Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHO2017-001 - Approving the abatement extension period for the property located at 1441 Superior Ave RESOLUTION NO. HO2017-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN ABATEMENT PERIOD EXTENSION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1441 SUPERIOR AVENUE (PA2017-143) THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, Chapter 20.38.100 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) requires nonconforming nonresidential uses in residential zoning districts to be abated and terminated upon a specified period of time unless that period of time is extended by a resolution from the Hearing Officer after a noticed public hearing to allow the property owner to amortize the owner’s investment in the nonconforming property or to avoid an unconstitutional taking of property; and WHEREAS, an application was filed by Lisa DeLormier, with respect to property located at 1441 Superior Avenue, and legally described as a Portion of Lot 819, First Addition to Newport Mesa Tract. The applicant requests approval of an abatement period extension to 2045, a lengthening of the abatement period for 24 years in addition to a previous extension ending December 15, 2021. The subject property is located within the RM (Multi-Unit Residential) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is RM (Multiple-Unit Residential). The subject property is not located within the coastal zone; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes an extension of the required abatement period specified by Section 20.38.100 (Abatement Periods) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as previously extended as noted above. The property is now, and at all times since 1959 been improved with an approximately 8,233 square-foot office building. The applicant requests to allow the existing nonresidential use to continue to December 15, 2045, without abatement; and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held on September 27, 2017, in the Crystal Cove Conference Room (Bay D-2nd Floor) of the Newport Beach City Hall facility located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA. Evidence, both written and oral, including a written staff report and testimony from the property owner was presented and considered by the Hearing Officer, William B. Conners; and WHEREAS, the findings and considerations required to be considered by the Hearing Officer pursuant to NBMC Section 20.38.100.C.4.c. together with facts and information in support of such findings are set forth following: A. Is the length of the abatement period appropriate considering the owner's investment in the use? Finding: Yes. The office building has occupied the site for the past 58 years. The property owner also owns the building and adjacent property at 1445 Superior Avenue which is occupied by a convalescent hospital and is a conforming use. The lease of the convalescent hospital expires on December 31, 2045. The uses at 1441 Superior Avenue have the benefit of using parking spaces at 1445 Superior Avenue pursuant to the existing lease. Hearing Officer Resolution No. HO2017-001 Page 2 of 5 07-22-2014 Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The property owner has considered redevelopment of the property with a conforming use. The irregular size, the access, and the shared parking creates Building Code and parking issues preventing viable re-use or redevelopment of the property. The most viable solution would be to combine the three adjacent properties (1441 Superior Avenue, 1445 Superior Avenue, and 1455F Superior Avenue) into one development. The property owner’s abilit y to fund this potential future project could be affected by the loss of income resulting from the abatement of any of the uses that currently occupy the subject property. 2. Based on the information submitted, an extension of an additional 24 years for the abatement of the current uses is necessary to avoid the economic hardship that would otherwise result. 3. The abatement extension of an additional 24 years to December 15, 2045, is appropriate in this case since it will afford the property owner the ability to amortize the value of the future redevelopment of their three adjacent properties at 1441 Superior Avenue, 1455 Superior Avenue and 1455F Superior Avenue. B. Does the length of time the use was operating prior to the date of nonconformity justify the extension of the abatement period beyond the code specified one year? Finding: Yes. The property has been used as a commercial office building since 195 9 when the use conformed to then current zoning. There is no evidence of any negative impact to the surrounding areas and in the context of surrounding uses, and has the support of a number of neighbors. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The property conformed to zoning when it was improved with the existing office building in 1959, but became nonconforming with the General Plan and Zoning Code in 2006, 11 years ago. The existing structure and use conformed to the Land Use Element of the General Plan for 47 years prior to the 2006 update, and was not subject to abatement until 2008. At all relevant times, the commercial office use has been compatible with the surrounding residential and non-residential land uses and there is no evidence of any nuisance arising from such use. 2. The substantial period of time of use without noted problems underscores a high probability of continued successful integration into the surrounding environs, supporting the extension sought. C. Would the existing structure be suitable for an alternative use? Finding: No. current building