HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 - Landmark Buildings - PA 2002-218 - Code Amendment CA 2002-007CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 19
March 25, 2003
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Department
Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager
(949) 644 -3222
swoodocity. newport- beach. ca. us
SUBJECT: Code Amendment CA 2002 -007 - Landmark Buildings (PA 2002 -218)
ISSUE:
Amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to designate certain types of
buildings as "Landmark Buildings" and modify restrictions on the uses in Landmark Buildings.
RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce Ordinance No. 2003 -_
second reading on April 8, 2003.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
approving Code Amendment CA 2002 -007 and pass to
On October 8, 2002, the City Council directed the City Attorney and the Planning Director to
prepare amendments to the zoning code "that would allow the City's three 'landmark theaters' to
continue to provide entertainment to the community in an economic fashion and have flexibility
for complimentary uses, such as food service." The Planning Commission initiated the code
amendment on November 7, 2002.
The code amendment was considered by the City Council on February 11, 2003. The City
Council asked staff to revise the amendment to address a number of issues related to the hours
of operation, the criteria for establishing a nonconforming use, preservation of architectural
features/ facades and parking.
Proposed Amendment:
Section 20.62.050 (A) of the Zoning Code requires a use permit for any nonconforming use that
is expanded, increased or intensified by way of a change in operational characteristics. The
nonconforming use must be normally permitted by right or by the approval of a use permit, but is
only nonconforming by virtue of the required conditions of the zoning district in which it is
located.
Landmark Buildings
February 11, 2003
Page 2
The proposed amendment revises Chapter 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses) to
designate certain types of buildings as Landmark Buildings. Assuming certain conditions are
satisfied, no use permit is required to maintain the principal use of a Landmark Building or
initiate or intensify an accessory use. The principal use of a Landmark Building is designated as
the use for which it was designed (Landmark Theatre) or the dominant use as of January 1,
2003 (Landmark Structure). Accessory uses are defined in terms of uses that are permitted (as
a matter of right or pursuant to use permit) in the zoning district and do not exceed 30% of the
floor area existing as of January 1, 2003. The purpose of the amendment is to preserve historic
structures, encourage their adaptive reuse, and revitalize the older commercial areas in which
they are located by granting relief from restrictions on nonconforming uses while minimizing
impacts on the surrounding area
The conditions that must be satisfied include:
1. Accessory uses remain subordinate to the principal use and do not, at any time, occupy
more than 30 percent of the existing floor area of the building as of January 1, 2003.
2. A use permit is issued pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.89 (Alcoholic Beverage
Outlets) prior to the initiation of any accessory use that involves the sale or consumption
of alcoholic beverages.
3. Any permit required by any other titles (other than Title 20) of the Municipal Code has
been issued prior to the initiation or intensification of any accessory use.
4. The principal use and any accessory use in any Landmark Theater are conducted
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m.
5. The required off - street parking of all uses after any additions, intensification, modification
or expansion (including credit for reductions in off - street parking resulting from the
elimination of accessory uses existing on January 1, 2003) is less than the required off-
street parking for the principal and accessory uses prior to any additions, intensification,
modification or expansion.
6. The fagade and /or architectural features of the Landmark Building are not substantially
altered or are restored to original condition and the exterior walls of the Landmark
Building remain in the same location as they existed on January 1, 2003.
Three buildings meet the criteria for Landmark Theaters: the Lido Theater at 3459 Via Lido, the
Balboa Theater at 707 East Balboa Boulevard, and the Port Theatre at 2905 East Coast
Highway. All three of these theaters are nonconforming uses because they were constructed
before use permits were required. The National Register contains five properties that are
located in Newport Beach. The Balboa Inn at 105 Main Street, the Balboa Pavilion at 400 Main
Street, the Bank of Balboa at 611 East Balboa Boulevard (demolished in the late 1980's), the
Lovell Beach House at 1242 West Ocean Front, and Crystal Cove Historic District in Crystal
Cove State Park. Of the sites on the National Register, only the Balboa Pavilion is a
nonconforming use.
No other historic properties qualify for the exception. However, it is possible that additional
properties could qualify if placed on the National Register by the National Park Service. Other
forms of historic recognition, such as by the State, City, or a historical society, would not
establish a building as a Landmark Building, and Landmark Building status does not place
additional restrictions on the property owner's ability to modify or demolish the building.
Landmark Buildings
February 11, 2003
Page 3
Environmental Review:
The project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and has
been determined to be categorically exempt under Class 5, minor alterations in land use
limitations.
