTANCE. MULTIPLY GROUND DISTANCE
BY 0.99996972
4 -I
A
CHURCHILL
mo
COURT C.L.
�W-N 426-244-391:
APN 426- 244.42
N 4
MN 426 -244.4
MN 426-244.38
COSTA
8ERROTORV
MN 426.244 -36'
-ALISO No.I ANNEXATION'
TO THE CITY OF COSTA MESA
CPS NO.6228
PER TR 15468 ��
GM 757/9.11 rn
SAN'T'A ANA AVENUE
—� N
r
r
EXISTING R/W n
0
N K
�
NEWPORT (MIUM
-Y TO E CITY ION- BWPORT BEACH
59."li
0 i0 THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
r r
BONAIRE WY
SHEET 2 OF 2
PROJECT SITE F I
IIJLiLJ
ooao-
�
- CP
nnrn�nn
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO s u
LEGEND
MN ASSESSORS PARCEL MAP NUMBER
11 INDICATES RECORD DATA PER
ADJOINING ANNEXATION.
ANNEXATION BOUNDARY
'e •'7'•'�••1'•f EXISTING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
BOUNDMY.
EXISTING CITY OF COSTA ESA
BOUNDARY.
1���•!•�•!{ EXISTING COMMON BOUNDARIES BETWEEN
THE CITIES OF COSTA MESA AND
NEWPORT BEACH.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEO.ALL DISTANCES ON THIS MM ME
GROUND AND ME BASED UPON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE
SYSTEM ICCS83). ZONE V1. 1953 HAD (1991.35 EPOCH DCS CPS
ADJUSTMENT).
TO OBTAIN GRID DISTANCE. MULTIPLY GROUND DISTANCE
BY 0.99996972
City Council
Attachment D
Draft Resolution Approving a Property Tax
Exchange Agreement with the County of
Orange
37
S2
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH APPROVING A PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND THE COUNTY OF
ORANGE REGARDING THE EMERSON ISLAND ANNEXATION TO
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (PA2012 -034)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. The City of Newport Beach ( "City ") has filed an application with the Orange County
Local Agency Formation Commission to annex 1.88 acres of unincorporated territory
referred to as the Emerson Island, which is located in the northwest portion of the
City and generally bordered by Tustin Avenue to the west, Emerson Street to the
south.
2. California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 allows cities and counties to
adopt and approve property tax exchange agreements to set forth the exchange of
such revenues following the addition to a city of previously unincorporated territory.
3. Orange County and City staff have reached agreement, subject to Board and City
Council approval, regarding the exchange of property tax as a result of the
annexation of the unincorporated territory by the City, whereby upon annexation by
the City, the City shall receive 51.9378 percent and the County shall receive 48.0622
percent of the County's share of the 1 percent basic levy property tax generated
within the area to be annexed, pursuant to Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement
80 -1973.
4. The City shall receive 100 percent of the Structural Fire Fund and of the Library
Fund generated from the proposed annexation area.
5. The County staff and the City staff desire to have the same adopted and approved
by their respective governing bodies.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. An Initial Study /Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council
Policy K -3.
39
City Council Resolution No. 2012 -
Page 2
2. The Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day comment period beginning on
July 19, 2003, and ending on August 18, 2003. The contents of the environmental
document and comments on the document were considered by the Planning
Commission on November 20, 2003.
3. The City Council considered the Initial Study and Negative Declaration of the
environmental impact for the project, and determined that the document adequately
addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed project.
4. The City Council adopted the Negative Declaration on January 13, 2004, with
Resolution No. 2004 -5.
5. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will not
have a significant effect upon the environment, and there are no known substantial
adverse effects on human beings that would be caused.
6. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative
Declarations) and Public Resources Code Section 21166 (Subsequent or
supplemental impact report; conditions), notwithstanding the passage of time since
the City Council adopted the negative declaration on January 13, 2004, no
subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required because there
have been no substantial changes to the project, no substantial changes to the
circumstances, or any new information of substantial importance.
7. The document and all materials, which constitute the record upon which this
decision was based, are on file with the Planning Division, City Hall, 3300 Newport
Boulevard, Newport Beach, California.
SECTION 3. DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby approve the property tax
exchange agreement reached between the City of Newport Beach and the County of
Orange, whereby, upon completion of the annexation of the Emerson Islands to the
City of Newport Beach, City shall receive 51.9378 percent and the County of Orange
shall receive 48.0622 percent of the County's share of the 1 percent basic levy of
property tax from the annexed area pursuant to Master Property Tax Transfer
Agreement 80 -1973.
2. The City of Newport Beach will receive 100 percent of both the Structural Fire Fund
and the Library Fund generated in the annexed area upon annexation.
UN
City Council Resolution No. 2012 -_
Page 3
Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on
the 27th day of November, 2012, by the following vote to wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
NANCY GARDNER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
LEILANI BROWN, CITY CLERK
raja"
42
City Council
Attachment E
Planning Commission Resolution
43
Ca'
RESOLUTION NO. 1897
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2012-
001 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2012 -002 FOR
THE ANNEXATION OF EMERSON ISLAND (PA2012 -034)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
The City of Newport Beach has submitted an application to the Orange County Local
Agency Formation Commission ( "OC LAFCO ") to annex the unincorporated Emerson
Island.
2. The Emerson Island is approximately 1.9 acres of unincorporated territory located
northeast of the intersection of Tustin Avenue and Emerson Street, immediately south
of the City's boundary.
3. The Emerson Island is within the City of Newport Beach's Sphere of Influence.
4. The Emerson Island is not located within the coastal zone.
5. The California Government Code allows a city to prezone territory for the purpose of
determining the zoning that will apply to such territory after annexation to a city.
6. Prezoning this territory is a necessary component of the annexation process.
7. The California Government Code requires zoning to be consistent with a city's General
Plan designation for a property.
8. Land use designations for the Emerson Island are not currently addressed in the City's
General Plan and therefore must be provided in conjunction with prezoning and
annexation.
9. On July 25, 2006, the Newport Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006 -76
approving a comprehensive update to the Newport Beach General Plan.
