Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHO2015-001 -ABATEMENT PERIOD EXTENSION -1499 Monrovia Avenue RESOLUTION NO. H02015-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN ABATEMENT PERIOD EXTENSION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1499 MONROVIA AVENUE (PA2014-191) 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 Kobe Inc., with respect to property located at 1499 Monrovia Avenue, and legally described as Parcel 2 of Lot Line Adjustment No. 2007-002, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, recorded October 4, 2007, as Instrument No. 2007-598931, excepting therefrom the northerly 60 feet, being more particularly described as that portion of 15th Street (60 feet wide), vacated and abandoned by Resolution No. 67-863 of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, a certified copy of which was recorded August 11, 1967 in Book 8339, Page 801, of Official Records of said Orange County. The applicant requests approval of an abatement period extension of 10 years in addition to a previous extension until February 1, 2022. 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. 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 1957 has been; improved with an approximately 17,000 square-foot office building. The applicant proposes to reinvest in the existing building through interior and exterior modifications and improvements. The applicant requests to allow the existing nonresidential use to continue to February 1, 2032, without abatement; and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held on January 8, 2015, in a meeting room 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 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: Hearing Officer Resolution No. HO2015-001 Page 2 of 6 A. Is the length of the abatement period appropriate considering the owner's investment in the use? Finding: Yes. The structure is rather old and in need of repairs. It was recently purchased for $5.8 million and the applicant proposes an additional investment of approximately $5 million more. It is reasonable to assume that a lengthy amortization period is required to financially support an investment of this level. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The property owner purchased the property in October of 2014 for $5.8 million. The applicant intends to invest more than $5 million to improve the existing building and requests an abatement extension for an additional ten years to February 1, 2032. This would leave 17 years to make use of the existing office structure on the site, continuing the existing use for some 18 years without any potential required abatement of the nonconforming use. The existing abatement period of seven years is insufficient given the condition of the existing building and proposed renovations. 2. Based on the information submitted, an extension of an additional 10 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 ten years to February 1, 2032 is appropriate in this case since it will afford the property owner the ability to amortize the value of the proposed building improvements and secure financing of the property which can be impossible if a potential abatement of uses is imminent. 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 1957. 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 became nonconforming with the General Plan and zoning in 2006, 8 years ago. The existing structure and use conformed to the Land Use Element of the General Plan for 49 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 land uses and there is no evidence of any nuisance arising from such use. 2. At the hearing several people testified in support of the continued office use of this building, and even suggested the applicant be given a longer period of amortization than that sought. This is clear evidence that the nonconforming use has not resulted in any negative impacts or nuisance to the community in the surrounding neighborhood. 07-22-2014 Hearing Officer Resolution No. HO2015-001 Page 3 of 6 3. 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: Not without total demolition or unreasonably high costs of changing the use to residential. Facts in support of finding: 1. The building could be modified to accommodate other commercial or nonresidential uses but not within reasonably justifiable parameters. The existing building is currently vacant and was last occupied by an editorial and publishing business. The building was originally constructed to commercial building code requirements that would prove very difficult if it were required to be converted to a residential building or use. Such conversion would require demolishing and building new; or major renovation with significant structural and seismic alterations to provide adequate living areas and residential garages. 2. As noted above, there was no objection to the continued commercial use from the surrounding community, and were there some preferable alternative use, it would seem that this segment would argue for that use. Without objection, it makes continuation of the existing use the best alternative. D. Would remaining at this site beyond the abatement period result in any public harm? Finding: No. The public supports this continued use. 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. Facts in support of finding: 1. The property is in an area that includes a mix of nonresidential and residential uses; including Coastline Community College, the Banning Ranch Project, and residential and mobile home park uses (across Monrovia Avenue). The continued commercial office use of the subject property is compatible with the surrounding uses and will not have any negative impact or pose harm on the neighboring residential and nonresidential uses in the vicinity. 2. The existing office building has not posed a negative impact on the neighboring uses and the proposed upgrades will enhance the site and surrounding neighborhood. 3. Community support for this continued use underscores its compatibility at the present time. E. Would relocation of the facility to another site be overly costly and infeasible? 07-22-2014 Hearing Officer Resolution No. H02015-001 Page 4 of 6 Finding: Yes. This building cost almost $6 million to purchase, and there is no evidence that there are other suitable properties for sale in Newport Beach at all, let alone at a price that would allow the subject property to be resold to support relocating to a new site. This would be especially difficult to accomplish within the original one-year abatement period. Facts in support of finding: 1. The relocation of the proposed use is difficult since there are no buildings of comparable size (approximately 17,000 square feet) in the Newport Mesa Area to accommodate the occupant's needs. 2. The property owner's investment with the purchase of the property would result in a substantial loss of revenue to the property owner if the existing building could not continue to be used for nonresidential purposes. As noted above, it would be extremely costly to convert this existing structure to residential use, probably requiring demolition and reconstruction. This would be an unreasonable expenditure to expect the owner to shoulder. 3. If the owner were to be required to abate the property to residential use within the one-year period outlined in the NBMC, that deprivation of substantially all viable use of the property might result in a taking of the premises without payment of adequate compensation. This issue is somewhat reduced by virtue of the existing abatement extension, but even then the lack of suitable alternatives and extremely high costs of converting the existing facility to residential would seem unfair; and WHEREAS, 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. It can be seen with 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 (PA2014-191) for the subject property located at 1499 Monrovia Avenue, Newport Beach, CA, subject to the findings and considerations set forth above and the condition set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. The Abatement Period Extension for the property located at 1499 Monrovia Avenue, and legally described as Parcel 2 of Lot Line Adjustment 2007-002, is hereby extended for an additional ten years, to expire on February 1, 2032, at which time all nonresidential use of the 07-22-2014 Hearing Officer Resolution No. HO2015-001 Page 5 of 6 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. 3. 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. 4. This resolution is intended to apply at the conclusion of the extension previously granted by Hearing Officer Resolution No. HO2012-002 (PA2012-152), and is additive to that determination, and does not in any way nullify or void that decision. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015. BY: William B. Conners, Municipal Law Consultant Hearing Officer for the City of Newport Beach 07-22-2014 Hearing Officer Resolution No. H02015-001 Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1. The abatement extension granted herein shall be conditional upon the applicant demonstrating an actual intent to construct the improvements to the internal and external portions of the structure by securing appropriate permits and commencing such construction within 12 months of the date of this Resolution, with completion to occur within 24 months after construction commences. It is the intent of this condition that applicant actively commence and continue construction of the improvements to ensure that the extension remains justified based on economic conditions related to such improvements. Should the applicant fail to comply with this condition of approval, the grant of extension is automatically withdrawn and denied, subject to further review of the matter by a hearing officer at that time. 07-22-2014