Public Notice:
Public notices were mailed to the property owners of the Lido Theater, Balboa Theater, Port
Theatre, the Balboa Pavilion, all property owners within 300 feet of these properties, and to
business and community associations.
Submitted by
SIharon Z. Wood
Assistant City ager
Attachments:
1. Draft ordinance.
2. Proposed revisions to Chapter 20.62 (Exhibit A).
3. Planning Commission Resolution
4. January 23, 2003 Planning Commission staff report.
5. January 23, 2003 Planning Commission minutes.
6. December 5, 2002 Planning Commission minutes.
7. Correspondence.
ORDINANCE 2003-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TITLE
20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO LANDMARK BUILDINGS AND
NONCONFORMING USES [CODE AMENDMENT 2002 -0071
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2002, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport
Beach initiated an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to
designate certain types of buildings as "Landmark Buildings" and modify restrictions on
nonconforming uses in Landmark Buildings; and
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2002, January 9, 2003, and January 23, 2003, the
Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held duly noticed public hearings
regarding this code amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval
of this code amendment to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on February 11, 2003 and March 25, 2003, the City Council of the City
of Newport Beach held duly noticed public hearings regarding this code amendment; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, it has been
determined that the proposed amendment is categorically exempt under Class 5, minor
alterations in land use limitations.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be amended to
revise Section 20.62.050 (A) and add Section 20.62.065 to Title 20 of the Newport Beach
1
4
Municipal Code, as provided in Exhibit "A."
SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of
this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the
City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption.
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach held on March 25, 2003, and adopted on the 8th day of April 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
2
EXHIBIT A
Proposed Revisions to Chapter 20.62
20.62.050 Nonconforming Uses
A. Expansion Increase and Intensification of Nonconforming Uses. A use
normally permitted by right or by the approval of a use permit, but which is
nonconforming by virtue of the required conditions of the district in which it is
located, may be expanded, increased or intensified by way of a change in
operational characteristics upon the approval of a use permit.
Exception: The use of a Landmark Building (see Section 20.62.065)
may be changed, expanded, increased or intensified without
obtaining a use permit required by this Section, and structural
alterations may be made without obtaining a use permit required by
Section 20.62.040 subject to compliance with the provisions of
Section 20.62.065.
B. Change of Nonconforming Use. A nonconforming nonresidential use may
be changed to a conforming use provided that the requirements of Chapter
20.63 (Floor Area Ratios and Building Bulk) are satisfied and the change
does not create or increase a deficiency in code required off - street parking.
A nonconforming residential use may be altered to reduce the number of
dwelling units provided there is no increase in gross square footage and the
provisions of Chapter 20.86: Low and Moderate Income Housing Within the
Coastal Zone, are satisfied. A nonconforming use may be changed to a use
of a similar nature provided no intensification or enlargement of
nonconforming uses occurs except as provided in Subsection A above, and
provided that the new use is no less compatible with the surrounding area.
20.62.065 Landmark Buildings
A. Purpose. To preserve historic structures, encourage their adaptive reuse, and
revitalize the older commercial areas in which they are located by granting relief
from restrictions on nonconforming uses and structures in this Chapter while
maintaining the principal use and minimizing impacts on the surrounding area.
B. Applicability. The following types of buildings are recognized as having
importance to the history and architecture of the City of Newport Beach and are
collectively designated as Landmark Buildings:
Landmark Theaters. The term Landmark Theaters shall mean any
building constructed for use as a cinema or theater that (a) was
I
constructed on or before December 12, 1950; (b) has a single screen or
stage; and (c) was designed to seat more than 300 people.
2. Landmark Structure. The term Landmark Structure shall mean any
building listed on the National Register of Historic Places, constructed
prior to December 12, 1950.
C. Exemptions. The principal use of a Landmark Building may be maintained,
altered, increased or intensified by way of a change in operational
characteristics without obtaining a use permit required by Section 20.62.050 (A),
subject to compliance with the conditions of Section 20.62.065 (D) irrespective
of whether the principal use has been inactive for any period of time since
inception. An accessory use may be initiated, or intensified by way of a change
in operational characteristics, in a Landmark Building without obtaining a use
permit required by Section 20.62.050 (A) or any other provision of this Code
(except Chapter 20.89), subject to compliance with the conditions of Section
20.62.065 (D). Structural alterations may be made to a Landmark Building
without obtaining a use permit pursuant to Section 20.62.040(C) subject to
compliance with the conditions of Section 20.62.065(D). For purposes of this
Section the term accessory use shall mean any use that is permitted as a matter
of right or pursuant to a use permit in the zoning district in which the Landmark
Building is located. For purposes of this Section, the term principal use shall
mean, in the case of a Landmark Theatre, the (i) display of motion pictures; and
(ii) any similar entertainment use that occurred on a regular basis within the
structure from its inception to January 1, 2003. In the case of a Landmark
Structure, the term principal use shall be the use that occupies the greatest
amount of floor area as of January 1, 2003.