10. On October 25, 2010, the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Update to the Zoning
Code (Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 20) bringing consistency between the Zoning
Code and the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
11. On January 13, 2004, the City Council adopted a resolution approving a General Plan
Amendment and an ordinance approving a Code Amendment (prezoning) for the
Emerson Island precedent to its annexation. Due to the General Plan update in 2006
and subsequent Zoning Code rewrite in 2010, new General Plan and Zoning Code
Amendments (prezoning) are required.
21
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1897
Pape 2 of 3
12. The City Council considered the Initial Study and Negative Declaration (Adopted with
Resolution No. 2004 -5) of the environmental impact for the annexation, and
determined that the document adequately addresses the potential environmental
effects of the amendments.
13. This General Plan Amendment is not subject to Section 423 of the City Charter
(Protection from Traffic and Density) because the proposed amendment is translating
the existing development and the County land use designations to City land use
designations. The amendment does not provide for any increase in density from what
is allowed under the Orange County General Plan; therefore, it will not result in
increases in peak hour trips, dwelling units, or square footage.
14. A public hearing was held on November 8, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers,
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and
purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal
Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the
Planning Commission at this meeting.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. An Initial Study /Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council
Policy K -3.
2. The Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day comment period beginning on
July 19, 2003 and ending on August 18, 2003. The contents of the environmental
document and comments on the document were considered by the Planning
Commission on November 20, 2003.
3. The City Council considered the Initial Study and Negative Declaration of the
environmental impact for the project, and determined that the document adequately
addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed project.
4. The City Council adopted the Negative Declaration on January 13, 2004.
5. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will not
have a significant effect upon the environment, and there are no known substantial
adverse effects on human beings that would be caused.
6. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative
Declarations) and Public Resources Code Section 21166 (Subsequent or
supplemental impact report; conditions), notwithstanding the passage of time since the
City Council adopted the negative declaration on January 13, 2004, no subsequent or
supplemental environmental document shall be required because there have been no
substantial changes to the project, no substantial changes to the circumstances, or
any new information of substantial importance.
7. The document and all materials, which constitute the record upon which this decision
was based, are on file with the Planning Division, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, California.
40
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1897
Pape 3 of 3
SECTION 3. FINDINGS.
1. Amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code are legislative acts. Neither the
City nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial
of such amendments, unless they are determined not to be required for the public
necessity and convenience and the general welfare. The subject application was
reviewed to determine if the amendments would be beneficial to the Emerson Island
and surrounding area and to ensure that the annexation would not be detrimental to
the City.
2. The Emerson Island is developed with single- and multiple -unit dwellings. The
amendments provide land use and zoning designations consistent with existing land
uses and zoning in the area and the existing development within Emerson Island. The
amendment will provide for preservation of the area's character and living environment
for residents and property owners.
3. The amendments will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare of the
City.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -001 and Code Amendment
No. CA2012 -002 adopting the land use designations and prezoning and amending any
applicable land use or zoning map for the annexation of Emerson Island as shown on
Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 8T" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012.
AYES: Amen, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, Toerge, and Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ra:1ya11421 •000
MN
Michael Toerge, Chairman
BY:
Fred Ameri, Secretary
47
42
Costa
Mesa
RS -D .
2�S
TS
T
RM
10 du
• Existing City Boundary
-----Proposed City Boundar
le
/ P
P�
O�
GP2012 -001 (PA2012 -034)
r6wvpe�
General Plan Amendment
Emerson Island Annexation
GP2012 -001 RM ExhibitANovember /2012 Exhibit A
0 50 100
mmmmmmK== Feet
E)
50
®,
®,
Costa
Mesa
� J0
P
y�?
2js
rS
r
° R -1 -10
v\
R -1
RM
10 du
-- Existing City Boundary
-- Proposed City Boundary
'The number following "R -1" represents the minimum lot
size for newly created lots
CA2012 -002 (PA2012 -034)
rpwroq�
F4 m� Zoning Code Amendment
Emerson Island Annexation
CA2012 -002 RM ExhibitBNovember /2012 Exhibit B
.10
O�
�Q
0P
P
0 75 150
Feet
E)
\1\ Itl
52
City Council
Attachment F
Planning Commission Minutes (Unofficial)
53
54
ITEM NO.4 Emerson Island Annexation (PA2012 -034)
Community Development Director Brandt presented background information including formation of
LAFCO (Local Area Formation Commission) regarding incorporation of "small islands" in cities
within Orange County. She addressed related State legislation and stated that the Emerson Island
is one of the remaining islands between the City of Costa Mesa and the City of Newport Beach.
The City was recently approached by LAFCO to complete the annexation of the property.
Associate Planner Fern Nueno presented details of the report addressing location, annexation
area, Negative Declaration previously adopted, land use designation and zoning, existing
conditions, proposed General Plan Land Use designations, proposed zoning, findings, property
owner requests and recommendations. She reported that Planning Commission recommendations
will be forwarded to Council for hearing on November 27, 2012. If approved by Council, the
application will be finalized with LAFCO and if approved the annexation will be complete after fifty -
one days.
In response to Commissioner Tucker's inquiry, Ms. Nueno explained that there are 9 existing
dwelling units and that as proposed, 10 dwelling units would be allowed in the portion of the
annexation area designated as Multiple Residential —10 units maximum.
Interested parties were invited to address the Commission on this item.
Jim Mosher asked if there are more areas to be annexed in the future and felt that the maps
presented are confusing as they show the annexation area to bisect several properties. He
inquired about ownership of Emerson Street.
Ms. Nueno reported that the present item is the last of the "small islands" to be annexed. She
noted that the private street will be part of the City of Newport Beach and will be part of the
annexation.
Ms. Brandt reported that there are still unincorporated "islands" between the City of Costa Mesa
and the City of Newport Beach in the general area but are within the sphere of influence within the
City of Costa Mesa.
Fred Kindgren addressed ownership of the private street. He noted that there are more mixed
units in the area than there are single - family and felt that the designation is appropriate.
There being no others wishing to address the Commission, Chair Toerge closed the Public
Hearing.
Motion made by Chair Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Ameri, and carried 7 — 0, to adopt
Resolution No. 1897 recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No.
GP2012 -001 and Code Amendment No. CA2012 -002.
Commissioner Kramer commented on the use of Google Earth or something comparable when
staff presents similar cases in the future.
AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, Toerge and Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT (Excused): None
55
50
City Council
Attachment G
Public Works Memo
57
�g
City of Newport Beach
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
October 31. 2012
TO: David Webb
Public Works Director
FROM: David Keely
Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Emerson Island Annexation to the City of Newport Beach
The Public Works Department requests that the below items be addressed prior to
annexation.
CONDITIONS:
Install a City Standard sidewalk per City Standard STD -180 -L within the limits of
the annexation area along Tustin Avenue. Non - standard private improvements
within the public right -of -way shall be removed to accommodate the sidewalk.
Driveway approaches shall be reconstructed to current City Standards to ensure
the sidewalk is ADA compliant.
2. Encroachment agreements shall be obtained prior to annexation for all remaining
non - standard improvements within the Tustin Avenue public right of way. All
non - standard improvements shall be in compliance with City Council Policy L -6.
3. Driveway approaches shall be reconstructed to current City Standards to ensure
the sidewalk is ADA compliant.
4. Street trees shall be planted along the Tustin Avenue frontage. Vacant tree sites
are located at 2072 and 2078 Tustin Avenue.
5. Fire Hydrant Markers shall be located adjacent to fire hydrants per City Standard
STD - 902 -L.
59
Mo
City Council
Attachment H
Council Policy D -2 Analysis
01
02
Council Policy D -2 Analysis
D -2 is available online at:
http: / /www.newportbeachca.gov/ Modules /ShowDocument.asi)x ?documentid =2495
A. A Statistical Summary.
Emerson Island is approximately 1.88 acres in area. According to the 2010
Decennial Census, the population of the area is 20 people. At the time of the 2010
Decennial Census, the total household count was eleven dwelling units. Of the
eleven units, ten units were occupied and one unit was vacant. The area consists of
nine residential lots. Currently, seven of the lots are developed with one unit on a
single lot, one lot is developed with two units on a single lot, and one lot is
developed with three units on a single lot, for a total of 12 dwelling units.
The area contains two (2) private streets (Emerson Street and Churchill Court) and a
235 -foot portion of a public street (Tustin Avenue). The area contains no park or
open space acreage. Per the County Assessor's records for the 2012 -2013 tax bills,
the total assessed value of the properties is $5,304,411.
B. Land Use and Planning.
The topography of the area is relatively flat and no notable natural features are
present. The Emerson Island is currently developed. The proposed land use is
consistent with existing development within the Emerson Island and with
development in the vicinity. Redevelopment of the lots should not change the
physical characteristics of the area due to the proposed R -1 and RM Zoning District
standards.
C. A Plan of Services.
Fire protection services will transfer from the Orange County Fire Authority to the
Newport Beach Fire Department. The existing level of service for fire protection will
be maintained or improved because of the closer proximity of City of Newport Beach
( "CNB ") facilities than is now the case under County jurisdiction. The existing
access and water supply meet the CNB standards for fire protection services.
Negligible operational impacts are expected to the City for delivering services due to
the size and location of the Emerson Island.
Police services will transfer from the Orange County Sheriff ( "OC Sheriff') to the
Newport Beach Police Department and the existing levels of services will be
maintained or improved because of closer proximity of the CNB police station. The
OC Sheriff headquarters is the station nearest to the Emerson Island and is located
in the City of Santa Ana.
Other public services and facilities, such as administrative, recreation, code
enforcement, planning, and public works will transfer from the County to the CNB.
The level of service will remain unchanged or possibly improve because of the
closer proximity of City offices and facilities than is now the case.
(03
Utility systems are already in place for this built -out area. Water facilities and service
are provided by the Mesa Consolidated Water District. Sewage collection is provided
by the Costa Mesa Sanitation District. Sewage treatment is provided by the Orange
County Sanitation District. Solid waste is collected by a private firm, CR &R
Incorporated. These facilities and services will remain with the current providers after
annexation.
D. Traffic and Circulation.
Current traffic volumes are not available for Emerson Street, but observations
suggest that the traffic volume is typical for developed residential areas. Volumes
are not anticipated to change due to the annexation.
E. A Fiscal Impact Analysis.
Due to the size of the Emerson Island (less than 2 acres), the annexation is not
expected to result in substantial property tax revenues or one -time or continuing
expenses. The basic tax levy is one percent (1 %) of the assessed value of the
property. The taxable assessed value of the property within the annexation totals
approximately $5.3 million resulting in a tax levy of $53,000. The City receives
approximately seventeen percent (17 %) of the tax levy and would expect to receive
less than $10,000 in property taxes annually from the annexed properties. Although
the dollar amount is unknown, the City will also receive 100% of both the Structural
Fire Fund and Library Fund generated from the annexation area. Public Works,
Municipal Operations, and Community Development staff have reviewed the
proposed annexation area and have concluded there are not any immediate
infrastructure obligations associated with the proposed annexation. Public Works
staff did identify improvements to be completed prior to annexation.
F. Demographics.
The Decennial Census identified a total household count of eleven dwelling units.
Due to the size of the Emerson Island no further quantitative detail or description
was included in the Census data. The existing development is consistent with
nearby CNB neighborhoods. The demographics of the Emerson Island are
assumed to be similar to that of nearby areas.
G. Boundaries.
The proposed boundary follows the pattern of separation between the Cities of
Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. There are no man -made or natural physical
barriers in the area that would affect this boundary or warrant a change in the
location.
H. Safety.
Safety services will transfer to CNB which will enable better control for safety
oriented problems that cross municipal boundaries. The annexation will enhance
the cooperation between jurisdictions.
r /M
I. Service.
The annexation of this area creates a logical boundary between the cities of Costa
Mesa and Newport Beach. The utilities for the area are already provided for and will
remain as is, allowing for a smooth transition for the residents, property owners,
CNB, and other affected parties. The proposed boundary will not cause difficulty or
inefficiencies in providing other City services because of the size and location of the
area.
J. Control.
The Emerson Island abuts the CNB boundary along the north. The existing
development is compatible with the development in the vicinity within the CNB
jurisdiction. Local control of the area will ensure consistency with nearby properties
located within the CNB. Redevelopment on the nine (9) properties will be subject to
the standards of the City's Zoning Code, which will ensure proper land development
and compatibility with surrounding residential development. Therefore, the
annexation and resulting local control will protect taxpayers against future cost
associated with potential improper development.
