Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMonvrovia Avenue- LA2007-007 (PA2007-039)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 3 May 3, 2007 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department Brandon Nichols, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3234 bnichols@oity.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Appeal of Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2007 -002 (PA2007 -039) APPELLANT: Planning Commissioner Robert Hawkins ISSUE: Should the Planning Commission uphold or reverse the Zoning Administrator's approval of Lot Line Adjustment LA2007 -002? RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator. DISCUSSION: Background On March 5, 2007, the Zoning Administrator approved the application of Monrovia Avenue LLC (the "Applicant ") for Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2007 -002 (the "Adjustment "). The Adjustment proposed to move a lot line between two adjacent lots, herein referred to as the "north lot" and the "south lot ". The Adjustment, as approved by the Zoning Administrator, moved the existing lot line 30 feet to the north of its current location. All land taken from the north lot was added to the south lot and no additional parcels were created as a result of the Adjustment. A copy of the City's approval letter and the lot line adjustment application are attached as Exhibits 1 and 2. At the time of approval of the Adjustment, the City had a separate application on file for a residential subdivision involving the north and south lots. That project application has since been withdrawn. The Applicant's letter of withdrawal is attached as Exhibit 3. 12 LA2007 -002 Appeal May 3, 2007 Page 2 3 LA2007 -002 Appeal May 3, 2007 Page 3 A mitigated negative declaration had been prepared and circulated for the project in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As part of the project, a 104 -foot wide right -of -way dedication was proposed as a condition of approval to accommodate the future extension of 15th Street as shown on the City's Circulation Element. The lot line proposed to be moved by the Adjustment currently lies at the centerline of the future right -of -way as shown on the City's Circulation Element. Approval of the Adjustment would transfer 30' feet of the future right -of -way from the northerly lot to the southerly lot. An access drive and parking spaces serving the south lot are partially located within this 30 foot area (currently part of the north lot). The lot line adjustment consolidates these areas into the south lot. (See Exhibit 2) Appeal On March 16, 2007, Planning Commissioner Robert Hawkins filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of Lot Line Adjustment No. 2007 -002. The appeal was filed in accordance with Municipal Code section 20.95.050. For Lot Line Adjustments, the proper section relating to appeals and calls for review is set forth in Section 19.76.020(H) of the Municipal Code which allows for a Planning Commissioner to call a matter up for review in accordance with Section 19.12.060 of the Municipal Code. While Commissioner Hawkins' March 16, 2007 correspondence references appeals under Municipal Code Section 20.95.050, this appeal should have been entitled a call for review as provided in Municipal Cade Section 19.76.020(H). In general, the Planning Staff and City Attorney's Office opinion is that the use of the term "appeal" instead of "call for review" by Commissioner Hawkins does not create a procedural bar to hearing this matter. Similarly, the fact that Commissioner Hawkins referenced Section 20.95.050 of the Municipal Code in his appeal /call for review does not create a procedural bar to the Planning Commission hearing this matter. Timing of Appeal Pursuant to Section 19.12.060(6)(4) of the Municipal Code, the time for hearing of an appeal is thirty (30) days after the filing of the appeal. In this case, the appeal was filed on March 16, 2007 and the hearing is to be conducted on May 3, 2007 outside of the thirty (30) day window. This creates an issue as to whether the Planning Commission has lost jurisdiction over this matter given that hearing was not calendared within the thirty (30) day time period. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed this matter and has determined that the Planning Commission does not lose jurisdiction over this matter because the time limits set forth in the Municipal Code are directory rather than mandatory. Specifically, the "directory" or "mandator" designation of a time limit set forth in an ordinance does not refer to whether a particular statutory requirement is "permissive" or "obligatory," but instead simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which the procedural requirement relates. In similar cases, the 7 LA2007 -002 Appeal May 3, 2007 Page 4 Courts have held that an action by a reviewing body outside of the statutory time limits does not divest the reviewing body of jurisdiction over the matter. Grounds for Appeal In general, the grounds cited in the call for review for consideration by the Planning Commission are as follows. 1. The Adjustment violates the City's Subdivision Code because the findings required for approval of the Adjustment were improperly made. 2. The Adjustment is inconsistent with the City's General Plan Circulation Element because it impacts a future right -of -way delineated in the Circulation Element. 3. The Adjustment violates the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is part of a larger project and the environmental impacts of the action cannot be analyzed independently of the larger project. The letter calling for review of this matter is attached for reference as Exhibit 4. A letter submitted by Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP, legal counsel for the Applicant, was submitted in response to the call for review and has been attached as Exhibit 5. Analysis Genera! Findings Section 19.76.030 of the City Subdivision Code establishes General Findings that are required for the approval of a lot line adjustment. Chapter 19.76 of the Subdivision Code (Lot Line Adjustments) has been attached for reference as Exhibit 6. The required General Findings are summarized below. • The Adjustment cannot be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of the community. • The Adjustment cannot be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. • The Adjustment must be consistent with the legislative intent of the Subdivision Code. In Commissioner Hawkins' call for review, he requests that the Planning Commission review whether the Adjustment is detrimental to the community because it is inconsistent with the General Plan Circulation Element which calls for the extension of Wh Street. Here, the proposed Adjustment moves the existing lot line 30 feet north of its current location. Based upon the current location of the line, parking and access for the building on the south lot are partially located on the north lot. The Adjustment I.� LA2007 -002 Appeal May 3, 2007 Page 5 consolidates the parking and access driveway into the south lot. It is Staff's determination that the Adjustment does not impact the Circulation Element, which continues to depict the extension of 15`" Street as a 104' wide right -of -way. Any future project on the north or south lot will be required to comply with the Circulation Element. Specific Findings Section 19.76.030 also establishes Specific Findings required for approval of a lot line adjustment. The Specific Findings are summarized below. • Any land taken from one parcel must be added to an adjacent parcel and no additional parcels will be created. • The parcels created by the lot line adjustment must comply with applicable zoning regulations and there will be no change in land use, density or intensity. • The lot line adjustment, in and of itself, will not result in the need for additional improvements and /or facilities. Commissioner Hawkins in his call for review also asks the Planning Commission to consider whether the Specific Findings for approval can be made since the project is part of a larger project application. The larger project application being referred to, however, has since been withdrawn. The proposed Adjustment, in and of itself, does not result in the creation of additional parcels, and land taken from one parcel is being added to an adjacent parcel. The resultant parcels comply with the applicable zoning regulations for the M-1 -A district and no change in land use, density or intensity results from the Adjustment. The Adjustment relocates a line in the middle of a potential future right -of -way and does not result in the need for additional improvements or facilities. Staffs determination is that the Adjustment satisfies the Specific Findings required for approval of a lot line adjustment. Environmental Determination Requirements for environmental review are established by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In this case, the Zoning Administrator found that the Adjustment was categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). Section 15305 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA Guidelines ") defines the types of projects that qualify for a Class 5 exemption. According to this section, Class 5 exemptions consist of "minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20% that do not result in any changes in land use intensity or density" including "minor lot line adjustments .... not resulting in the creation of any new parcel ". In the April 4, 2007 response to Commissioner Hawkins' call for review, the Applicant contends that a lot line adjustment is not a "project" for purposes of CEQA. CEQA I LA2007 -002 Appeal May 3, 2007 Page 6 defines a "project" as an activity carried out, supported by, or authorized by a public agency, "which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." The City Attorney's Office has reviewed this matter and has opined that a lot line adjustment is a project for purposes of CEQA based on the definition and the fact that a specific exemption has been created for lot line adjustments. The primary question here is whether the Class 5 exemption relied upon by the Zoning Administrator is appropriate or whether this lot line adjustment is part of a bigger project. At the time the Zoning Administrator approved the lot line adjustment, the lot line adjustment was part of a larger project. However, the Applicant has withdrawn the larger project which, in Staffs opinion, resolves the argument that the project is being piecemealed. Noticing Requirements In Commissioner Hawkins' call for review, he requests that the Planning Commission review whether the Adjustment was properly noticed pursuant to the requirements of the Municipal Code and State Law. Specifically, Commissioner Hawkins requests that the Commission determine whether the contents of the notice were adequate to describe the approval and whether an erroneous vicinity map was inconsistent with the noticing requirements of the Municipal Code and State Law. A copy of the public notice circulated for the project has been included as Exhibit 7. Municipal Code Section 19.76.020(D) states that procedures for noticing and conduct of hearings for lot line adjustments shall be in accordance with Chapter 20.93 of the Municipal Code. Municipal Code Section 20.93.025 requires mailed or delivered notices to property owners within 300' feet of the boundaries of the site and requires a posted notice in 2 conspicuous places on or close to the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing. Municipal Code Section 20.93.025(D) states that the required notice shall contain the following. 1. A description of the location of the project site and the purpose of the application. 2. A statement of the time, place, and purpose of the public hearing. 3. A reference to application materials on file for detailed information. 