D. Conditions. The exemptions specified in Subsection C are applicable on the
following conditions.
1. Any new use that is initiated, and any use that is intensified by ay of a
change in operational characteristics, is accessory and remains
subordinate to the principal use of the Landmark Building and shall not,
at any time, occupy more than 30 percent of the existing floor area of
the building as of January 1, 2003.
2. A use permit is issued pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.89
(Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) prior to the initiation of any accessory use
that involves the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages.
3. Any permit required by any other titles (other than Title 20) of the
Municipal Code has been issued prior to the initiation or intensification
(by way of a change in operational characteristics) of any accessory use
of the Landmark Building.
I
4. The principal use and any accessory use in any Landmark Theater are
conducted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m.
5. The required off - street parking of all uses after any additions,
intensification, modification or expansion (including credit for reductions
in off - street parking resulting from the elimination of accessory uses
existing on January 1, 2003) is less than the required off - street parking
for the principal and accessory uses prior to any additions,
intensification, modification or expansion.
6. The fagade and /or architectural features of the Landmark Building are
not substantially altered or are restored to original condition and the
exterior walls of the Landmark Building remain in the same location as
they existed on January 1, 2003.
20.62.080 Termination of Nonconforming Status
A. A nonconforming structure or use must be modified to conform to the
regulations of the district in which such property is located when one or more
of the following events occur:
1. Unless otherwise provided for in this chapter, a nonconforming use
which remains inactive for 180 consecutive days, shall be deemed
have to ceased, and shall not thereafter be reestablished, except as
provided in Subsection B, below.
2. A nonconforming use is converted to a conforming use.
3. If a nonconforming use or structural nonconformity is enlarged,
extended, expanded or in any other manner changed to increase its
inconsistency with the regulations of the Zoning Code.
4. Expiration of the period of time provided in the resolution establishing
the conditions of abatement and the abatement period.
B. Exceptions.
1. A nonconforming use which has been inactive for 180 days or more may
be reestablished, subject to the approval of the Planning Director upon
finding that:
a. The use is normally permitted, either by right or by the approval of
a use permit, and is nonconforming only by virtue of the required
conditions of the district in which it is located; and
0
b. The property or structure where the nonconforming use was
located contains a substantial investment in the structural design,
equipment, or fixtures that are unique to and necessary for the
operation of the former use; eF and
C. The property owner has made a good faith effort to reestablish the
use and has maintained the property in a manner to prevent
unsafe or unsightly condition during the period of inactivity.
2. A nonconforming use that has been inactive for 180 days or more may
be reestablished when located within a Landmark Building, pursuant to
the requirements Section 20.62.065.
11
I '
RESOLUTION NO. 1586
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THE
ADOPTION OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2002 -007 (PA
2002 -218)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS,
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The proposed code amendment is to Chapter 20.62 of Title 20 of
the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Commission initiated this
amendment on November 7, 2002.
Section 2. A public hearing was held on December 5, 2002, January 9, 2003,
and January 23, 2003 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was
given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was
presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows:
1. Newport Beach has landmark theaters and buildings listed on the National
Register of Historic Places.
2. These buildings are representative of the history or architecture of the City of
Newport Beach.
3. The restrictions on nonconforming uses should be modified in order to
discourage the demolition of these buildings and to encourage their adaptive
reuse.
4. The project has been reviewed and it has been determined that it is
categorically exempt under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)
of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paoe 2 of 2
Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission
hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach adopt Code
Amendment No. 2002 -007 to revise Section 20.62.050 (A) and add Section 20.62.065
to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as provided in Exhibit A.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF January 2003.
AYES:Toerge, Agaianian, McDaniel, Kiser
Gifford, Selich and Tucker
NOES: None
BY:
,-P mKis , Chairman
Secretary
U
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
(949) 644 -3200
FILE COPY
Agenda Item No. 3
January 23, 2003
SUBJECT: Code Amendment CA 2002 -007 -Landmark Buildings (PA 2002 -218)
ISSUE:
Amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to designate certain types of
buildings as "Landmark Buildings" and modify restrictions on nonconforming uses in
Landmark Buildings.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 2003- recommending approval or modification of Code
Amendment 2002 -007 to the City Council.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
The Planning Commission initiated the code amendment on November 7, 2002.