K. Public Facilities.
The existing public facilities are adequate to serve the Emerson Island area and the
annexation will not necessitate additional space for specialized public uses.
L. Blight Elimination.
The Emerson Island is developed with residential dwelling units and is surrounded
by other residential uses. The location is not in a blighted area, but the annexation
of the area will help to ensure that future development in the area does not cause a
blighting or deteriorating influence.
M. Incorporation.
The Emerson Island annexation should not be detrimental to the City of Newport
Beach nor the City of Costa Mesa. Emerson Island is within the City's Sphere of
Influence. There are no other nearby unincorporated territories that might be
incorporated to a city to the detriment of the CNB or other cities in the area.
N. Image.
The existing development is consistent with other CNB neighborhoods in the vicinity.
Due to the number of residential lots (9) within the Emerson Island, the annexation is
not expected to affect the image or stature of the City.
05
00
City Council
Attachment I
Negative Declaration
07
02
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
(949) 644 -3200
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To:
Office of Planning and Research
xx 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
County Clerk, County of Orange
xx Public Services Division
P.O. Box 238
Santa Ana, CA 92702
From: City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
(Orange County)
Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk
Public Review Period: July 19 to August 18, 2003
Name of Project: EMERSON ANNEXATION — Project PA 2003 -149: General Plan
Amendment GP 2003 -006 and Code Amendment CA 2003 -007
Project Location: Emerson Street, east of Tustin Avenue and south of 21St Street/Holiday Road
(see map at end of document)
Project Description: General plan amendment, prezoning, and annexation of the Emerson Street area to
the City of Newport Beach
Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K -3 pertaining to
procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality
Act, the City has evaluated the proposed project and determined that it would
not have a significant effect on the environment.
A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is attached and is also on file at the
Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential
environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision - makers prior to final action on the
proposed project.
Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you
would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the
appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the
public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would
result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be
adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are
also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like
further information, please contact Larry Lawrence, project manager for the City, at 949 - 661 -8175.
Date: July 10, 2003
Patricia L. Tetryry le,' -
Planning Direktor
I/_SSl
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Project Title: Project PA 2003 -149, including General Plan
Amendment GP 2003 -006 and Code Amendment CA
2003 -007: General Plan Amendment, Prezoning, and
Annexation of Emerson Street area (see map at end of
document)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
3. Contact Person and Phone No.: Larry Lawrence, Project Manager for City,
Lawrence Associates
949 - 661 -8175
4. Project Location: Emerson Street, east of Tustin Avenue and south of 21a`
Street/Holiday Road (see map at end of document)).
5. Project Sponsor's Name /Address: City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
6. General Plan Designations: Low density residential under County of Orange
7. Zoning: Single family residential, under County of Orange
8. Description of Project: General plan amendment, prezoning, and annexation of
approximately 1.9 acres. Prior to review of the
annexation by the Local Agency Formation Commission,
the City of Newport Beach intends to process a general
plan amendment and a zoning amendment in order to
prezone the area.
9. Surrounding Land Uses And Setting (see map at cud of document):
70
To the west,
Residential uses in the City of Costa Mesa
south and east:
To the north:
Residential uses in the City of Newport Beach
70
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and County of Orange.
11. Existing Conditions:
Land Use And Development
With the exception of a few vacant infill lots, the annexation area is built out. Current land uses in the
area include single family homes.
The General Plan and Zoning Code maps for the City of Newport Beach do not cover the proposed
annexation area. Therefore, land use and circulation designations must be adopted by the City in
conjunction with annexation. Thus, general plan and prezoning amendments are part of the present
annexation package.
Public Services
Public safety and other services for the annexation area are currently provided by the County of Orange,
the Orange County Sheriff s Department, and the Orange County Fire Authority.
Utilities and Service Systems
Sewage collection is provided by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District while sewage treatment is
provided by the Orange County Sanitation Districts. Water facilities and service are provided by the
Mesa Consolidated Water District. Solid waste is collected by Waste Management Inc.
12. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
❑
Aesthetics
❑
Geology /Soils
❑
Noise
❑
Agricultural Resources
❑
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
❑
Population/Housing
❑
Air Quality
❑
Hydrology /Water Quality
❑
Public Services
❑
Biological Resources
❑
Land Use/Planning
❑
Recreation
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Transportation/Traffic
❑
Utilities & Service Systems
❑
Mandatory Findings of Significance
No potentially significant impacts were found in any of the above areas. "No Impact" and "No
Significant Impact" responses were given in all categories because the change in jurisdiction
from the County of Orange to the City of Newport Beach will not result in any significant
environmental effect. Any impacts in the areas of public services and utilities, such as police,
fire, water, and sewer, will be less than significant. Also, any impacts on air quality, biological
resources, water quality, or other environmental categories are the result of existing
development, which will not change as a result of the change in jurisdiction.
Emerson Annexation
NMAL STUDY
Page 2
13. Determination. (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the
project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the
environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described
on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project. ❑
July 10, 2003
ignatur Date
Larry Lawrence
Printed Name
Emerson Annexation
INITIAL STUDY
Page 3
SECTIONS: A. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
B. EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES
A. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The Environmental Checklist provides a preliminary analysis of the proposed project's potential for
significant environmental impacts. Sources of information for all responses are specified immediately
following the checklist.
The Initial Study indicates that the project may result in significant environmental impacts but that those
impacts will be reduced to a less- than - significant level through the implementation of mitigation
measures identified in the Study.
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES`
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
' See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
I. AESTHETICS.
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 1,3,4
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 1,3,4
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 1,3,4,5,6
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 1,3,4,5,6
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 1,3,4
or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non - agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 1,3,4,5,6
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Emerson Annexation
INITIAL STUDY
7S Page 4
IMPACT CATEGORY
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non - agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non - attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations or by
the California Dept. of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES`
Impact Mitigation Impact
" See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
❑ ❑ ❑ El 1,3,4,5,6
❑
❑
0
EI
1,3,4,9,10
❑
❑
11
a
1,3,4,9,10
❑
❑
❑
_ H
1,3,4,9,10
11
11
11
0
1,3,4,9,10
0
11
11
0
1,3,4,9,10
11 11 0 0 1,3,4
11 ❑ ❑ R1 1,3,4
Emerson Annexation
INITIAL STUDY
1-2Page 5
IMPACT CATEGORY
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impeded the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially Significant
Significant Unless
Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
" See Source Refe
Less than
Significant Impact SOURCES'
Impact
rences at the end of this Checklist.