4. A statement that any interested person or authorized agent may appear and be heard. A vicinity map was not included in the notice and is not required pursuant to the Municipal Code. The map referred to in the call for review is contained in the approval letter for the project, and does incorrectly depict the lots involved in the adjustment. As stated, this map was not a part of the circulated notice for the project. The notice does contain a written description of the project location that references the correct 74 LA2007 -002 Appeal May 3, 2007 Page 7 addresses for the parcels involved. It is therefore Staffs determination that the location was correctly represented in the notice. Commissioner Hawkins also requests the Planning Commission review whether the notice fails to adequately explain or depict the nature of the Approval. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 20.93.025(D) the notice must describe the purpose of the application. The notice contained the following language describing the application. "Adjustment of a lot line between two existing lots and to combine portions of an abandoned right -of -way into the existing southerly lot. All existing easements will be continued and may be in the form of separate instrument" It is Staffs determination that the language adequately describes the application request. The notice also states that a pubic hearing will be held for consideration of the application and that further information can be obtained by contacting the Planning Department. Commissioner Hawkins also requests the Planning Commission review whether notice of the action of approval was inconsistent with the Municipal Code and State taw since the notice of the approval was not mailed to the Planning Commissioners in a timely fashion. This is a procedural issue that is being addressed by the Planning Department. Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Alternatives: The Planning Commission may modify the Zoning Administrator's approval, or disapprove, in whole or in part, the approval of the Lot Line Adjustment. Prepared by: Brandon Nichols, Associate Planner Submitted by: David Vepo , Planning [Director 0 LA2007 -002 Appeal May 3, 2007 Page 8 EXHIBITS 1. Approval letter for Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2007 -002 2. Lot line adjustment application and adjustment plat 3. Correspondence withdrawing Application 4. Appeal letter 5. Letter of response 6. Chapter 19.76 of the Subdivision Code 7. Public Notice for Lot Line Adjustment LA2007 -002 8. Second letter of response and supplemental information t0 Exhibit 1 Approval letter for Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2007 -002 1t March 5, 2007 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA2007 -002 (PA2007.039) PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (94%644-3200 FAX (949) 644 -3229 Monrovia Ave LLC Attention: Telford Walker PO Box 8083 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Staff Person: Javier S. Garcia, 644 -3206 Appeal Period: 14 days after approval date Application No. Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2007 -002 (PA2007 -039) Applicant Monrovia Ave LLC Site Address 1499 and 1505 Monrovia Avenue Legal Description Portion of Lot 1016 and 1017, First Addition to Newport Mesa Tract and the portion of the vacated and abandoned oT iatn btreet tnat nes Detween the two lots. Approved as Requested To allow the adjustment of lot line between two existing lots and to combine portions of an abandoned right -of -way into the existing southerly lot. All existing easements will be continued and may be in the form of a separate instrument. The property is located in the M-1 -A District. On March 5, 2007, the Zoning Administrator approved the application request, based on the following findings and subject to the following procedural requirements. In this case, the Zoning Administrator determined that the proposal would not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood. The approved lot line adjustment would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19 and Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code based on the following findings: P- FINDINGS 1. The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions) and Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). 2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and designated as RM (Multiple - Unit Residential) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 3. The proposal will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood. The lot line adjustment, as approved, is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19 and Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code based on the following reasons: • The project is a minor lot line adjustment that does not create any new parcel or change the number of existing parcels. • The project is in an area with an average slope less than 20 %. • The project will not result in a change in land use or density since no additional lots are created and there will be no change in land use. • The general exception to the Class exemptions is not applicable in this case since no significant environmental effects will result from this project. The traffic and parking impacts will not change from that which would result from the use of the original subdivision. • The project site described in the proposal consists of legal building sites. • The lot line adjustment, in and of itself, will not result in the need for additional improvements and/or facilities since public improvements and infrastructure currently exist. • The proposed lot size is consistent with the zoning regulation requirements of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 1. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees shall be paid prior to review of the lot line adjustment and grant deeds. 2. Prior to recordation of the lot line adjustment, grant deeds indicating the changes in titles of ownership should be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. All existing easements shall remain unchanged and shall be shown on the final document for recordation. March 5, 2007 FAUserslPLN\SharedlPA's1PAs - 2007 1PA2007- 0391LA2007- 0028ppr.doc Page 2 13 3. The lot line adjustment and grant deeds reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department should be filed concurrently with the County Recorder and County Assessor's Offices. 4. No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Department 5. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Any party may appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator to the Planning Commission within 14 days of the decision date. A $600.00 filing fee must accompany the submitted appeal. By — Qa"4�-- Zoning AdininistratoNavier S, Garcia, AICP JSG:ks Attachments: Vicinity Map Appeared in Opposition: None Appeared in Support: None c: contact Kirsten Emershaw 1415 Baypoint Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 March 5, 2007 FAUsers\PLNI8hared%PA's1PAs - 20o7 1PA2007- 039%LA2007- 002appr.doc Page 3 14 VICINITY MAP �I lax sawf .R. t4ALYfaA9 F ^ MWCAL LN IN • 1 dl`s,^, �j '" } �''?/ro'o �' � 4 �./ ! �,l \i?,.�t .r, "o L• HOSRtTALRO �..... Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2007 -002 PA2007 -039 1499 and 1505 Monrovia Avenue 0 Exhibit 2 Lot Line Adjustment Application and adjustment plat 1(O RECORDING Requested by: AND Mail to: City of Newport Beach Public Works Dept Attn: Subdivision 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Bch, CA 92663 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �4POM��r LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION ADDRESS (ES) OF PROPERTY INVOLVED: I "L ['505 `r `onra_Jte- T Nayud>a_ New�oYk �e.G�. OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT I (We) hereby certify that 1) 1 am (we are) the record owner(s) of all parcels proposed for adjustment by this application, 2) 1 (We) have knowledge of and consent to the filing of this application, 3) the information submitted in connection with this application is true and correct; and 4) 1 (We) consent to the recordation of these documents. RECORD OWNERS: Parcel NAME: nn l P V1VD\K0- Ll c- - Signature of parcel owner na re o parce owner Parcel z A AA NAME: n� i l ottiYt�vul. Gi��� U.G - T2u Signature of parcel owner igna ure o parce owner Parcel NAME: Signature of parcel owner Signature of parcel owner Parcel NAME: Signature of parcel owner Signature of parcel owner NOTE: Each of these signatures must be notarized, and the appropriate Certificate of Acknowledgement attached by a Notary public. Approved for Recording CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Engineer. Date F:%USERSIPLMSharedlFormslNew FormsSApplicationslLLA Info & Appl Sheets.doc �1 CALIFORNIA ALL- PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Dra^ ss. On j/L%( G. ri/ a �I before r me, DeM'T'^ /j fame and Tttle %o Of(+cer (e g. •Jane Doe, P personally appeared r e f &rd rl. LYxersonally known to me CYproved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she/they executed the same in his/her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /heritheir signatures) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITtd S my hanZan fficial seal. Place Notary Seal Above SlgnaMr. of N ry Pubat OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by taw, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Title or Type of Document: ; F'11- tr "^" • Number of Pages: 1 Document Date: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: , L f /•i" Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ❑ Individual D Corporate officer — Tile(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee • Guardian or Conservator • Other: _ Signer Is Representing: 01888 NaIWdl NUary A39auallM• 99511 Do SOMA". FO ProQ Na. 5907 RIGHTTHUMSPRINT OF SIGNER NMI a•aam: cal rwnaa 1- 0047� EXHIBIT A A PORTION OF LOT 1016 OF THE FIRST ADDITION TO NEWPORT MESA TRACT AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 61 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; PARCEL I OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. RECORDED 2007 AS INSTRUMENT NO. OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. CONTAINING 40,635 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS ALL AS PARTICULARLY SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. SUBJECT TO COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESERVATIONS, RIGHT -OF -WAY, AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD IF ANY. PREPARED BY OR UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF: CHARLES J. PRIOLO JR., R.C.E. 30790 LICENSE EXPIRES 03/31108 1i EXHIBIT "B" TO ACCOMPANY A LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1 LLA NO. INST NO. -- b 0 u _Lu 0 50 101) SCALE IN FEET 30 FAIRBANKS, SUITS 110 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92818 CONSULTING, INC. T. 949.273.5400 CIVIL ENGINEERING F. 949.273.5410 N J W U re a ti °- °z H N Y. ? '6I 0 �I L 15th STREET L�-�- -- I N 89'2t'43" E t W !W : >Iw UA NO Y EXHIBIT W 02 -01 -2007 OF 1 EXHIBIT A A PORTION OF LOT 1017 OF THE FIRST ADDITION TO NEWPORT MESA TRACT AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 61 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TOGETHER WITH 15TH STREET, 60.00 FEET WIDE, ADJOINING SAID LOT 1016 ON THE NORTH, AS SAID 15TH STREET WAS 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, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 2 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. RECORDED 2007 AS INSTRUMENT NO. OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. CONTAINING 52,951 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS ALL AS PARTICULARLY SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. SUBJECT TO COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESERVATIONS, RIGHT -OF -WAY, AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD IF ANY. PREPARED BY OR UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF: CHARLES J. PRIOLO JR., R.C.E. 30790 LICENSE EXPIRES 03/31/08 �l EXHIBIT "B" TO ACCOMPANY A LEGAL DESCRIPTION E PARCEL f LLA X50. INST N0. 