A public hearing was held on the proposed code amendment on December 5, 2002. The
Planning Commission continued the hearing and directed staff to revise the language to
clarify provisions regarding the extent of permitted changes and requirements for other
permits.
Proposed Amendment:
Section 20.62.050 (A) of the Zoning Code requires a use permit for any nonconforming
use that is expanded, increased or intensified by way of a change in operational
characteristics. The nonconforming use must be normally permitted by right or by the
approval of a use permit, but is only nonconforming by virtue of the required conditions of
the zoning district in which it is located. The proposed amendment revises Chapter 20.62
(Nonconforming Structures and Uses) to designate certain types of buildings as Landmark
Buildings and establish an exception that would allow a nonconforming use in a Landmark
Building to expand, increase or intensify by way of a change in its operational
characteristics without the approval of a use permit, provided there is no net increase in f
1 `1
Landmark Buildings
January 23, 2003
Page 2
the number of required off - street parking spaces or the required number of off - street
parking spaces are provided, and any new use remains subordinate to the existing use. A
floor area limitation of 25% of the structure for the new or intensified use will insure that it
remains incidental to the primary use.
Use permits are required for use classifications typically having unusual site development
features or operating characteristics that require special consideration to insure that they
are designed, located, and operated compatibly with uses in the surrounding area. The
proposed amendment would exempt any new uses associated with the expansion,
increase or intensification of the existing use from the requirement for a use permit, as long
as the conditions in the Code are met. Examples of such uses include arcades, cabarets,
nightclubs, and restaurants.
The stated intent of these provisions is to recognize buildings having importance to the
history or architecture of the City of Newport Beach and to discourage the demolition of
landmark buildings and to encourage their adaptive reuse. Two types of buildings would be
designated as Landmark Buildings:
1. Landmark Theaters. Buildings constructed for use as cinemas or
theaters that (a) were constructed on or before December 12, 1950;
and (b) were designed to seat more than 300 people.
2. National Register. Buildings listed on the National Register of Historic
Places and constructed prior to December 12, 1950.
Three buildings meet the criteria for Landmark Theaters: the Lido Theater at 3459 Via
Lido, the Balboa Theater at 707 East Balboa Boulevard, and the Port Theater at 2905 East
Coast Highway. All three of these theaters are nonconforming uses because they were
constructed before use permits were required. The National Register contains five
properties that are located in Newport Beach. The Balboa Inn at 105 Main Street, the
Balboa Pavilion at 400 Main Street, the Bank of Balboa at 611 East Balboa Boulevard
(demolished in the late 1980's), the Lovell Beach House at 1242 West Ocean Front, and
Crystal Cove Historic District in Crystal Cove State Park. Of the sites on the National
Register, only the Balboa Pavilion is a nonconforming use.
No other historic properties qualify for the exception. However, it is possible that additional
properties could qualify if placed on the National Register by the National Park Service.
Other forms of historic recognition, such as by the State, City, or a historical society, would
not establish a building as a Landmark Building, and Landmark Building status does not
place additional restrictions on the property owner's ability to modify or demolish the
building.
0
Landmark Buildings
January 23, 2003
Page 3
Proposed Revisions:
The text pf the proposed exception to Section 20.62.050 has been revised to clearly state
that any new use associated with the change in operational characteristics must obtain
other permits required by the Municipal Code. For example, if a Landmark Theater added
live performances, a live entertainment permit issued by the City Manager's office would
still be required. The text of the proposed exception is also revised to clearly state that a
use permit is required for alcoholic beverage outlets under the provisions of Chapter 20.89
(Alcoholic Beverage Outlets).
As previously mentioned, staff also added a provision requiring that all new uses
associated with the change in operational characteristics must not occupy more than 25
percent of the floor area of the building. This provision is intended to ensure that the new
use remains subordinate, and that the primary use of the building is not supplanted by any
new uses allowed under the proposed exception.
Environmental Review:
The project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and
has been determined to be categorically exempt under Class 5, minor alterations in land
use limitations.
Public Notice:
Public notices for the December 5, 2002 hearing were mailed to the property owners of the
Lido Theater, Balboa Theater, Port Theatre, the Balboa Pavilion, all property owners within
300 feet of these properties, and to business and community associations. Notices for the
December 5, 2002 hearing were also posted on the sites of the four properties that would
qualify for the exception.