❑ I 0 1,3,4
❑ ❑ ❑ 21 1,3,4
❑
❑
❑
0
1,3,4
❑
❑
❑
Q
1,3,4
❑
❑
❑
0
1,3,4
❑
❑
❑
0
1,3,4
❑
❑
❑
Q
1,3,4
❑
❑
❑
a
1,3,4
Emerson Annexation
NITIAL STUDY
gage 6
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant pact SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic - related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project and potentially result
in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18- 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,3,4
❑
❑
❑
0
1,3,4
❑
❑
❑
0
1,3,4
❑
❑
❑
0
1,3,4,7
❑
❑
❑
0
1,3,4,7
❑
❑
❑
0
1,3,4,7
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,34
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 n/a
VII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 2,3,4,5,6
the environment through routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 2,3,4,5,6
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
in}n Lhe envirnnmonL9
Emerson Annexation
INITIAL. STUDY
70 Page 7
IMPACT CATEGORY
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one - quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites which
complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant pact SOURCES*
Impact Mitigation Impact
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 2,3,4,5,6
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 2,3,4,5,6
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 2,3,4,5,6
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 n/a
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 2,3,4,5,6
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 2,3,4,5,6
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 3,4
Emerson Annexation
INITIAL, STUDY
T? age 8
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ Cl Q 3.4
Emerson Annem[ion
INMAL STUDY
.'age 9
IMPACT CATEGORY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than No
Significant pact SOURCES'
Impact
See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies
❑
❑
❑ Q 3,4
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre - existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted)?
c)
Substantially alter the existing drainage
❑
❑
❑ Q 3,4
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
d)
Substantially alter the existing drainage
❑
❑
❑ Q 3,4
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of a course of a stream or river,
or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on or off -site?
e)
Create or contribute runoff water which
❑
❑
❑ Q 3,4
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade water
❑
❑
❑ Q 3,4
quality?
g)
Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard
❑
❑
❑ Q 3,4
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h)
Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area
❑
❑
❑ Q 3,4
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
i)
Expose people or structures to a significant
❑
❑
❑ Q 3,4
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ Cl Q 3.4
Emerson Annem[ion
INMAL STUDY
.'age 9
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant pact SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
* See Source References at the and of this Checklist.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE.
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
❑
❑
❑
0
1,2,3,4,5,6
❑
❑
0
❑
1,2,3,4,5,6
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,3,4,5,6
❑
❑
❑
0
1,3,4
❑
❑
❑
0
1,3,4
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,3,4,8
❑
❑
❑
0
1,2,3,4,8
❑
❑
❑
0
1,2,3,4,8
❑
❑
❑
0
1,2,3,4,8
Emerson Anna ation
MDAr, STUDY
77 10
IMPACT CATEGORY
e) For a project located within an airport land
use land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
I) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
government facilities, need for new or
physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
following public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Parks?
Schools?
Other public facilities?
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant pact SOURCES*
Impact Mitigation Impact
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,3,4,8
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 n/a
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 2,3,4
❑
❑
❑
0
2,3,4
❑
❑
❑
0
2,3,4
❑
❑
0
❑
2,3.4
❑
❑
0
❑
2,3,4
❑
❑
❑
0
2,3,4
❑
❑
❑
0
2,3,4
❑
❑
0
❑
2,3,4
Emerson Annemion
iWnTAL STUDY
20 ge 11
IMPACT CATEGORY
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction of or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative trans-
portation (e.g., bus turnouts, bike racks)?
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES'
Impact Mitigation Impact
See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 2,3,4,6
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,3,4,6
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 2,3,4,6
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 2,3,4,6
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 2,3,4,6
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 2,3,4,6
❑
❑
❑
0
2,3,4,6
❑
❑
❑
0
2,3,4,5,6
❑
❑
❑
0
2,3,45
Emerson Annaalion
114MAL STUDY
gPPage 12
Emerson Annexation
INITIAL, STUDY
g Page 13
IMPACT CATEGORY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
SOURCES*
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
XVI.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a)
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
❑
❑
❑
0
2,3,4,6
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b)
Require or result in the construction of new
❑
❑
❑
2,3,4,6
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c)
Require or result in the construction of new
❑
❑
❑
0
2,3,4,6
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
d)
Have sufficient water supplies available to
❑
❑
❑
0
2,3,4,6
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e)
Result in a determination by the wastewater
❑
❑
❑
0
2,3,4,6
treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient
❑
❑
❑
0
2,3,4,6
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g)
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
❑
❑
❑
0
2,3,4,6
and regulation related to solid waste?
Emerson Annexation
INITIAL, STUDY
g Page 13
IMPACT CATEGORY
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No SOURCES'
Impact Mitigation Impact
See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
a) Does the project have the potential to ❑ ❑ ❑ a 1 -10
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self- sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of a
major period of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are ❑ ❑ ❑ a 1 -10
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? ( "Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects ❑ ❑ ❑ a 1 -10
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one
or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15063). For the present annexation project, no significant impacts have been
identified. All earlier analyses are listed under Source References, below.
XIX. SOURCE REFERENCES.
Documents listed below are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department,
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660 (Note: Reference No. 1 denotes a physical
inspection and therefore is not in the form of a written document).
Emerson Annexation
INITIAL STUDY
gage 14
1. Site visits to annexation area by Larry Lawrence, project manager for City of Newport.
2. Report to Local Agency Formation Commission re Annexation Applications by Newport Beach and
Costa Mesaof Area 7, by Dana Smith, LAFCO Executive Officer, September 16, 2002.
3. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan.
4. General Plan, including all Elements, City of Newport Beach.
5. Zoning Code, Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
6. Zoning Code and Districting Maps, County of Orange.
7. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code.
8. Community Noise Ordinance, Chapter 10.28 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
9. Air Quality Management Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1997.
10. Air Quality Management Plan EIR, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1997.
B. EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES:
In all cases, the selection of the Checklist response was the product of the data sources listed above,
followed by careful consideration of potential impacts from the project under the definitions and
procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines.
