Laserfiche WebLink
City of Newport Beach <br />Hearing Officer Resolution <br />Abatement Extension - Morrison <br />(1526 Placentia Avenue) <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />2. The length of time the use was operating prior to the date of nonconformity <br />justifies the extension of the abatement period beyond the code specified <br />one year. <br />Facts in Support of Finding: The property became nonconforming in 2006 when the <br />City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006 -76 approving a General Plan Update. The <br />existing structure and use conformed to the Land Use Element of the General Plan for <br />40 years prior to the General Plan Update. An extension to the one -year abatement <br />period is justified due to the significant length of time that the use was operating in <br />conformance with the General Plan. <br />3. The existing structure is not suitable for conversion to an alternate use. <br />Facts in Support of Finding: The building could be modified to accommodate other <br />commercial or nonresidential uses. However, the current building is not suitable for <br />conversion from the existing commercial use to a residential building without near total <br />demolition and major renovation to provide adequate living areas and residential <br />parking consistent with current Code requirements. <br />4. No harm to the public will result if the nonresidential use remains beyond <br />the one year abatement period. <br />Facts in Support of Finding: The property is located in an area that is currently occupied <br />by other nonresidential uses; including office, medical office and retail uses included a <br />convenience /liquor store. The continued commercial use of the subject property, which <br />has existed for 45 years, is compatible with the surrounding uses and is not likely to <br />have any negative impact or pose harm on the neighboring residential and <br />nonresidential uses in the vicinity. <br />5. The cost and feasibility of relocating the use to another site cannot be <br />accommodated within the one -year abatement period. <br />Facts in Support of Finding: The relocation of the present use would be costly since <br />there is no storefront unit or comparable building within the general vicinity of the <br />property to accommodate relocation. Consequently, relocation would result in a loss of <br />clientele and could result in a prolonged loss of revenue as clientele is re- established in <br />a new location. <br />WHEREAS, this activity has been determined to be categorically exempt under <br />the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing <br />F: \USGRS'•.PL\' \Sharnl \PA'S\ PAS - 2011\PA201 i- 059TA201 I- 059 - R"o of Approval FINAL - 11 -JO -201 1 .docx <br />