Since the Planning Commission continued the hearing to specific dates (January 9, 2003
and January 23, 2003), no additional notice is required.
Submitted by
Patricia L. Temple
Planning Director
Attachments:
1. Draft resolution.
2. Proposed revisions to Chapter 20.62 (Exhibit A).
3. December 5, 2002 Planning Commission staff report (recycled).
4. Correspondence.
Ito
1,
Attachment 1
Draft Resolution
11
RESOLUTION NO. 2003
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THE
ADOPTION OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2002 -007 (PA
2002 -218)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS,
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The proposed code amendment is to Chapter 20.62 of Title 20 of
the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Commission initiated this
amendment on November 7, 2002.
Section 2. A public hearing was held on December 5, 2002, January 9, 2003,
and January 23, 2003 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was
given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was
presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows:
1. Newport Beach has landmark theaters and buildings listed on the National
Register of Historic Places.
2. These buildings are representative of the history or architecture of the City of
Newport Beach.
3. The restrictions on nonconforming uses should be modified in order to
discourage the demolition of these buildings and to encourage their adaptive
reuse.
4. The project has been reviewed and it has been determined that it is
categorically exempt under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)
of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 2 of 2
Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission
hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach adopt Code
Amendment No. 2002 -007 to revise Section 20.62.050 (A) and add Section 20.62.065
to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as provided in Exhibit A.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF January 2003.
LO-IN
Steven Kiser, Chairman
Shant Agajanian, Secretary
AYES:
NO
Attachment 2
Proposed Revisions to Ch. 20.62 (Exhibit A)
19
EXHIBIT A
Proposed Revisions to Chapter 20.62
20.62.050 Nonconforming Uses
A. Expansion Increase and Intensification of Nonconforming Uses. A use normally
permitted by right or by the approval of a use permit, but which is nonconforming by
virtue of the required conditions of the district in which it is located, may be
expanded, increased or intensified by way of a change in operational characteristics
upon the approval of a use permit.
Exception: �'A nonconforming , use'' ;m' a .Landmark..Building (see Sedioq
20.62065) may be expanded, ~increased or.intensified by way of a change
in operational characteristics without obtaining a use permtt required by this
section. subject to the following provisions;.
._.n...._._..._.. 'a-e.d, _.- ...._._',. ---- _-.. .
1. Any new uses assoaated with the change in, operational characteristics
are accessory and remain subordinate:and incidental to the main use of
the Landmark Building, and shall not occupy more than -25 percent of
the floor area of the building.
2. A use permit shall �be required for* -any alcoholic beverage outlet
pursuant to the provisions of . Chapter 20.89,. (Alcoholic- Beverage
Outlets).
3. Any new uses'associated.with `the change in
th . operationafcharacteristics
are required to obtain any permits at may. be required by other titles of
the Municipal Code..
4. The required off- street parking of all uses after the intensification,
modification or expansion is less than or equal to the required off - street
parking prior to the modification, expansion or intensification or the
number of off-street parking spaces required by Chapter 20.66, (Off-
Street Parking and Loading Regulations) are.provided.
B. Change of Nonconforming Use. A nonconforming nonresidential use may be
changed to a conforming use provided that the requirements of Chapter 20.63:
Floor Area Ratios and Building Bulk are satisfied and the change does not create or
increase a deficiency in code required off- street parking. A nonconforming
residential use may be altered to reduce the number of dwelling units provided
there is no increase in gross square footage and the provisions of Chapter 20.86:
Low and Moderate Income Housing Within the Coastal Zone, are satisfied. A
nonconforming use may be changed to a use of a similar nature provided no
intensification or enlargement of nonconforming uses occurs except as provided in
Subsection A above, and provided that the new use is no less compatible with the
surrounding area.
�A
FA
ierb constructed on or before December '1
to seat more than 300 Deople,
2. NafionaR— @g- tstzr:,—Bui(3ing's listed -on t e`National*ge issTer of F_lii nc
Places and constructeqprior to December 12, 1950:
B. The resfnctnns o'n- nonconfottning uses and isfib Lures are mod'�n the indi� vi3uai
sections of this chapter in order to discoura__ge the demolition of landmark buildings
and to encourage their adaptive reuse:
Attachment 3
Dec. 5, 2002 PC Staff Report
�,3
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2003 INDEX
SUBJECT; Zoning Code Amendment CA2002 -007 (PA2002 -218)
Item 3
Landmark Buildings
PA2002 -218
Amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to designate
Recommended for
certain types of buildings as "Landmark Buildings" and modify restrictions on
Approval
nonconforming uses in Landmark Buildings.