No potentially significant impacts were found. "No Impact' and "No Significant Impact"
responses were given in all categories because the change in jurisdiction from the County of
Orange to the City of Newport Beach will not result in any environmental effect Any impacts on
air quality, biological resources, water quality, or other categories are the result of existing
development, which will not change as a result of the change in jurisdiction.
Notwithstanding the lack of significant impact found, the following sections contain further
explanations of responses in the salient areas of Land Use and Planning, Public Services, and
Utilities and Service Systems..
• LAND USE AND PLANNING:
The proposed annexation area is not included on the City of Newport Beach General Plan and
Zoning Maps. Therefore, general plan and prezoning actions by the City of Newport Beach have
been made part of the present annexation project (see page 1 of this Initial Study). The intent of
these applications is to retain comparable land use and zoning regulations as those presently in
effect under the County. Thus, in terms of land use and planning, the net result of the annexation will
be a less- than - significant environmental impact.
Emerson Annexation
WrnAL STUDY
gage 15
• PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Fire and Police - Fire protection services will transfer from the Orange County Fire Authority to
the Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department and police services will transfer from the Orange
County Sheriff to the Newport Beach Police Department. The existing levels of service for both
fire and police protection will be maintained or improved because of the closer proximity of City
offices and facilities than is now the case under County jurisdiction.
2. Other Services - Other public services and facilities, such as administrative, recreation, code
enforcement, planning, public works and others will remain unchanged or possibly improve
because of the closer proximity of City offices and facilities than is now the case.
From the above information, the net effect on public services from the annexation will be a less -than-
significant impact.
• UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
Utility systems are already in place for this built -out area. Water facilities and service are provided by
the Mesa Consolidated Water District. Sewage collection is provided by the Costa Mesa Sanitary
District. Sewage treatment is provided by the Orange County Sanitation Districts. Solid waste is
collected by a private firm, Waste Management Inc.
It is intended that these facilities and services remain with the current providers after annexation.
Thus, there will be no impact on water, sewer, wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal, or other
utility systems as a result of the annexation, and service will continue uninterrupted. The net effect
on utilities and service systems from the annexation will be a less- than - significant impact.
MAP OF ANNEXATION AREA
Emerson Aimmtion
NIT1AL STUDY
g�'ge 16
On11K Vl ]t'/l/ I(O 2012, 1 posted the Notice of Public Hearing regarding:
O2GOK)
5Taraldlsland Annexation
PA2412 -434
Date of City Council Public Hearing: November 27, 2012
=s
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, November 27, 2012, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be
conducted in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. The City
Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application:
Emerson Island Annexation - The project is for the annexation of Emerson Island. Emerson Island is
located in unincorporated Orange County between the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach near the
intersection of Tustin Avenue and Holiday Road. The area to be annexed consists of 9 lots totaling less than
2 acres in area and is developed with single- and multiple -unit dwellings. No site grading or construction is
proposed with this application. The project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment
(prezoning), initiation of the annexation process with the Orange County Local Agency Formation
Commission, and a property tax transfer agreement with the County of Orange and related agencies. On
November 8, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this item and recommended City
Council approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that all significant environmental concerns for the proposed project
have been addressed in a Negative Declaration previously adopted on January 13, 2004, and that the City of
Newport Beach intends to use said document for the above noted project. Copies of the previously prepared
environmental document are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Division or at the City of
Newport Beach website at www. newportbeachca .gov /cegadocuments.
All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. If you challenge this
project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing (described in this notice) or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public
hearing. The agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office (Building B), 3300
Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 or at the City of Newport Beach website at
www.newportbeachca.pov on the Friday prior to the hearing.
For questions regarding details of the project please contact Fern Nueno, Associate Planner at (949) 644 -3227
or fnueno @newportbeachca.gov.
Project File No.: PA2012 -034 Activity No.: General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -001 and Code
Amendment No. CA2012 -002
Leilani Brown, City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
IF
Mh c INo-j Ice'
Costa Mesa Sanitation District Mesa Consolidated Water
628 West 19th Street District
Costa Mesa, CA 92627 1965 Placentia Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Sheriff
1 Fire Authority Road 550 N. Flower Street
Irvine, CA 92602 Santa Ana, CA 92703
John Wayne Airport
Eddie Martin Administration City of Costa Mesa
Building 77 Fair Drive
3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
County of Orange
Hall of Administration
333 W. Santa Ana Boulevard ADDITONAL LABELS
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Newport -Mesa Unified School
District
2985 Bear Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Airport Land Use Commission