0 0 n N 0 so 100 SCALE IN FEET N j 4 � 0 z W I L15th STREET I N 89'21'43' E WI ,Z I� DATE: EM18ff 16' 02 -01 -2007 30 FAIRBANKS, SUITE 110 LIA NO IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618 CONSULTING, INC. T. 949.273.5400 SHEET 2 CIVIL ENGINEERING F. 949.273.5410 OF 2 LAND PLANNING & SURVEYING gNMN.CVC- INC.NEf 2x EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA ( LEGAL DESCRIPTION) OWNER EXISTING PARCEL PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBERS MONROVIA AVENUE LLC 424 - 401 -11 PARCEL i MONROVIA AVENUE LLC 424 - 401 -11 PARCEL 2 REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, PARCEL 1: LOT 1016 OF THE FIRST AODI77ON TO NEWPORT MESA TRACT AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PACE 61 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH ONE -HALF OF 15TH STREET 60.00 FEET WIDE, ADJOINING SAID LOT 1016 ON THE SOUTH, AS SAID 15TH SIREET WAS VACATED AND ABANDONED BY RESOLU77ON NO 67 -863 OF IHE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH WAS RECORDED AUGUST 11, 1967 IN BOOK 8339, PACE 801 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, SAID POR7I6N LIES WESTERLY OF A LINE THAT RUNS SOUTHERLY IN A DIRECT LINE FROM IHE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1016 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1017 OF SAID FIRST ADD177ON TO NEWPORT MESA TRACT. EXCEPDNG FROM SAID LOT 1016 THE NORTH 1.10 ACRES THEREOF. £XCEPRNC ALSO FROM SAID LOT 1016 THE NORTH ONE -HALF OF 15TH STREET (60.00 FEET WIDE) ADJOINING SAID LOT 1016 ON THE SOUTH, AS SAID 15TH STREET WAS VACATED AND ABANDONED BY RESOLUTION NO 67 -863 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, A CER7FIED COPY OF WHICH WAS RECORDED AUGUST 11, 1.967 IN ROOK 8339, PAGE 801 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, SAID PORRON LIES WESTERLY OF A LINE 7HAT RUNS SOUTHERLY IN A DIRECT LINE FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1016 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1017 OF SAID FIRST ADD177ON TO NEWPORT MESA TRACT. PARCEL 2. LOT 1017 OF THE FIRST AODI RON TO NEWPORT MESA TRACT, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 61 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH ONE -HALF OF 15TH STREET, 60.00 FEET 'ODE, ADJOINING SAID LOT 1017 ON THE NORTH, AS SAID 15TH STREET WAS VACATED AND ABANDONED BY RFSOLU17ON NO 67 -863 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, A CER7FIED COPY OF WHICH WAS RECORDED AUGUST 11, 1967 IN BOOK 8339, PAGE 801 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, SAID PORTION LIES WESTERLY OF A LINE 7HAT RUNS SOUTHERLY IN A DIRECT LINE FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1016 OF SAID FIRST ADD177ON TO NEWPORT MESA TRACT TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1017 TOGETHER WITH THE NORTH ONE -HALF OF 15TH STREET (60.00 FEET IMDE) ADJOINING SAID LOT 1016 ON THE SOUTH, AS SAID 15TH STREET WAS VACATED AND ABANDONED BY R €SOLU77ON NO 67 -863 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, A CER7FIED COPY OF WHICH WAS RECORDED AUGUST 11, 1967 IN BOOK 8339, PAGE 801 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, SAID POR77ON LIES WESTERLY OF A LINE THAT RUNS SOUTHERLY IN A DIRECT LINE FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1016 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1017 OF SAID FIRST ADOIRON TO NEWPORT MESA TRACT A3 EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA . (MAP) OWNER EXISTING PARCEL PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBERS MONROVIA AVENUE LLC 424 - 401 -11 PARCEL 1 MONROVIA AVENUE LLC 424 - 401 -11 PARCEL 2 I N 89'21143' E 321.16' AREA {NET1 y PARCEL 1 PARCEL 1 - 40,635 S4 FT PARCEL 2 - 34,995 $0 FT +tea .1 .rrj- m 1 r NEW LOT LINE 1 N 88'.1'43" E 229.45 15th STREET tOLO LOT LINE t - - N 89'21'43" -- E II • I LU 2'LU • �Q v 3Q� N\% 1 PARCEL 2 fir. a Q f-'• Qp,OFESSIpf, S. PR�OQI� EASEMENT NO , I Qt�O��g �O 2 ® A PUBLIC U77LITY EASEMENT RESERVING AND 1 EXCEPANG FOR RIGHT TO MAINTAIN OPERATE, Exp. REPLACE, REMOVE AND RENEW ALL NOW EXIS77NO SANITARY SEWERS AND STORM 1 DRAINS AND APPURTENANT STRUC7URES OP41%. �P OF QR4�� AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RESERVED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN BOOK 8339, PAGE 80f, OFFICIAL RECORDS. �A EXHIBIT "C" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA ( SITE PLAN) OWNER EXISTING PARCEL PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBERS MONROVIA AVENUE LLC 424- 401 -11 PARCEL 1 MONROVIA AVENUE LLC 424 - 401 -11 PARCEL 2 N 89'21'43' E 321,16' _ RF -- PARCEL� PARCEL I - 40,635 SO FT PARCEL 2 - 34,995 SO Ff i oust aos NEW LOT LINE { f l 19 'N 89'21'43' E 29.45'-" r — OLD LOT { u, o � LINE c.l � I Ju 7 , � I-� , 6 •� _ mR LnS — 6FC { 1 EXMT QQOFESS /p,�q \ \I SLDG } Z I I J. pRfo! t' ��o��g Q v �e PARCEL 2 CIV11 oQ� of CALIF ESi TN ® A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT RF €$19NG`� EXCEPTING FOR RIGHT TO MAINTA OPERA �-zOW j 1 C REPLACE, REMOVE AND RENER A 1• I Il EXISTING SANITARY SEWERS AA's" TORY DRAINS AND APPURTENANT S71% U _ AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RESER 0 IN 9S�AGE ` o so f 00 DOCUMENT RECORDED IN BOOK 801, OFFICIAL RECORDS. SCALE M FEET �5 Exhibit 3 Correspondence withdrawing Application M MONROVIA AVENUE LLC TELFORD A. WALKER P.O. Box 8083 NEWPORT BEACA,CA 92658 TEL(949)644-7058 FAx (949) 644 -7157 April 10, 2007 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re. 1499 —1515 Monrovia Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Planning Department: As Managing Member of Monrovia Avenue LLC, the owner of the above referenced property, and as applicant of PA 2004 -123, I am hereby withdrawing the following application: Isla Vista Homes (PA2004 -123) - Code Amendment No. 2004 -007 - Newport Beach Tract Map No. 2005 -001 - Modification Permit No. 2006 -087 - Mitigated Negative Declaration It is no longer my intent to process any further request for land use entitlement permitting for the subject property at this time. LLC I-) Exhibit 4 Appeal letter LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS March 16, 2007 Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail David Lepo, Planning Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: REVISED ARpenl of Lot Mgt Ad6ustitrignt LA2007 -02 (PA2007 -039) Dear Mr. Lepo: As you know, I am honored to serve as a Planning Commissioner on the City of Newport Beach's Planning Commission. Please be advised that, pursuant to the Municipal Code for the City of Newport Beach including section 20.95.050,1 hereby appeal the captioned Lot Line Adjustment (the "Approval "). (This Appeal supercedes my earlier March 15, 2007 Appeal of the captioned matter.) The grounds for this appeal are as follows: The General Findings under section 19.76.030(A) cannot be made as discussed below: a. The Approval is inconsistent with the General Plan and the Circulation Element to the General Plan in that it constitutes a illegal subdivision and it impedes the dedication and establishment of 15°i St, extension. b. The Approval is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working the neighborhood, the residents in the vicinity, the residents of the City of Newport Beach, and the residents of the region for the reasons set forth in I a. C. The Approval is detrimental and injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood in that it adversely affects circulation and land use in the area as discussed in I a. d. The Approval is detrimental and injurious to the general welfare of the City in that it conflicts with the recently adopted General Plan and Circulation Element, 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, Caliromia92660 (949) 650 -5550 Fax: (949) 650-1181 hq David t.epo. Planning Director .2- March 16, 2007 and adversely affects circulation and land use in the neighborhood as discussed inIa. e. The Approval is inconsistent with the legislative intent of the Subdivision Code, Title 19 in that it conflicts with the purposes of Title 19 as set forth in Section 19.04.020 in that: It is inconsistent and fails to implement the policies and provisions of the General Plan including circulation and land use including requirements for a General Plan Amendment for subdivisions and for circulation improvements provided in the General Plan; It fails to conserve open space in the City in that the southerly parcel should be developed as a park for the northerly parcel; iii. It fails to protect area landowners, lot purchasers and surrounding residents in that it improperly adjusts the lot boundaries of the affected parcels and improperly and inequitably allocates the right of way dedication to the southerly parcel; iv. It fails to ensure orderly and controlled growth in the City; V. It fails to provide adequate traffic circulation, utilities and other services; vi. It fails to protect and stabilize area property values including an improper boundary adjustment between the two affected lots; vii. It fails to preserve and advance the public health, safety and welfare of neighborhood residents, residents in the vicinity, residents within the City of Newport Beach, and residents in the region. 2. Specific findings under section 19.76.030(13) cannot be made as discussed below: a. Any land taken from one parcel will be added to an adjacent parcel but the Approval is part of a larger project which will create many additional parcels. b. The parcels proposed to be created do not comply with applicable zoning regulations and will change the land use, density and intensity of the property. C. The lot line adjustment is part of a larger project which will create the need for additional improvements and facilities. 3. The Approval's environmental findings are erroneous and incorrect. The application which was the subject of the Approval is actually a part or a piece of a larger residential Project known as Isla Vista. The City has already prepared and circulated for public review and comment a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the residential project known I 10 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650 -5$50 Fax: (949) 650-1181 David Lepo, Planning Director -3- March 16, 2007 as Isla Vista which included both parcels affect by the Approval. Due to difficulties with the southerly parcel (1499 Monrovia), the applicant now seeks to Approval to sever out the southerly parcel and adjust the lot lines improperly. As indicated above, the Project is part of a larger residential project The Approval indicates that it is for a Minor Division of Land (Class IS) or Minor Alteration in Land Use Limitations (Class 5). It is neither. This lot line adjustment may be appropriate as part of the approvals for the larger Isla Vista project. However, by itself, the Approval is improper: it is part of the larger Isla Vista project which must be analyzed as one project. Because this is part of the residential project, CEQA requires additional environmental review. For instance, CEQA Guidelines Section 15165 provides that: "Where individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total undertaking comprises a project with significant environmental effect, the lead agency shall prepare a single program EIR for the ultimate project as described in Section 15168...." (Emphasis supplied.) Under the Guidelines, the term "project" is defined as "tile whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably indirect physical change in the environment ...." CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a). Since its inception, CEQA has forbidden piecemeal analysis or bite sized project which would avoid full environmental review. The Approval is a classic instance of such a improper piecemeal approach. Further environmental review as part of the overall Isla Vista residential project is required. 4. The Notice of the action and of the Approval was inconsistent with the Municipal Code and State Law in that the Notice contained an erroneous vicinity map which misplaced the Approval north of the intersection of Monrovia and 15'" St., when the Approval is at the easterly side of that intersection. 