Chairperson Kiser noted that this item had been initiated on November 7. 2002. A
public hearing was held on December 5. 2002. The Planning Commission
continued the hearing and advised staff to revise the language to clarify
provisions. He then noted correspondence from citizens that had been received
and distributed.
Commissioner Selich added:
• The Port Theater capacity is approximately 960.
• It has been represented that the theater has been used for charitable
events and presentations to keep its use active.
• If this ordinance were passed, they would have to come to the Planning
staff and provide evidence that is the case per specified criteria in the
Non - conforming Section of the Code.
Public comment was opened.
Dick Nichols noted the following in opposition to the Port Theater landmark
designation:
• Public notification of this hearing, in his opinion, was not enough.
• Community members are not in support of this Port Theater.
• The three venues being considered have different aspects.
• Port Theater should be considered at a later date.
• Parking is inadequate for the seating capacity of the Port Theater.
• There is an arcade ordinance that specifies minimum distances to
residents and schools. This facility is within 90 feet to residential and at
1000 feet to Harbor View School. They might not be able to have an
arcade in the Port Theater.
• Not enough alley access for trash dumpsters.
Chairperson Kiser noted that in the proposed amendment. the required off street
parking for all uses after the intensification. modification or expansion of the
buildings has to be less or equal to the required off street parking prior to the
modification, expansion or intensification required.
James "Walkie" Ray. 424 Angelita and part owner of the James Square Center at
2929 -2939 East Coast Highway noted his opposition to landmark status or
reinstatement of expired entitlements to the Port Theater:
• Concerned about the Port Theater being used in a manner to increase
intensity due to parking problems in the area.
• Does not want it to be developed as a nightclub.
6
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2003 INDEX
Louveno Heyton. resident of Corona del Mar. noted her support of the landmark
determination for the Port Theater stating it is historical as the original Lassie has
performed there as well as the Beatles: she has gone to church services there: is
aware of complaints of previous speakers: many community members are in
support of something positive happening there: Corona del Mar deserves
something to be put there to enhance the community.
Vol Skoro. 1601 Boyodere Terrace. noted that a preponderance of community
members are in support of doing something with the Port Theater to tie in with the
Visioning update of Corona del Mar. He asked that the Commission support this
amendment.
Bernie Svolstodt. representing the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce. spoke
in support of this amendment and asked that the Commission approve this
matter.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Selich noted his support of this amendment as the ordinance would
help these four buildings. These are existing uses with a parking requirement
associated with them. The amendment allows adaptive use and it requires that
they not be intensified beyond what is in place now. The idea is to keep the
original use of the building and have a supplemental use to keep them
economically viable and allow a property owner to make on investment and
upgrade the buildings. It does no good to have a building empty or go down in
value and quality. These buildings were built many years ago with stages and
provide a sense of community to all. I would like to give some help to upgrading
and preserving them and not have any greater impact on the community than
they do in their existing nonconforming state. I just don't see what the down side
is on it. I am in favor of moving ahead with this.
Commissioner Tucker noted his support of this amendment noting:
• This came to us from the City Council and is more of a policy matter. which
should be decided by the Council.
• If the theater opened as a theater. people who object tonight would still
object. they don't want it to be anything.
• The prospect of flexibility to allow it to re -open is something they oppose
because they don't like the fact that it is in a residential area that grew up
overtime and there was never any parking provided.
• This is not a good land use as it is on imposition but it has been on
imposition for many years.
Commissioner Toerge noted:
• There is a desire of the community at large for something to be done on
this site.
The owner has the right to continue the use as a theater as long as they
can prove that it has continued in that manner.
Hard to ignore the impact on the adjacent uses and nearby residents.
C
r.
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2003 INDEX
• Supports this amendment so that the Council con make the policy
decision.
Commissioner Agojonion noted his support for reasons previously stated.
Commissioner McDaniel noted his support.
Commissioner Gifford noted her support on this matter on its merits particularly in
light of the City's efforts to promote the Newport Film Festival.
Chairperson Kiser noted his support of this d amendment and then read the
revised exception that, 'Any new uses associated with the change in operational
characteristics ore accessory and remain subordinate and incidental to the main
use of the Landmark Building, and sholl not occupy more than 25 percent of the
floor area of the building.'