is not suitable for conversion from the existing commercial use to a residential building without demolishing and building new, or major renovation to provide Hearing Officer Resolution No. HO2017-001 Page 3 of 5 07-22-2014 adequate living areas and residential parking. The size and access to the property do not allow for a viable project. Facts in support of finding: 1. The existing building fronts on Superior Avenue, and 1441 Superior Avenue shares a driveway with 1445 Superior Avenue, which p rovides services that lend themselves to the use by elderly clients, customers, and/or patients such as a conforming adult day care use which is ideal. However, after years of extensive due diligence to repurpose the building for such use, all efforts were unsuccessful. All potential tenants cited limited access and parking as factors to not pursue occupancy of the building. The current building is not suitable for conversion from the existing commercial use to a residential building without demolishing an d building new, or major renovation to provide adequate living areas and residential parking. The subject property is too small for an apartment or condominium project, would share a driveway with the convalescent hospital, and would have to comply with all current Newport Beach Code requirements. D. Would remaining at this site beyond the abatement period result in any public harm? Finding: No. There is no evidence that extending the nonconforming use will result in any negative impact or harm to the public. There is no evidence that the continued commercial office use will result in any change whatsoever, and the evidence presented is that the use is appropriate and acceptable to the surrounding neighborhoods at the current time. In fact there is evidence that the current use supports and enhances the surrounding elder care uses. Facts in support of finding: 1. The subject property is in an area that is occupied by other nonresidential uses; including office, medical office (across the street) and a convalescent hospital. Furthermore, the property owner has reached out to stakeholders in the area (most notably the four assisted living facilities within one mile of the subject property) and the need for support services was expressed such as behavioral health services for seniors, physical therapy for seniors and a local pharmacy that will make deliveries. The subject property has a physical therapy tenant, psychologists and a pharmacist who are looking for leases greater than 10 years. These uses are the least impactful to parking which has always been an issue in this area. 2. The existing office building has not posed a negative im pact on the neighboring uses, including the adjacent apartment residents to the west. E. Would relocation of the facility to another site be overly costly and infeasible? Finding: Yes. The property owner does not have any other properties to which the tenants could relocate. Facts in support of finding: Hearing Officer Resolution No. HO2017-001 Page 4 of 5 07-22-2014 1. The relocation of the proposed use is difficult since the property owner only owns buildings within the immediate vicinity that are also zoned residential. 2. The property owner’s investment into the redevelopment of their other properties into conforming uses (1455G Superior and 1455F Superior) was already costly. Abatement of the existing uses would result in additional revenue loss and could impact the future redevelopment. This would be an unreasonable expenditure to exp ect the owner to shoulder. F. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 15315, Article 19 of Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities)), and furthermore this abatement period extension has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and not subject to the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061(b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines and it can be seen with relative certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment and therefore it is not subject to CEQA; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Hearing Officer of the City of Newport Beach hereby conditionally grants and approves the requested Abatement Period Extension (PA2017-143) for the subject property located at 1441 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, CA, subject to the findings and considerations set forth above and the conditions set forth following. 2. The evidence presented in support of the matter, including the staff report, and all oral testimony presented at the hearing, along with this Resolution, are hereby accepted into and shall constitute the record in this matter. 3. The Abatement Period Extension for the subject property located at 1441 Superior Avenue, and legally described as a Portion of Lot 819, First Addition to Newport Mesa Tract, is hereby extended for an additional 24 years, expiring on December 15, 2045, at which time all nonresidential uses of the property shall cease or the building be demolished unless an additional extension of the abatement period is granted or an appropriate change in the Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Designation are approved and adopted, or a change to the Zoning Regulations pertaining to nonconforming uses or their abatement are approved and adopted prior to that date. 4. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code . 5. This resolution is intended to operate in an additive manner at the conclusion of the current extension previously granted by Hearing Officer Resolution No. HO2011-006 (PA2011- 032), and does not in any way nullify or void that decision . The extension shall be automatic