5. The Notice of the action and of the Approval was inconsistent with the Municipal Code and State Law in that it fails to explain or depict the nature of the approval, where the lot lines originally were, where the lot lines have been adjusted to and any possible alternative locations for the adjustment. 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach. California 92660 (949) 650 -5550 Fax: (949) 650-1181 31 David Lepo, Manning Dircaor -4- March 16, 2007 6. The Notice of the action and of the Approval was inconsistent with the Municipal Code and State law in that, although the Approval is dated March 5, 2007, it was mailed to the Planning Commission and others interested on March 13, 2007. Section 20.95.040 requires that any appeal be initiated within fourteen (14) days of the decision. However, the late dispatch undercuts the ability of the public and others including the Planning Commission or City Council to appeal the Approval in a timely manner. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Also, notwithstanding this appeal, thank you for the fine and difficult work that you and your department have done and continue to do. I look forward to learning the date and time of the hearing on this appeal. Should you have my questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. RCH/kw cc: LaVonne Harkless, City Clerk Sincerely, 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949)650 -5550 Fax: (949) 650 -1181 Exhibit 5 Letter of response J I —COX CAST LEN ICHOLSON1 — T April 4, 2007 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Aaron C. Harp, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92658 Cox, Casde & Nicholson LLP 2049 Century Park East, 286 Floor Los Angeles, California 90067.3284 P310.277.4222 F310.277.7889 Stanley W. Lampon 310.284.2275 slamport@coxcnde.com File No. 55005 Re: Appeal of Lot Line Ad'ustment No LA 2007 -02 PA 2007 -039 Dear Mr. Harp: This letter is a follow up to our telephone conversation on March 22, 2007 regarding the "call for review" initiated by Planning Commissioner Robert C. Hawkins (the "Appeal") of the lot line adjustment referenced above. We represent the applicant for the lot line adjustment, Monrovia Avenue, LLC ( "Owner"). As we discussed on March 22, we believe the Appeal is not well taken and should be withdrawn for the reasons stated in this letter. The tot line adjustment relates to two lots: Lot 1016 (1515 Monrovia Avenue), commonly referred to as the "north parcel;" and Lot 1017 (1499 Monrovia Avenue), commonly referred to as the "south parcel." In July of 1967, prior to the annexation of the subject property to the City of Newport Beach, the owner of the north parcel and the south parcel petitioned the County of Orange requesting the vacation of the 60 -foot right -of -way (I 5th Street) located between the two parcels. On August 9, 1967, the Board of Supervisors granted the owner's petition to abandon the 15th Street right -of -way. It was clearly intended that the right -of -way reverted to the south parcel when it was abandoned. In September of 1967, the owner of both parcels obtained a building permit and proceeded to construct a 16,500s quare foot office building on the south parcel and paved the entire 60 feet of the abandoned 15 Street to provide sixty parking spaces necessary to accommodate the parking required for the office building. The Uniform Building Code prevents the building of structures and improvements across property lines. Had the abandonment resulted in a reversion of 30 feet of the 15th Street right -of -way accruing to the south parcel and 30 feet to the north parcel, the office building and parking lot would not have been constructed where they are presently located. The County certainly was aware of the circumstances since the building permit was issued a month after the County vacated the right -of -way. � w Xoxmsdcxom Los Angeles I Orange County I San Francisco 3� Aaron C. Harp April 4, 2007 Page 2 The City records incorrectly show the roperty line between the north parcel and the south parcel to be the center line of abandoned 15 Street. In fact the property line should show the entire 60 foot abandoned right -of -way to be included as part of the boundary of the south parcel. Accordingly, the purpose of the lot line adjustment is to move the lot line 30 feet towards the north parcel thereby making the facts on the ground consistent with the intent of the abandonment and construction of the development of the building and parking area on the south parcel. A depiction of the lot line adjustment is attached. On March 5, 2007, the City Zoning Administrator conducted a hearing pursuant to the procedures and provisions set forth in Chapter 19.76 of the Municipal Code and in compliance with California Government Code Section 66412(d). The Zoning Administrator, after considering the evidence submitted, made the findings required by Section 19.76.030 of the Municipal Code for granting the lot line adjustment. Among other things, the parcels proposed to be created by the lot line adjustment comply with all applicable zoning regulations and further, the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of the City's Subdivision Code. Commissioner Hawkins' Appeal appears to be based on four basic points: (i) that the lot line adjustment would impede the dedication of the 15'h Street extension shown in the General Plan, (ii) that it is inconsistent with the City's Subdivision Code, (iii) that the findings for the lot line adjustment cannot be made, and (iv) that the lot line adjustment would result in piecemealiog of the project in violation of CEQA. As the following discussion will show, there is no merit to any of these points or contentions. 1. The Lot Line Adjustment Does Not Affect the Proposed Righ"f- -Way The lot line adjustment has no effect on the, City's ability to impose a dedication of the 150 Street extension. The extension of 15`s Street is depicted as a 104 foot right -of -way in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The lot line adjustment does not change what is shown in the General Plan. To the extent the City has the ability to impose a dedication requirement,the lot line adjustment does not change the City's ability to do so. . Commissioner Hawkins' Appeal does not explain how the lot line adjustment would impede the establishment of the 15' Street extension. In light of the foregoing considerations, it is difficult to see how the lot line adjustment would accomplish that result. 2. The Lot Line Adjustment Does Not Violate the Subdivision Ordinance The lot line adjustment is not inconsistent with the City's Subdivision Code as the Appeal claims. The Appeal states a number of propositions in this regard, none of which are well taken. First, Commissioner Hawkins' Appeal states the lot line adjustment would not implement policies regarding circulation and land use. The circulation concern appears to be S Aaron C. Harp April 4, 2007 Page 3 related to the 151" Street extension, which we have addressed already. The remainder of Commissioner Hawkins' contentions relate to the need to amend the General Plan for residential development; however, the area that is subject to the lot line adjustment is not being residentially developed and would be incorporated into a parcel that is in compliance with the permitted land use in the General Plan. Second, Commissioner Hawkins' Appeal maintains the lot line adjustment fails to conserve open space because the south parcel (which would include the land that is subject to the lot line adjustment) should he developed as a park for the north parcel. Assuming the City could impose such a requirement, the south parcel would include more land as a result of the lot line adjustment, and, therefore, would be able to conserve more open space than would be the case now. Further, accordingly to the City's Department of Public Works, because the land in question is depicted in the City's General Plan as a future right -of -way, it cannot serve as open space for the northern parcel.. As a result, denying the lot line adjustment does nothing to conserve open space on the north parcel. Third, Commissioner Hawkins' Appeal maintains the lot line adjustment would inequitably allocate the right -of -way dedication to the south parcel. However, the Owner of the south parcel acknowledges the possibility that the land subject to the lot line adjustment could become a public tight -of -way. Further, it benefits the City and the rest of the community because the area that functions as part of the commercial use on the south property becomes part of that property, rather than divided between two parcels as is the case now. Fourth, Commissioner Hawkins' Appeal claims the lot line adjustment would not promote orderly growth and development, when the opposite is true. The fact the area that functions as part of the commercial use on the south parcel becomes part of that property, rather than divided between two parcels would promote orderly and controlled growth and development in a way that cannot be accomplished now. Fifth, Commissioner Hawkins' Appeal maintains the lot line adjustment does not provide adequate traffic circulation, utilities and other services; however, there is no development being proposed on the land in question and therefore these contentions are irrelevant. Sixth, Commissioner Hawkins' Appeal maintains the lot line adjustment would fail to protect and stabilize area property values; however, the opposite would in fact be the case. Including all of the 60 feet of abandonment 15r" Street in the south parcel enhances the value of that parcel and adds value to the north parcel, which is currently burdened with a use that is not related to that parcel. The value of the south parcel would be diminished if a portion of the parking required for the commercial building was located on the north parcel. Finally, Commissioner Hawkins' Appeal maintains that the adjustment would not promote the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood. However, as can be seen from the foregoing discussion, the lot line adjustment would not have any impact on the health, 3b Aaron C. Harp April 4, 2007 Page 4 safety and general welfare of the neighborhood because the lot line adjustment does not change any of the physical conditions on the site.. 3. The Lot Line Adjustment Findings Are Correct Commissioner Hawkins' in the Appeal claims that the findings cannot be made is simply wrong. Although not clearly stated, the Appeal suggests that the lot line adjustment would increase the number of parcels as a result of the subdivision of the north parcel. This issue is moot in light of the Owner having withdrawn the request to subdivide the south and north parcels. However, even if the subdivision applications were still pending, it is not the case that the lot line adjustment would increase the number of lots as Commissioner Hawkins maintains. In fact, the opposite it true. By taking what would have been a remainder lot and incorporating it into the south parcel, the adjustment actually reduces the number of lots that would result from the subdivision. The Appeal states, "The parcels to be created do not comply with applicable zoning regulations and will change the land use, density and intensity of the property." However, as just noted, the adjustment is not creating a lot. It is decreasing the number of lots that would result from a subdivision of the north parcel. Furthermore, the land would be incorporated into a parcel that already uses the land in question. No improvements are needed for the land that is subject to the lot line adjustment. Therefore, it will not change the land use, the density or intensity of the existing use on the south parcel. It will not intensify the use of the north parcel. Regardless, the Owner has withdrawn the application to subdivide the south and north parcels and therefore the issue is moot. Commissioner Hawkins' Appeal states that the lot line adjustment is part of a larger project that will create the need for additional improvements and facilities. However, given that the Owner has withdrawn the applications to subdivide the properties, there is no larger project pending. Furthermore, the provisions of the Map Act prohibit the City from requiring a tentative, final or parcel map as a condition of approval of the lot line adjustment. 