Motion was mode by Commissioner Selich to adopt Resolution No. 1586
recommending approval of Code Amendment 2002 -007 to the City Council.
Ayes: Toerge, Agojonion, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker
Noes: None
� spa
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS.' ' w Additional Business
o) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood noted that the City Council approved on
the�firgt reading the Planned Community Amendment for Fashion Island
signs; colled for review the use permit for Hattie's Pizzo on January 23rd.
b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic
Development Committee - Commissioner Selich reported that there was
no meeting.
C) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan
Update Committee - No meeiing, but the subcommittee met to review oil
of the elements to determine the extent to which any or all of them need
to be revised. Ms. Wood invited th Zommission to o joint study session
with the Council at 4:30 on Tuesday the'28th to hear o presentation of the
results of the visioning process.
d) Report from Planning Commission's representotive to the Local Coastal
Plan Update Committee - none.
e) Matters that o Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at o
subsequent meeting - none.
f) Matters that o Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future
agenda for action and staff report - none.
S
a1
r
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 5, 2002
SUBJECT: Zoning Code Amendment CA2002 -007 (PA2002 -218)
Landmark Buildings
Amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to designate
certain types of buildings as "Landmark Buildings" and modify restrictions on
nonconforming uses in Landmark buildings.
Chairperson Kiser asked about the date criteria referred to on page 2 of the staff
report. Where did the 300 seating criteria derive from?
Mr. Patrick Alford answered that was the effective date of the 1950 Zoning Code,
which is the basis for the current Code. The 300 seating recommendation came
from the City Attorney's office and was intended to describe the common
characteristics of the landmark theaters.
Commissioner Tucker asked where this proposal came from, how did staff
become involved with this?
Ms. Temple answered that over the past couple of years there has been several
discussions about a couple of the structures that would fall under this code
provision in regards to ways to encourage their adaptive re -use, those being the
Balboa Pavilion and the Port Theater. It was thought that in order to encourage
their preservation, that some relief of the procedural requirements might
encourage an applicant to look at improvements and upgrades to the structures
to ensure their preservation.
Commissioner Agajonion asked about the Crystal Cove Historic District in Crystal
Cove State Park. Do we have any jurisdiction over that and why are we dealing
with it?
Mr. Alford answered that the City really does not have any jurisdiction over the
State Department of Parks. They may not fall under this provision, as they may not
be non - conforming.
Commissioner Gifford asked about the extent of what could happen on one of
these sites? For example, could the Balboa Pavilion be turned into a food court?
Ms. Temple noted that with the Balboa Pavilion they currently have no outdoor
dining. They are interested in implementing that because it would be a great
enhancement and encourage the existing restaurant to improve and stay in
business. The way the building is designed, the size of that outdoor dining would
not fall under the provisions of accessory outdoor dining and therefore would
require full parking because it is intensification. However, if that is done in concert
with elimination or reduction of parking demand from other uses on the property,
which is what they are considering, then the parking requirement would not be
changed and it would allow staff to approve the outdoor dining without a use
permit.
E
MENIUMPTU
Item 4
PA2002 -218
Continued to
01/09/2003
c
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 5, 2002
INDEX
Commissioner Gifford asked about a 'worse case scenario.' For example, a food
court, could that happen under this regulation?
Ms. Temple answered only if the parking demand of the total properly was not
being increased and there was already a food use on the properly. At
Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple added that there is no parking at the Pavilion. We
would assess the building and the variety of uses within it, use today's Code to
determine what is required and compare that to the proposed new use(s).
Public comment was opened.
Lou Von Dial, resident of the peninsula asked:
• Two of the theaters are complete and one is not.
• Must it be completed before it is landmarked? - No, it would be
designated landmark now if this were approved.
• There has been talk about the properly being bought next door or leased
and put together with this. Would that become part of the landmark? -
No.
• How long do they have to complete? - An indefinite amount of time,
there is no restriction on the amount of time to complete if this issue is
approved.
• Can landmark properties receive grants? -
Ms. Temple noted that term landmark does not carry an official designation as it
relates to historic properties. We are not talking about an action that would
designate something as historic that would necessarily bring into the process any
of the state requirements for structures that could happen for historic buildings.
This is set up for uses within certain properties that the City is considering defining
as a landmark structure.
Novella Hendrickson, Harbor View Homes noted:
• Property rights - this should not be invoked without the approval of the
affected property owners.
• Just because a building is old, is not sufficient to retain it and give it the
designation of landmark.