3160 Airway Avenue
Costa Mesa, California 92626
PA2012 -034 — Emerson island
.nnexation n
Prepared: 10/26/12
tasy Peel- Lams ,
Use +"'ergo Template 51600
426. 232 -50
NEWPORT HEIGHTS TWO
1501 WESTCLIFF DR UNIT# 260
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 -5504
936 -03 -035
KATHRYN S BELL
2057 TUSTIN AVE UNIT # C
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2180
936 -03 -038
JEFFREY S AND DEBRA J DAVIS
2057 TUSTIN AVE UNIT # F
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2180
Feed Paper expose Pop -Up fdgerM Al 1
936 -03 -033 936 -03 -034
ROBERTS FAMILY LIVING TRUST KENDALL A WAMEL
28071 VIA DE COSTA 2057 TUSTIN AVE UNIT # B
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675 -5377 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2180
936 -03 -036
ROCHELLE ROBERTS
2057 TUSTIN AVE UNIT # D
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2180
936 -03 -065
KiRSTEN A AND JASON A BONE
2063TUSTINAVE UNIT #4
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2173
Etiquettes faciles & peler ♦ Repliez 3 to hachure afin de
Utilisez le abarit AVERYO 51600 Sens de m reviler le rebord Po U Tr
9 j chargeent Pop- Up }
936 -03 -037
JEFFREY E LUCKEY
PO BOX 12234
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -8146
936 -03 -066
ROBERT L PEDERSEN
2075 TUSTIN AVE UNIT #6
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2173
PA2012 -034
forGP2012 -001 CA2012 -002
EMERSON ISLAND ANNEXATION
125 LABELS
www.averycom
1- 800-GO -AVERY 1
easy reer° poets ,
Use Aver1;O Template 51600
426- 232 -02
JOSEPH HRUBOVCAK
374 WOODLAND PL UNIT # A
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2120
426- 232 -05
YVONNE D BROWN
2309 WESTMINSTER AVE
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -1531
426- 232 -09
EUGENE AND NANCY PALAFERRI
2044 GARDEN LN
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2114
426 - 232 -12
STEPHEN S LINCOLN
2048 GARDEN LN
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2114
Bend26M94hakto i M
r k
raed Paper expose Pop-Up Edge ** % y 5iG0 J1
426 - 232 -03
DAVID L GRISCOM
PO BOX 1506
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 -0506
426- 232 -07
KEITH B RANDLE
165E WILSON ST UNIT #B
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -1564
426 - 232-04
BEVERLY V JOURDEN
26811 MAGDALENA LN
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691 -6223
426- 232 -08
ROBYN H RANDLE
1320 ANTLGUA WAY
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
426 - 232 -10 426 - 232 -11
RICHARD L AND ARLANTHIA P ADAMS PAMELA HOWLETT
337 PEACH TREE LN 2049 TUSTIN AVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 -3433 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2117
426 - 232 -13
VERNIE HOUSE
3419 VIA LIDO UNIT # 301
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 -3908
426 - 232 -19 426 - 232 -21
JIMMIE D AND LORRAINE THOMPSON GARDEN LANE LLC
2072A GARDEN LN PO BOX 1448
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2114 SUNSET BEACH, CA 90742 -1448
426- 232 -23 426- 232 -25
J L EDWARDS SEBASTIANO CRIVELLO
2088 GARDEN LN 23443 ABURY AVE
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -7184 MURRIETA, CA 92562 -2226
426 - 232 -31 426 - 232 -32
SCOTT W DUPLEX BARBARA C JOHNSON
1100 QUAIL ST UNIT # 209 2091 TUSTIN AVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 -2700 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2117
426 - 232 -41 426 - 232 -42
TODD P SWANSON THOMAS L KINDER
1048 IRVINE AVE UNIT # 474 383 E 21ST ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 -4602 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2156
426- 232 -44 426 - 232 -45
J P SWIFT DLL PARTNERS LLC
379 E 21ST ST 2360 CORPORATE CIR UNIT # 400
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2156 HENDERSON, NV 89074 -7739
426 - 232 -47
426 - 232 -48
RONALD E LEGRAND
DAVID L BAHNSEN
2095 TUSTIN AVE
539 FULLERTON AVE
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2117
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 -5135
ttiquettes faciles a peter
; it Repliez & to hachure afin de
Util #sez le abarit AVERY& 5160
4
Sens de r�v�ler le rebord Po U T '
j chargament p• p �
426 - 232 -14
PARAMOUNT INVESTMENT TRUST 1
2053 TUSTIN AVE
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2117
426- 232 -22
EUGENE C BOERO
2080 GARDEN LN
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2114
426- 232 -29
BLOCKBURGER & MCCARDLE HOLDING
427 WALNUT PL
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2335
426 - 232-40
SAMEER AND JODY PATHARE
387 E 21ST ST
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2156
426 - 232 -43
JOHN AND CHRISTINE GRITZMACHER
381 E 21ST ST
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2156
426- 232 -46
IN COSTA MESA BEACHCUFF
1501 WESTCLIFF DR UNIT# 260
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 -5504
426 - 232 -49
RICHARD A GONZALES
395 E 21ST ST
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 -2156
www,avery com
1- 800-G0 -AVERY
tasy-wer- t,aoeis , I I A Bend along line to I t�lvy_xQLN% (�
yse AVerpO Template 51600 i Feed Paper ® expose Pop-Up Edge*M U AVERY® 5160® i
426 021 01 426 02102 426 02103
WATERMAN DORIS A PEMSTEIN HAROLD STEVENSON JAMES E & ANN A
2436 HOLIDAY RD 2430 HOLIDAY RD 2424 HOLIDAY RD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
426 02104
426 17122
426 243 01
VADERGRAFF GERRETTE
CAMPBELL TIMOTHY K
BRESSERT MICHAEL
2418 HOLIDAY RD
398 E 20TH ST
400 E BAY ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
426 243 02
426 243 03
426 243 04
RILEY JOYCE P
HARDIE KEVIN
CARICOF PHILIP C
406 E BAY ST
412 E BAY ST
418 E BAY ST
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
426 243 05
426 243 06
426 243 07
HOLDEN LESLIE
DICKERSON TERRY LEE
BENNETT BILL
424 E BAY ST
430 E BAY ST
436 E BAY ST
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
426 243 09
426 243 10
426 243 11
MELTON HEIDI
KINDGREN FRED D
1EFFERIES KEVIN R & PATRICIA
2052 TUSTIN AVE
2056 TUSTIN AVE
411 EMERSON ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
426 243 12
426 243 13
426 243 16
RASK HELEN
DOYLE S 1 & S M
PROVENCE HILDEGARD
PO BOX 9215
421 EMERSON ST
410 EMERSON ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
426 243 17
426 243 18
426 243 19
DEMILLE DAVID E
GROSS] CHRISTOPHER J
DUTTA MANISH
233 FLOWER ST
2072 TUSTIN AVE
2074 TUSTIN AVE
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
