Laserfiche WebLink
RESOLUTION NO. HO 2012- 001 <br />A RESOLUTION OF A HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY <br />OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING THE ABATEMENT <br />EXTENSION PERIOD FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT <br />500 JASMINE AVENUE (PA 2011 -012) <br />WHEREAS, Chapter 20.38.100 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) <br />requires nonconforming nonresidential uses in residential zoning districts to be abated <br />and terminated upon the expiration of time periods identified by the NBMC. Following <br />the issuance of an Abatement Order, Chapter 20.38.100 provides that a property owner <br />may request an extension of the abatement period in order, to amortize a property <br />owner's investment in the property and avoid an unconstitutional taking of property; and <br />WHEREAS, an application was filed by Ronald W. Yeo, the owner of property <br />located at 500 Jasmine Avenue, and legally described as Lot 2, Block 537, Corona Del <br />Mar Tract, requesting an extension of the abatement period specified by the NBMC <br />Section 20.38.100. If granted, the extension will allow the continued operation of existing <br />commercial use for ten years from the date of the Hearing Officer's approval (February <br />1, 2022). The property is located in the R -2 Zoning District, where such nonresidential <br />uses are not permitted; and <br />WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on February 1, 2012, in the City Hall Council <br />Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place <br />and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the NBMC and other <br />applicable laws. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented and considered at this <br />meeting; and <br />WHEREAS, the hearing was presided over by Hon. John C. Woolley, retired <br />Judge (California Superior Court, Orange County), Hearing Officer for the City of <br />Newport Beach; and <br />WHEREAS, the findings and considerations of Section 20.38.100 (C.4(c)) of the <br />NBMC and facts in support of the findings and considerations are as follows: <br />1. The length of the abatement period is not appropriate considering the <br />owner's investment in the use; <br />Facts in Support of Finding: The one year abatement period specified by the Municipal <br />Code is not of sufficient duration to amortize the property owner's investment in <br />improvements and additions made to the building. The information submitted by the <br />applicant supports staff recommendation that an extension of 10 years for the <br />abatement of the current uses is necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of the <br />applicant's property. Supporting information has not been presented to justify an <br />extension period of more than ten years. Subsequently, the ten year period would allow <br />the owner /tenant additional time to transition out of the building and to pursue other <br />options to continue the use of the building beyond the 10 years recommended. An <br />