4. The Lot Line Adjustment Does Not Violate CEQA Commissioner Hawkins' claims regarding the CEQA findings are incorrect. As the Appeal notes, the project was originally proposed as a subdivision of the two parcels. However, the south parcel is subject to an existing lease that does not expire for five years. As a result of the contractual obligations under that lease, the Owner cannot subdivide the south parcel at this time. In any event, this issue has become moot and irrelevant as the Owner has withdrawn the application to subdivide either the south parcel or north parcel. Thus, in the first instance, there is no longer an Isle Vista project. Furthermore, under the Map Act, the City cannot require a tentative or parcel map as a condition of approving 31 Aaron C. Harp April 4, 2007 Page 5 a lot line adjustment. The Planning Commission therefore has no jurisdiction to consider the cumulative effect of the potential future subdivision of the south or north parcels. Furtbermore, this is not a case ofpiecemealing. The land in question is already improved as part of the adjacent property. Adjusting the lot line does not result in any physical change in the environment. It does not cause any new development to occur that would result in a physical change in the environment. It is merely a relocation of a line on paper. A lot line adjustment is not a project and is exempt from the Subdivision Map Act. CEQA defines a "project" in relevant part as "an activity which may cause a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." (Pub. Res. Code § 21065.) Where, as here, the activity (i.e., the lot line adjustment) does not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment, it is not a project. This is often referred to as the "common sense objection, which CEQA Guideline section 15061(b)(3), which states that a project is exempt if "The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a sign 6oant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA." Piecemealing occurs when elements of a project that may have a significant effect on the environment and broken into segments so that the full impact of each of the elements combined is not considered. However, the focus is on elements that may have a significant effect on the environment. That is why the Guideline definition of a "project" on which the Appeal relies states that a project is "the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment..." (Emphasis added.) It does not require inclusion of actions that inherently do not involve a physical change in the environment. It is for that reason that California courts have held that an agency may determine that a project is exempt by applying different exemptions to different elements of the activity. (See Surfrider Foundation Y. Cal. Coastal Com. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4`h 151, 155 -156 [where an agency considers the project as a whole and determines that the combined effect of two exemptions places the entire project outside the scope of CEQA, no improper segmentation has occurred].) On the same basis, a categorically exempt activity is not a project element that is considered part of a project under CEQA. The basic flaw in the Appeal is that it does not (reasonably cannot) draw a link between a lot line adjustment and a physical change in the environment. 3� Aaron C. Harp April 4, 2007 Page 6 It is simply not the case that approving the lot line adjustment results in an improper segmentation of the proposed subdivision under CEQA. The Owner is not subdividing the south or north parcels. 5. The City Cannot Require a Right -of -Way Dedication We understand that the issue lurking in the wings here is the City's desire to require dedication of the public right -of -way over the 1 S'h Street extension on the theory that the dedication is necessary to be consistent with the City's General Plan Circulation Element. This is precisely the type of the condition the U,S. Supreme Court held a city cannot impose in its ruling in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S, 374 (1994). Dolan involved a city, whose general plan showed a pedestrian/bicycle pathway on Mrs. Dolan's property. When Mrs. Dolan applied to remodel her store and pave her parking lot, the city required Mrs. Dolan to dedicate the land for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with its adopted plan policy. The U.S. Supreme Court unequivocally concluded that a city cannot require such a dedication in the name of plan consistency and that to impose such a condition was a taking that could not occur without paying the landowner just compensation. There is no relationship between the approval of the lot line adjustment and a requirement to dedicate land for a future extension of 15'h Street. Under Dolan and Government Code Section 66412(d), the City cannot require our client to dedicate the right -of -way without paying our client just compensation for the taking. For all of these reasons, we submit the Appeal is not well taken. The Owner requests the Appeal be withdrawn and that the City allow the lot line adjustment to proceed. SWL/rl55aon1273392v 1 cc: Mr. David Lepo Ms. Kirstin Emershaw Mr. Dennis O'Neil 3q alk Q O O O I-: M rN V O a co CL O S a Z a' a Q V 0 ON p. d 0 C. E a V A a L 0 z Z rn e Y fO a m V_ G E 0 C m V V A a L M S Exhibit 6 Chapter 19.76 of the Subdivision Code q� CHAPTER 19.76 Lox LME AQ1t7S'r w4i s Sections: 19.76.010 Description 19.76.020 Procedures for Lot Line Adjustments I9.76.030 Required Findings 19.76.010 Description A lot line adjustment is a minor boundary adjustment between two or more adjacent lots or parcels. The land taken from one parcel is added to an adjacent parcel with the original number of parcels remaining unchanged after the adjustment. The Modifications Committee shall review lot line adjustments in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. 19.76.020 Procedures for Lot Line Adjustments A. Applicati on. An application for a lot line adjustment shall be filed in a manner consistent with the requirements contained in Chapter 20.90 of the Zoning Code (Application Filing and Fees). The record owners of all parcels involved shall sign the application form. B. Required Plans and Materials. An application for a lot line adjustment shall be accompanied by a map prepared by licensed surveyor or civil engineer showing the line to be adjusted, the property lines of the adjoining parcels, and structures adjacent to the line to be adjusted. C. Referral to Planning Commission. In the event the Modifications Committee determines that an application should properly be heard by the Planning Commission, it may refer the matter to the Planning Commission for hearing and original determination on the merits. The procedure for notice and hearings held by the Planning Commission on such applications shall be in accordance with the same provisions as set forth in this chapter. D. Public Hearings. Lot line adjustments shall require a public hearing before the Modifications Committee. Procedures for noticing and conduct of hearings shall be in accordance with Chapter 20.93 of the Zoning Code E. investigation. The Modifications Committee shall cause to be made, by its own members or its respective staffs, such investigation of facts bearing IE upon such application as will serve to provide all information necessary to assure that the action on each application is consistent with the intent of this section and sound planning practices. F. Rendering of Decision. After the conclusion of the hearing on any application for a modification permit, the Modifications Committee shall render a decision within 15 days unless otherwise stipulated by the applicant and the Modifications Committee. G. Conditions of Approval. The Modifications Committee may impose such conditions in connection with the granting of a modification permit as they deem necessary to secure the purposes of this code and may require guarantees and evidence that such conditions are being or will be complied with. H. Effective Date and Appeals. Decisions on line adjustments shall not become effective for 14 days after being granted. In the event an appeal is filed or if the Planning Commission or City Council exercises its right to call for review any such decision. Appeals and calls for review shall be in accordance with the provisions for appeal of tentative parcels maps, as set forth in Section 19.12.060. Upon the filing of an appeal or a call for review, the original decision shall be stayed and the matter shall be set for public hearing. 1. Expiration and Amendments. Expiration of and amendments to lot line adjustment approvals shall be in accordance with Chapter 20.93 of the Zoning Code. 19.76.030 Required Findings A. General Findings. In approving a lot line adjustment through a modification permit, the Modifications Committee shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this Subdivision Code. B. Specific Findings. In approving a lot line adjustment, the following specific findings shall be made: to 1. The project site described in the proposal consists of legal building sites; 2. Any Iand taken from one parcel will be added to an adjacent parcel and no additional parcels will result from the lot line adjustment; 3. The parcels proposed to be created by the lot line adjustment comply with all applicable zoning regulations and there will be no change in the land use, density, or intensity on the property; 4. The lot line adjustment, in and of itself, will not result in the need for additional improvements and/or facilities. %AA Exhibit 7 Public Notice for Lot Line Adjustment LA2007 -002 0 PUBLIC NOTICE Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2007 -002 (PA2007 -039) Notice is hereby given that property owner Monrovia Ave LLC has filed a request for a Lot Line Adjustment in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to adjustment of lot line between two existing lots and to combine portions of an abandoned right -of -way into the existing southerly lot. All existing easements will be continued and may be in the form of a separate instrument. The property is located in the M-1 -A District. Property located at: 1499 and 1505 Monrovia Avenue After reviewing this project, it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) and Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions). On Monday, March 5, 2007, at 3:00 pm, the Zoning Administrator will hold a public hearing in the City Council Chambers (Building AI at 3300 Newport Boulevard. All interested persons may speak and all correspondence read at that time. 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 14 -day appeal period wilt begin from the Zoning Administrator's decision date. During the appeal period, any interested party or their authorized agent aggrieved of that decision may file a notice of appeal to the Planning Commission with a $600.00 filing fee to defray the cost of the appeal procedure. For further information, contact the Newport Beach Planning Department at (949) 644 -3200. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. qi� Exhibit 8 Second letter of response and supplemental information q1 Exhibit 1 qq i — COXCASTLENICHOLSONI-- T April 24, 2007 VIA E -MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Chairman Jeff Cole Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92658 Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 2049 Century Park Fast, 28° Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 -3284 P 310.277.4222 F 310.277.7889 Smnley W. Lamport 310.284.2275 damport@coxcasde.com File No. 55005 Re: Appeal of Lot Line Adjustment No LA 2007 -02 (PA 2007-039) Dear Chairman Cole and Members of the Planning Commission: We represent Monrovia Avenue, LLC ( "Monrovia "), which owns the properties that are involved in the lot line adjustment in question. Monrovia applied for the lot line adjustment so that the boundary between its two properties would conform to the existing improvements. Commissioner Hawkins has called up for your Commission to review the approval of that adjustment and has suggested that the lot line adjustment should not be approved. For the reasons set forth in this letter, the decision of the Zoning Administrator should be upheld and the appeal denied. The lot line adjustment relates to two lots: Lot 1016 (1515 Monrovia Avenue), commonly referred to as the "north parcel;" and Lot 1017 (1499 Monrovia Avenue), commonly referred to as the "south parcel." Monrovia currently owns both parcels. 1. Summary of the Major Points The following summarizes the principal points this letter addresses: The improvements for the existing office building on the south parcel are currently located on two parcel. The purpose of the lot line adjustment is to have all of the existing improvements related to the office building on one parcel. • Monrovia has withdrawn its previously pending subdivision map applications and does not intend to subdivide the properties at this time. t — Ww .coxcasde.com Los Angeles I Orange County ( San Francisco q1 Chairman Jeff Cole April 24, 2007 Page 2 • The lot line adjustment has no effect on the location of the right -of -way depicted in the general plan and does not prevent the City from obtaining the right-of-way in the future. The lot line adjustment does not violate any general plan policies or zoning requirements. • The lot line adjustment is exempt from review under CEQA. There is no basis to require an EIR for a lot line adjustment. 2. Background Facts Prior to August 1967, there was an undeveloped 60 -foot public right- of-way located between the north and south parcel for the extension of 15'h Street ( "15" Street Right -of- Way"). In July of 1967, prior to the annexation of the subject property to the City of Newport Beach, the prior owner of the north parcel and the south parcel petitioned the County of Orange to vacate the 15 "h Street Right -of -Way, which the Board of Supervisors approved on August 9, 1967. A copy of the County's resolution abandoning the 15th Street Right -of -Way is attached as Exhibit "l " At the time, when a right -of -way between adjustment parcels under common ownership was abandoned, the County allowed the land owner to determine where property boundary would be located. Approximately a month after the County vacated the 15`h Street Right-of-Way, the land owner submitted a site plan for the office building that currently occupies the south parcel, which included all of the vacated 15`h Street Right -of -Way as part of the south parcel. Thus, when the County approved the building, the recently abandoned right -of -way was considered part of the parcel on which the building is located. A copy of the site plan with the legal description is attached as Exhibit "2." The County certainly was aware of the circumstances since the building permit was issued a month after the County vacated the 15th Street Right -of -Way. The County would not have approved the building without requiring an easement for the parking improvements on the northern half of the abandoned right -of -way if the County considered that half to have been on a different parcel, which did not occur. The City records incorrectly show the groperty line between the north parcel and the south parcel to be the center line of abandoned 15 Street. In fact the property line should show the entire 60 foot abandoned right -of -way to be included as part of the boundary of the south parcel. Accordingly, the purpose of the lot line adjustment is to move the lot line 30 feet towards the north parcel thereby making the facts on the ground consistent with the intent of the abandonment and construction of the development of the building and parking area on the south parcel. A depiction of the Iot line adjustment is attached as Exhibit "3." 50 Chairman Jeff Cole April 24,2007 Page 3 Monrovia has decided the offer the south parcel for sale. The purpose of the lot line adjustment is to conform the boundary to the description used when the County approved construction of the office building on the south parcel. The intent is to have all of the existing improvements related to the office building on one parcel. On March 5, 2007, the City Zoning Administrator conducted a hearing pursuant to the procedures and provisions set forth in Chapter 19.76 of the Municipal Code and in compliance with California Government Code Section 66412(d). The Zoning Administrator, after considering the evidence submitted, made the findings required by Section 19.76.030 of the Municipal Code for granting the lot line adjustment. Among other things, the parcels proposed to be created by the lot line adjustment comply with all applicable zoning regulations and further, the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of the City's Subdivision Code. A copy of the Zoning Administrator's decision is attached as Exhibit "4." 3. Prior Applications to Subdivide the Properties. The office building on the south parcel is currently occupied by Hachette Filipacchi Magazines ( "HFM'), which publishes Road and Track and Cycle World magazines. There are approximately five years remaining on the lease. Monrovia has submitted applications to subdivide both properties. In 2006, Monrovia submitted applications to subdivide both parcels, with the south parcel proposed to be developed after the HFM lease expires. Your Commission expressed concern about delaying the timing for developing the south parcel. Because Monrovia's contractual commitments to HFM precluded developing the site any earlier, Monrovia withdraw its application to subdivide the south parcel. Monrovia continued processing a tentative map on the north parcel. However, issues arose regarding the number of units that would be approved on the site, which made continuing to pursue the subdivision an unattractive option for Monrovia. As a result, Monrovia withdrew its application in March 2007. Monrovia currently does not have any subdivision map applications pending for either property. Monrovia's plan is to sell the properties. The lot line adjustment is intended to assure that the improvements for the south parcel that the City maintains are on the north parcel are included in the legal description of the south parcel. 4. Response to Commissioner Hawkins' Letter Commissioner Hawkins' Appeal is set forth in his March 15, 2007 letter to Mr. repo. The appeal appears to be based on four basic points: (i) that the lot line adjustment would impede the dedication of the 15a' Street extension shown in the General Plan, (ii) that it is inconsistent with the City's Subdivision Code, (iii) that the findings for the lot tine adjustment cannot be made, and (iv) that the lot line adjustment would result in piecemealing of the project S� Chairman Jeff Cole April 24, 2007 Page 4 in violation of CEQA. As the following discussion will show, there is no merit to any of these points or contentions. Commissioner Hawkins appealed the lot line adjustment while the subdivision map application for the north parcel was still pending. Since that application has been withdrawn and there is no proposed subdivision pending, many of Commission Hawkins' issues are moot: A. The Lot Line Adjustment Does Not Affect the Proposed Right - of -Way The lot line adjustment has no effect on the City's ability to impose a dedication of the 150 Street extension. The extension of 15'h Street is depicted as a 104 foot right -of -way in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The lot line adjustment does not change what is shown in the General Plan. To the extent the City has the ability to impose a dedication requirement, the lot line adjustment does not change the City's ability to do so. Commissioner Hawkins' Apeal does not explain how the lot line adjustment would impede the establishment of the 15' Street extension. In light of the foregoing considerations, it is difficult to see how the lot line adjustment would accomplish that result. B. The Lot Line Adjustment Does Not Violate the Subdivision Ordinance The lot line adjustment is not inconsistent with the City's Subdivision Code as the Appeal claims. The Appeal states a number of propositions in this regard, none of which are well taken, First, Commissioner Hawkins' Appeal states the lot line adjustment would not implement policies regarding circulation and land use. The circulation concern appears to be related to the 151' Street extension, which we have addressed already. The remainder of Commissioner Hawkins' contentions relate to the need to amend the General Plan for residential development; however, the area that is subject to the lot line adjustment is not being residentially developed and would be incorporated into a parcel that is in compliance with the permitted land use in the General Plan, Second, Commissioner Hawkins' Appeal maintains the lot line adjustment fails to conserve open space because the south parcel (which would include the land that is subject to the lot line adjustment) should be developed as a park for the north parcel. Assuming the City could impose such a requirement, the south parcel would include more land as a result of the lot line adjustment, and, therefore, would be able to conserve more open space than would be the case now. Further, accordingly to the City's Department of Public Works, because the land in question is depicted in the City's General Plan as a future right -of -way, it cannot serve as open 5;l- Chairman Jeff Cole April 24, 2007 Page 5 space for the northern parcel. As a result, denying the lot line adjustment does nothing to conserve open space on the north parcel. Third, Commissioner Hawkins' Appeal maintains the lot line adjustment would inequitably allocate the right -of -way dedication to the south parcel. However, the Owner of the south parcel acknowledges the possibility that the land subject to the lot line adjustment could become a public right -of -way. Further, it benefits the City and the rest of the community because the area that functions as part of the commercial use on the south property becomes part of that property, rather than divided between two parcels as is the case now. Fourth, Commissioner Hawkins' Appeal claims the lot line adjustment would not promote orderly growth and development, when the opposite is true. The fact that the area that functions as part of the commercial use on the south parcel becomes part of that property, rather than divided between two parcels would promote orderly and controlled growth and development in a way that cannot be accomplished now. Fifth, Commissioner Hawkins' Appeal maintains the lot line adjustment does not provide adequate traffic circulation, utilities and other services; however, there is no development being proposed on the land in question and therefore these contentions are hiclevant. Sixth, Commissioner Hawkins' Appeal maintains the lot line adjustment would fail to protect and stabilize area property values; however, the opposite would in fact be the case. Including all of the 60 feet of abandonment 15a' Street in the south parcel enhances the value of that parcel and adds value to the north parcel, which is currently burdened with an use that is not related to that parcel. The value of the south parcel would be diminished if a portion of the parking required for the commercial building was located on the north parcel. Finally, Commissioner Hawkins' Appeal maintains that the adjustment would not promote the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood. However, as can be seen from the foregoing discussion, the lot line adjustment would not have any impact on the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood because the lot line adjustment does not change any of the physical conditions on the site. C. The Lot Line Adjustment Findings Are