426 243 20
426 243 21
426 243 22
YATES BARBARA 1
RAUS ROBERT E
BATOOSINGH SITA
2078 TUSTIN AVE
2084 TUSTIN AVE
2090 TUSTIN AVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
426 243 23
426 243 24
426 243 25
OSBORNE DENNIS L
CAMERON STEVEN
HEINEY ANN B & UDT
2437 HOLIDAY RD
2431 HOLIDAY RD
1743 BONAIRE WAY
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
426 243 26
426 243 27
426 243 28
PLANT DEAN G
STAMY RICHARD L
WEBB H LAWRENCE
1737 BONAIRE WAY
1731 BONAIRE WAY
96 ARCHIPELAGO DR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657
Etiquettes faciles a peter
i A Repiiez 31a hachure afin de
Sens de
www.overycom
Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600
i r�v�ler le re6ord Po U ,
chargement p- p""
1 -800.G0 -AVERY
i
1
tasy reel— t wets , I
Template 51600
I
® Bend along line to i
'eed Paper Pop-Up EdgeTM
/�� i Z/ �i�/� 5160 E
`_2 l
Use Aver�0
j
expose
i
426 243 29
426 243 30
426 243 31
FIXED MANAGEMENT INC
KENDALL ROBERT RICHARD
NEWMEYER THOMAS F
65 PINE AVE #16
1742 BONAIRE WAY
1748 BONAIRE WAY
LONG BEACH, CA 90802
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
426 243 32
426 243 33
426 243 34
RED LEONARD A
CLARK ROBERT W
BIG CITY ENTS LLC
1743 BAYPORT WAY
1737 BAYPORT WAY
5544 E OCEAN BLVD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
LONG BEACH, CA 90803
426 243 35
426 243 36
426 243 37
FURMAN GEOFFREY D
HARDY MICHAEL G
WAITS RICHARD C
1730 BAYPORT WAY
1736 BAYCOURT WAY
1742 BAYPORT WAY
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
426 243 38
426 244 01
426 244 02
MATTHEWS JR, ARTURO E
SHANDY
OKIEFFE LISA
1748 BAYPORT WAY
2046 TUSTIN AVE
2044 TUSTIN AVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
426 244 03
426 24404
426 244 05
BRUNDAGE NANCY)
MCFARLAND EDWARD V
HANSEN SHARON IRENE
1837 PORT MAN LEIGH PL
115 BOUQUET CANYON DR
407 GLOUCESTER DR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
PALM DESERT, CA 92211
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
426 244 06
426 244 07
426 244 08
GILLIAM DOW
RAMP KATHLEEN C
GILLIAM MARIE E
409 GLOUCESTER DR
411 GLOUCESTER DR
413 GLOUCESTER DR
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
426 244 09
426 244 10
426 24411
GORDON SARAH E
CAULFIELD AMY
HAZEWtNKEL SR, VAN
415 GLOUCESTER DR
417 GLOUCESTER DR
419 GLOUCESTER DR
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
426 24412
426 244 13
426 244 14
MC CHURCH AIMEE
ROY EVELYN
SARANDAN LYDIA M
421 GLOUCESTER DR
423 GLOUCESTER DR
425 GLOUCESTER DR
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
426 244 15
426 24416
426 24417
NIMMO JANICE
HALL RON
KOKOL CAROL
443 E BAY ST
PO BOX 1521
431 GLOUCESTER DR
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
AVALON, CA 90704
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
426 244 18
426 244 19
426 244 20
SINCLAIR ROY P
STSURE
KING SHIRLEY H
2050 ALISO AVE
1818 COMMODORE RD
437 GLOUCESTER DR
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
Etiquettes faciles 6 paler
, Replier & la hachure afln de i
Sens de
www.avery.com
Utilisez le gabarit AVERYO 51600
chargement revaler le rebord Po p' p U TM
1- 800-GO -AVERY
Easy Peer ta#efs ,
Use AveryO Template 51600
426 244 21
AMIRGHAHARI ELISABETH
22092 SHADYVALE LN
LAKE FOREST, CA 92630
426 244 24
MILLER
445 GLOUCESTER DR
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
426 244 27
MATHERS MONICA UN
426 EMERSON ST
COSTA MESA,CA 92627
426 244 30
KAUFFMAN MARY JANE
434 EMERSON ST
COSTA MESA,CA 92627
426 244 33
EYRE LESLIE MAE
9622 BLOOMFIELD ST
COSTA MESA, CA 96030
426 244 36
KINDGREN
2056 TUSTIN AVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
426 244 39
CONWAY SHAN MARIE
2071 CHURCHILL CT
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
426 25107
UHLTERRELS
2581 WILLO LN
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
426 251 11
LOUCKS STEVEN C & STEPHANIE A
1737 CENTELLA PL
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
_ Band along line to i
' -ed Paper Pop
t > //�� AVER Y@ 51660 i
tom`
expose -Up EdgeTm
,<
426 244 22
426 244 23
FINSTER LINDA GORDON
TIFT -LODER DELIGHTE
441 GLOUCESTER DR
443 GLOUCESTER DR
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
426 244 25
426 244 26
TORRESRUTH
KOSI FRANK J
447 GLOUCESTER DR
2824 NEWPORT BLVD
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
426 244 28
426 244 29
BURGGREN CHELSEA
STICKLER ROBERTA
428 EMERSON ST
432 EMERSON ST
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
426 244 31 426 244 32
KAGY ROBYN SCHROEDER KARIN
436 EMERSON ST 438 EMERSON ST
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 COSTA MESA, CA 92627
426 244 34
426 244 35
BLACKBURN ELIZABETH H
DIEDRICH INGEBORG
444 EMERSON ST
446 EMERSON ST
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
426 244 37
426 244 38
CHURCHILL CYNTHIA G
COURIER TAFFEY A
2074 CHURCHILL CT
2072 CHURCHILL CT
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
426 244 40
426 244 41
PARKER SARA L
HUBKA MICHAEL
2075 CHURCHILL CT
2071 CHURCHILL CT
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
N- EWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
426 25108 426 251 10
GRABER TIMOTHYE 1 & JANIS L WENHOLZ CLARA RUSSELL
2058 ALISO AVE 1731 CENTELLA PL
COSTA MESA, CA 92627 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
426 251 12
BANDELIN JAMES KAY
1747 CENTELLA PL
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
Etiquettes faciles b paler ♦ Repliez h is hachure afin de i www.averycom t
Utilisez le ga6arit AVERY 5164 Sens de
chS dent r €v6ler to rehord Pop -Uplm 1- 800 -GO -AVERY i
%
••00I 0'
.' 0-1111MAN •
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I am a citizen of the United States and a
resident of the County of Los Angeles; I
am over the age of eighteen years, and
not a party to or interested in the notice
published. 1 am a principal clerk of the
NEWPORT BEACH/COSTA MESA
DAILY PILOT, which was adjudged a
newspaper of general circulation on
September 29, 1961, case A6214, and
June 11, 1963, case A24831, for the
City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange,
and the State of California. Attached to
this Affidavit is a true and complete copy
as was printed and published on the
following date(s):
Saturday, November 17, 2012
I certify (or declare) under penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Executed on November 23, 2012
at Los Angeles, California
W �
Signature
L
lLJ1