Correct Commissioner Hawkins' claim that the lot line adjustment findings cannot be made is simply wrong. Although not clearly stated, the Appeal suggests that the lot line adjustment would increase the number of parcels as a result of the subdivision of the north parcel. This issue is moot in light of the Owner having withdrawn the request to subdivide the south and north parcels. However, even if the subdivision applications were still pending, it is not the case that the lot line adjustment would increase the number of lots as 53 Chairman Jeff Cole April 24, 2007 Page 6 Commissioner Hawkins maintains. In fact, the opposite it true. By taking what would have been a remainder lot and incorporating it into the south parcel, the adjustment actually reduces the number of lots that would result from the subdivision. The Appeal states, "The parcels to be created do not comply with applicable zoning regulations and will change the land use, density and intensity of the properly." However, as just noted, the adjustment is not creating a lot. The land would be incorporated into a parcel that already uses the land in question. No improvements are needed for the land that is subject to the lot line adjustment. Therefore, it will not change the land use, the density or intensity of the existing use on the south parcel. Nor will it intensify the use of the north parcel. Commissioner Hawkins' Appeal states that the lot line adjustment is pan of a larger project that will create the need for additional improvements and facilities. However, there is no larger project pending. Furthermore, the provisions of the Map Act prohibit the City from requiring a tentative, final or parcel map as a condition of approval of the lot line adjustment. D. The Lot Line Adjustment Does Not Violate CEQA Commissioner Hawkins' claims regarding the CEQA findings are incorrect. The lot line adjustment is not part of a larger project. This is not pending subdivision. Monrovia has decided not to proceed with developing the properties. There is simply no larger project to consider. Furthermore, under the Map Act, the City cannot require a tentative or parcel map as a condition of approving a lot line adjustment. The Planning Commission therefore has no jurisdiction to consider the cumulative effect of the potential future subdivision of the south or north parcels. This is not a case of piecemealing. The land in question is already improved as part of the adjacent property. Adjusting the lot line does not result in any physical change in the environment. It does not cause any new development to occur that would result in a physical change in the environment. It is merely a relocation of a line on paper. A lot line adjustment is not a project and is exempt from the Subdivision Map Act. CEQA defines a "project" in relevant part as "an activity which may cause a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." (Pub. Res. Code § 21065.) Where, as here, the activity (i.e., the lot line adjustment) does not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment, it is not a project. This is often referred to as the "common sense" objection, CEQA Guideline section 15061(b)(3), which states that a project is exempt if: "The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant ha Chairman Jeff Cole April 24, 2007 Page 7 effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA." Piecemealing occurs when elements of a project that may have a significant effect on the environment are broken into segments so that the full impact of each of the elements combined is not considered. However, the focus is on elements that may have a significant effect on the environment. That is why the Guideline definition of a "project" on which the Appeal relies, states that a project is "the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment..." (Emphasis added.) It does not require inclusion of actions that inherently do not involve a physical change in the environment. It is for that reason that California courts have held that an agency may determine that a project is exempt by applying different exemptions to different elements of the activity. (See Surfrider Foundation v. Cal. Coastal Com. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4" 151, 155 -156 [where an agency considers the project as a whole and determines that the combined effect of two exemptions places the entire project outside the scope of CEQA, no improper segmentation has occurred].) On the same basis, a categorically exempt activity is not a project element that is considered part of a project under CEQA. The basic flaw in the Appeal is that it does not (reasonably cannot) draw a link between a lot line adjustment and a physical change in the environment. It is simply not the case that approving the lot line adjustment results in an improper segmentation of a non - existent subdivision under CEQA. E. The City Cannot Require a Right -of -Way Dedication We understand that the issue lurking in the wings here is the City's desire to require dedication of the public right -of -way over the 150' Street extension on the theory that the dedication is necessary to be consistent with the City's General Plan Circulation Element. This is precisely the type of condition the U.S. Supreme Court held a city cannot impose in its ruling in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). Dolan involved a city, whose general plan showed a pedestrian/bicycle pathway on Mrs. Dolan's property. When Mrs. Dolan applied to remodel her store and pave her parking lot, the city required Mrs. Dolan to dedicate the land for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with its adopted plan policy. The U.S. Supreme Court unequivocally concluded that a city cannot require such a dedication in the name of plan consistency and that to impose such a condition was a taking that could not occur without paying the landowner just compensation. NJ, Chairman Jeff Cole April 24, 2007 Page 8 There is no relationship between the approval of the lot line adjustment and a requirement to dedicate land for a future extension of 15`h Street. Under Dolan and Government Code Section 66412(d), the City cannot require our client to dedicate the right -of -way without paying our client just compensation for the taking. For all of these reasons, we submit the Appeal is not well taken. The Owner requests that the Appeal be denied, the decision of the Zoning Administrator be upheld and that the City allow the lot line adjustment to proceed. SWL /rsl Enclosures 5500511276884v1 cc: Mr. David Lepo Aaron Harp, Esq. Ms. Kirstin Emershaw Mr. Dennis O'Neil log it �,� _ �' , . , e: 837`3 • :'.8Q 1' , OWMW'OP 7&-WA RD.OF S11P10iPISCR3 r eN ee • esssuea/ . �aW C11A r bRA8tT8,C01}Y CAI IIrO1Cgh ' ':' ,ii• ' a or art ccerss MN 8 o at "1 ,I e,i/ po sit, CALIF rs. �•. iYA11E tl1tl. •CaaA'aroaea in -the.Raiter of the Eet*on -of .. •.. .�Eo Vacate, DiaCOAtinua, kAndon.snd Abollsh Publ.io• ' �' �.:Pdrtlott oR•�i:fjaar�tl.,�6yr�et ---'--- __� _.. FREE '¢ CA ODt10n.0'..}aPervifOi� ,glks�, ' , duly o ,1toedsdl and t. ' tba'fo1loring`Reeoi1d ion kat adopted' - 1, 'UlffSAS,'it;apyeare Z;o that John R. Bond ' I •acid others'.rre'ehpldera, :Deliig at leaet•Len (10) in- aeber,Ityo leaOY' of- -hotel are :resiapYlta' of, Fhe, tom, h�„— sups ieoria1, Di, '�. being 'tjte Sapervieorud ikitridt in:xhieh.6ome part f the prolll affected is sit} k*4 .ah4,& a iimbla xhereln for + puipdaee,! 5t r on thah day :of jelly 14 (� , Ailed. wit . the, C qrk BMM a Jpgtit'lon in "vi it::tg pdr$uarl0 to Section 951 Of the Stre1 hvitys Coda or $ g, ri , this. Boa1 diaeontlime, abendort and abolish cme public Portia of r trees. ". ^c r .. ',haivi+wtter dsaorited. .. . :: •Aitd'it�appeei+a.thnt- tea Aoard•�dld on the 2th,- of J i¢67 sake in order.'tixing the 4th : day of A et aL� -SIN ,a!elock A. .4., as the tiora 9TL hearing asld "petition, .r "and legal "t-thia having beeq given to all•fresholders in'aald S .� visQrial Fri of Of the tiaje and piAcd'fisad for ring'aild ! aoaording to Swr... . J It -y. ?Rife Board vlrtg neardia11.:01fiden0e offered "bj - M tereafed. �' arbd 14 upDaarLfthnt.sa3d so'rilot�of junigulth Ss a" wineoeeeary Sor praa t or a ,'.pufpiie'.t(ss;.lt in, t re, resolved.wW ordered bY �thli 0* _ _ 'portion ot'Filteenth Street ^! + • :' be, sad tbi •sa�e 'Li'hsrabydaa]:arsd a!a'oAtad, disadntleniaa, a i►bol3gbad. Said ayes aO aDaildbhM! it 'desoMbsd as ?6llows; to a. t _ t DesCriBtlon: Crange,CA D"UMSaC - 8oek Pag* (Pre -3982) 8339.802 Pager 2 0: order: It= Comment: harried. . f2) .at mot: 1'ty hariirg of this to And d. v"Ate, . ly .. . X951,, r,d daa per- art a.- atiwa ' that Rod and its i." i. Q '• 51 A p 39 om . y 1"iba�,. pai•tidn .�•Pift'te' . Prat Addition to Henor6.'v 'ifiee•11wneoMv. MPs, iMC4 e ot'a'lln! that suni,'ioutbir . lot -W16 to. tha• FoAhesst: c ..� Reserving. Gad ezcaPLin _`�:; ,eekA�sents And aight.to wkin • all now} sxistina:iaAiterj a etructurei,in; vpdn, `Rnd or ", i~nnd pursuant- to.bny ezlatin operate, r plao6t remove, 0 'pipe, caodUItl, a6klea,, wir . • »QuiPmaae' }M rixtaree.rcr And telephone lines ,• railro+ j diatrlbution'of,a}eotrip ens 'i.stpr. and For inoidentdVpm th'(150h .street As 'shown a iap.at. he. ea •'tiaet r•aorded •.ln. $fok :8 'page, 61; . Df.drange CQ+inty; C& if i,,:lying_no terl y in, a direct Iing Tram .C1<e Isout`n t orn mar gP #At;I017•ae Bald lose ne, :O.b on, trom thin "Ibafent an easement or ►•Sa;:apxyte; rapines, ranota aM ren +ere an4 etOM dleins'.and.a purtenaht, ' i- thay.said hlghway and ail• 'ortiAne;'L roof :fienohi8•' or,rsnewai thfre f to maaLnL In, loN and dia,arge ill now Gal #bing liiiea of s, pole "and othet ec0veniint atruptu . in operation or gas pipe 1 ea, teie phic S 'linen, en¢ for the tramp nation or 'Sy. petroleum and its pro/ eta, Oo )caea. • ' be 4t'Nreher resole %and ordared:by' this 1,ioard �h�t-th .i. o) $hall,gpt atfaot anT,dzistiiea a�.asemeato on triutohi�e• of blia. o p rite 9- - er of utilities., '( .. ,. A2iSr 8T11' A8 jiw'O i I ALT,ffia;' WM. HrMTEIB, c.M'. . DAVID ' - AWN *q: 9UFMft CPe. WZMAM jF, M1111 .xi a w CA?.�OAal2ii -oomrir oar. aSO 2. Y:s. 81 J01Ui, Couptrr' Clerk and aatfi0lD Cl•rat pt xhel M of pupessisdrs'ot Glenna Caunts,:Cs Ifornii here l; ecrUlt�yr that thai ti &W, futa.11aiolWtion i'Gaol l7 adopted Or- the •aid UM St 19 MftdZ the sot •hold on :tlii d of t • - -' pa/sed 1i' e< NATCEM preainv."" . tf i117lr1m8:Y$�OR; I; v bXt�anto aeL.mq hipd dd- sGai.... th 77 .+vr aV<_ �taause ..] .. •c *�tL'E1.. •. ; ez- otfip! Q of ... Ddaeriptioa: Orange,CA Docameat - Book Page (Pre -2967) 8339.881 Page: 3 of 6 Order: dma commeat: 00 . •.,..,� �,:.� •�+R�sr�are- s��v+.a�-a:w ^'rte • +�w�r�cs�iz�_.,�: ' r 1 TiP.ICT A42 3 Y . t , . JIi ORAN C LINTY W RTMENT of ATM. FIEWFir-ya 14, wr r .. ' � � �iRY11Vi✓I x -:.4r+ Ciwltff!'.9I✓/f�M~�•': ►; r• 'CM ' .M` a Te REM . Deaerlptloa: Or4C9e,CA Document - Book Page (Pre -1982) 8339.801 Page: 4 of 4 Order: d= Co=ont. 5� 5IA:06 APPORTIONMENT OF VACATED STREETS In California, there is no statute or appellate court decision that sets forth a rule for determining the boundaries of an area within vacated streets that would be apportioned to the adjacent land. While Civil Code Section 1112 fixes one boundary to be the center of the street, (see CLTA Manual Section 51A:00:A:4 supra.) unless a different intent appears from the grant, the side lines would be more difficult to establish. In the states of Washington and Oklahoma, apportionment of vacated public ways was made on the theory of extending the side lines of the lots in their own direction to the center of the public way. State v. Sucerior Court (Washington 1918),102 WA 331; 173 P. 186; St Louis -San Francisco Ry. v. Walter (Oklahoma, 1962) 305 F.2d 90). Application of this theory in all cases would not necessarily, however, effect an equitable apportionment of vacated street areas. An example would be when the side lines of lots in a subdivision are not parallel and intersect the sheet line at a sharp angle. Apportionment by extending the lot lines in their own direction might give adjacent lot owners a greater or lesser share of the vacated street than their frontage would justify. Another theory of apportioning a vacated sheet is the method devised for division of accretion. This theory would be applied by extending the lines perpendicular to the side lines of the street, not by extending the side lines of the lot by their original course. (See EMM's Million Dollar Pier Co. v. Ocean Park Pier Co., 185 C.464 (1921)). Rule of Title Practice Title evidence on a lot and a portion of a vacated street belonging to the lot owner may be described as: "Lot in Tract. etc., together with that portion of the easterly one -half of X Street (vacated, etc.) title to which would pass by a conveyance describing as':[ lot." A specific metes and bounds description of a vacated street area shall not be insured without Management approval unless: The boundaries of rite vacated street area have been adjusted between the respective lot owners by agreement or otherwise, or, The side lines of the lots are parallel, and perpendicular to the street line so that no substantial disputed areas would arise. N J § §1 it § | a It £ \� ) §; �| § |§ 4§ k� I m - § \ |O| �ƒ Alf , ■� ; \ SLY E 1017 �e L $ � � $ arx sr. S k �� � h\ I At 0 ("o� SECURITY UNION -TITLE Raecrdad In tMRelal Records, County of Orange Tom Daly. Dark- llacord*r Escrow No. 14CS- 23658 -BS IIN� im 2Ws f o 04: 16Ip�m61�18109 RECORDING REQUESTED BY 214 +t0 acs 0 000 AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: 4m,60 0.0o 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 John W. Fitzgibbon, Esq. Professional Real Estate Services, Inc. 1201 Dove Street, Suite 100 Newport Beach, California 92660 (Space Above For Recorder's Use) GI DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $4,670.60 �VP .......... Computed on the consideration of value ofproperty conveyed; OR Computed on the consideration or value loss liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale Signature of Declarant or Agent determining tax — Fitm Name GRANT DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby aclmowledged, PETREE PROPERTIES IL INC., a California corporation hereby GRANT(S) to MONROVIA AVENUE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the reel property in the County of Orange, State of California, described as follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and .ntm��rs;rcQ �e.�.e'+ m iVCw Qor� THE REAL PROPERTY CONVEYED HEREIN BY GRANTOR TO GRANTEE IS CONVEYED AND ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO: 1. NONDELINQUENT REAL PROPERTY TAXES, GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXESIBONDS AND ASSESSMENTS. 2. ALL COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, RIGHTS, RIGHTS OF WAY OF RECORD. ssrrraouwu Descrlptloa: prangs,G DocamOnt -Year. DaoSD 2003.996500 Page: 1 of 5 Order: dma Comment: N 3. THAT CERTAIN LEASE BETWEEN SELLER, AS LANDLORD, AND HACHETTE FILIPACCHI MAGAZINES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AS TENANT, DATED MAY 14, 1995. Dated: August 18, 2003 PETREE PROPERTIES II, INC., a California co moon Name: R. M. Salame Its: President MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: Monrovia Avenue LLC c/o Mr. Telford A. Walker P.O. Box 8083 Newport Beach, California 92658 3e3m.o1mtA ft&70 43 -Qmol y -2. Description: Orengs,CA DOCumant•Year.DocrD 2003.999504 Page: 2 of 5 Order: dma Comments RN STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) On before me, r �Z -• <.1 j� C. -.k: ; . a Notary Public In and for said a te, personally appeared ; *• h N. personally known tome to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to the that helyhe executed the same in high" authorized capacity, and that by hislher signature on the instrument, the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instr unetti. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary . .4for said State °A 10 (SEAL) ;.•, r•: , W w;mm� MM 13 -m", •3- De8or-tPt1oa: Orange,G Dooumet;- Yaar.DOCSD 2003.998504 Page: 3 of 5 Order: dmn Comment: (04 GOVERNMENT CODE 27361.7 I certify under penalty that the Notary Seal on the document to which this statement is attached reads as follows: NAME OF NOTARY: E+ Wcl Jo Curb, DATE COMISSION EXPIRES: flflY l , OM4 COUNTY WHERE BOND IS FILED: LQ61 . COMISSION NUMBER: l r'rF) OR NUMBER: N Nfl f_ I certify under penalty of perjury and the laws of the State of California that the illegible portion of this document to which this statement is attached reads as follows: Personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose names) is/am subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that hefshe/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. PLACE OF EXECUTION: aM a Ana SIGNATURE: L H DATE: OB Q1/ 03 Deacriptioa: Oragge,G Document -Year. DOC= 2008.999504 Page: 4 of 5 Order: dmn 00=ent: b5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The land referred to in this Grant Deed is situated in the State of Califon* County of Orange and is described as follows: PARCELI: LOT 1016, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTH 1.10 ACRES, AND ALL OF LOT 1017 CONTAINING 1.23 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF "FIRST ADDITION TO NEWPORT MESA TRACT", AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOKS, PAGE 61, MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY. PARCEL 2: THAT PORTION OF FIFTEENTH (157H) STREET AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF THE FIRST ADDITION TO NEWPORT MESA TRACT RECORDED IN BOOKS, PAGE61, MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, LYING WESTERLY OF A LINE THAT RUNS SOUTHERLY IN A DIRECT LINE FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1016 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1017 AS SAID LOTS ARE SHOWN ON SAID MAP. smiu.ouwlA EXHIBIT A P"70o va.i�avad& I. DeaortPtImt Orenge,CA Document- Year.DccXD 2008.990504 Page: 5 of S Order: dma Ccmmeut. 1 Page I of I FIRST AMERICAN TITLE r 11, 2005 01:17:16 pm PST Report Origination ID: 03- A14$011 COUNTY 2005,06 TAX ROLL Customer Service Request APN 424.401.11 PAYMENTS AS OF 11104!2005 TRA 07011 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Legal FIRSTADDTO NEWPORT MESATR LOT 1017 AND POR OF LOT 1016ABANDST Sftus 1441 MONROVIA AV ompoommiL' Mail P 0 BOX 8038 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658 Year Instrument 2003-0998504 Assessed Owner MONROVIA AVE LLC Assessed Values Taxes Land 3,060,000 Status Improvements 1,270,920 Payment Date Personal Prop" 0 Total Tax Nomeownee3 Exemption 0 Tax install All Other Examptlons 0 Penalty Balance Due Not 4,330,920 Total Taxes Due Code Type Al ALL PROP AV TAX US OCSD SEWER USER FEE BA MOSO,FIRE ANT ASSMT C7 MWD WATER STDSY CHG 83 VECTOR CONTROL OHG USE CODE CMRCL Special Assessments Included In Tax Amounts Jurisdiction ORANGE CO SANITATION DIST (OLD OCS ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTR MWD -MWDOC WAS CMWD ORIG AREA 12059 ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTR Tout Of Special Assassmonts Additional Property Information End Of Report file: / /C:1 Program% 20Files\ BackWeb \NewSTS\html\O\mport9700.htmI 1N Half 2nd Hoff OPEN OPEN 46,370.66 23,185.33 23,185.33 2,316.53 2,328.53 23,185.33 23,185.33 46,370.66 1,29033 2914 25.62 4.80 , 11/11/2005 lM1 Exhibit 2 I tt, ry . I r-j . I IL i�yiiq '`'� 11 � I I li =� � i i�q�qg�1"' 3 JILI I lip it UPI H Yit 1voll j16 t �i 174 -w4 KA I-LI IL IL t I MET -rcl 77 I-LI IL IL t I MET -rcl Exhibit 3 -1t i(- Q1 C N O O 0 M ON V u a or co CL 0 a, 0 0 ON a 0 CL V a t 0 'A Exhibit 4 13 March 5, 2007 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA2007 -002 (PA2007 -039) PLANNING OF-PARTMENT 330D NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 644.3200 FAX (949) 644.3229 Monrovia Ave LLC Attention: Telford Walker PO Box 8083 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Staff Person: Javier S. Garcia, 644.3206 Appeal Period: 14 days after approval date Application No. Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2007 -002 (PA2007 -039) Applicant Monrovia Ave LLC Site Address 1499 and 9505 Monrovia Avenue Legal Description Portion of Lot 1016 and 1017, First Addition to Newport Mesa Tract and the portion of the vacated and abandoned of 9 stn street tnat ties uetween the two tots. Approved as Requested To allow the adjustment of lot line between two existing lots and to combine portions of an abandoned right -of -way into the existing southerly lot. All existng easements will be continued and may be in the form of a separate instrument. The property is located in the M -1 -A District. On March 5, 2007, the Zoning Administrator approved the application request, based on the following findings and subject to the following procedural requirements. In this case, the Zoning Administrator determined that the proposal would not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood. The approved lot line adjustment would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19 and Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code based on the following findings: -14 FINDINGS The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions) and Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). 2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and designated as RM (Multiple - Unit Residential) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 3. The proposal will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood. The lot line adjustment, as approved, is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19 and Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code based on the following reasons: • The project is a minor lot line adjustment that does not create any new parcel or change the number of existing parcels. • The project is in an area with an average slope less than 20 %. • The project will not result in a change in land use or density since no additional lots are created and there will be no change in land use. • The general exception to the Class exemptions is not applicable in this case since no significant environmental effects will result from this project. The traffic and parking impacts will not change from that which would result from the use of the original subdivision. • The project site described in the proposal consists of legal building sites. • The lot line adjustment, in and of itself, will not result in the need for additional improvements and /or facilities since public improvements and infrastructure currently exist. • The proposed lot size is consistent with the zoning regulation requirements of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees shall be paid prior to review of the lot line adjustment and grant deeds. Prior to recordation of the lot line adjustment, grant deeds indicating the changes in titles of ownership should be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. All existing easements shall remain unchanged and shall be shown on the final document for recordation. March 5, 2007 FAUserslPLN%Shared%PA's1PAs - 20071PA2007- 0391LA2007- 002appr.doc Page 2 15 3. The lot line adjustment and grant deeds reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department should be filed concurrently with the County Recorder and County Assessor's Offices. 4. No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Department 5. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Any party may appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator to the Planning Commission within 14 days of the decision date. A $600.00 filing fee must accompany the submitted appeal. By 9� Zoning A inistrato avier S. Garcia, AECP JSG:ks Attachments: Vicinity Map c: contact Kirsten Emershaw Appeared 1415 Baypoint Drive in Opposition: None Newport Beach, CA 92660 Appeared in Support: None March 5, 2007 F:1Users\PLN\Shared\PA :s1PAs - 2007 1PA2007- 0391LA2007- 002appr.doc Page 3 lip 1. vii;`' ,: -;.�` ,. VICINITY MAP !2'- cb, w"f " -. - , , v wk, TH 8T W Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2007-002 PA2007-039 1499 and 1505 Monrovia Avenue -1