• She then read into the record the state's definition of landmark building.
• Why would we put these restrictions on our own properly when it is
possible the current theater project may not go to fruition?
• Why limit potential use of a site when something might come along that
would be pedestrian traffic generator?
• In the case of the Port Theater, which many consider a 'white elephant',
a well designed retail building in that location might be a for better
project for the Corona del Mar village.
To allow assembly type uses only in these three existing buildings with no
restriction on parking, hours of use, etc. precluding neighbors from having
any say in the use, I don't believe is practical.
• Under the assembly type building, couldn't the building be used as a teen
age nightclub or other enterprise for musical groups?
10
3�
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 5, 2002 INDEX
• This type of proposal could meet the landmark theater requirements
under consideration tonight.
• What are the building code and property tax ramifications under this
zoning amendment?
• The taxpayers in Newport Beach should be concerned about not having
the protection of a use permit on these non - conforming properties.
• I ask that you consider this at a later date.
Chairperson Kiser noted that if this was approved, it would not be limiting or
restricting any further the uses of these buildings. It also wouldn't be affecting the
parking rules of the buildings or surrounding neighborhoods. In fact, there could
not be a change in the operational characteristics of these buildings unless there
is either no net increase in the number of required off street parking spaces or, the
required number of off street parking spaces is provided by the owner of the
structure. What we would be doing tonight if this was approved also would have
no affect on building code standards for any of these historic properties or on the
property taxes paid by these properties. This historic designation is not a state or
federal designation, it is defined to have just the affects noted in the staff report
and the proposed amendment on page b of the staff report.
Ms. Temple clarified that this establishes a definition for landmark structures which
would allow on owner to consider alternative uses within the building should he
choose to maintain the building. There is nothing in the provision that would
preclude on owner from demolishing one of these buildings and building a new
one with a different use.
Don Glasgow, spoke on behalf of the Corona del Mar Improvement Business
District in support of this issue. He noted that the business in Corona del Mar are in
support of anything that can happen that will facilitate the improvement of the
Port Theater as it is centered in the village. Property owners are doing all they can
to make things look better. He asked for the support of this proposal, as it will help
their situation in regards to the Port Theater. He then noted that he had a call
from B. J. Johnson, chairperson of the Corona del Mar Residents Association who is
unable to attend. She reported that her group did vote to support this idea
tonight. At Commission inquiry, he stated that the best situation would be to leave
the theater there, improve the interior.ond exterior and hope that the operator is
a good one. Showing movies there and hopefully some type of performing arts as
many of the schools in the area say they do not have facilities for that type of
endeavor. Maybe this would help them as well as the residents and businesses in
Corona del Mar.
Lovina Heyton, resident of Corona del Mar representing the Corona del Mar
Chamber noted their support of this project, as the Port Theater is on important
aspect of the village.
Dick Nichols, resident of Corona del Mar spoke representing the Community
Alliance noted that the Port Theater has not been open for a long time. The small
11
31
F^ �^
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 5, 2002 INDEX
amount of parking it had behind the adjacent commercial building is probably
not available any more, which was 12 spots for 300 people. He noted his concern
of making this a landmark theater without having a use permit for it; it means the
City has no control. The way I interpret your regulation, as long as I don't need
additional parking and I have up to 300 people I can put in that place, I can put
anything I want in there. If I did that, there is nothing to say that wouldn't be
amplified sound music and there are residents adjacent to these properties. I am
definitely against this not having a use permit and as for as the landmark property,
I think it should at least stay in the some architectural mode. The question is, does
it have some architectural beauty to it? Several neighbors have called me that
basically they don't think it should be there. Give it the additional zoning, allow it
to have the 'grandfathered' parking, make it such that it can be developed into
something but to stay as a theater or to transfer that more likely into some kind of
theater that would have amplified music and such problems, is not appropriate
for that location. The other properties involved generally do not have residential
anywhere near them and are quite different in that the Lido Theater has its own
parking. In those areas, there is more leeway, but certainly you need to have that
use permit. Without the use permit there is no control of the property.
Chairperson Kiser asked staff — if the Port theater reopened as a theater just the
way it was operating before it was closed, would it need to have a use permit to
do so?
Mr. Alford answered that normally a use loses its rights after it has been closed for
six months. If there is evidence they have continued operation during that period
even for a limited amount of time, then that nonconformity can continue per
current regulations. If it was to reopen today, it could do so without a use permit.
Chairperson Kiser noted his understanding by this action tonight is that by
including these buildings by considering them to be historic buildings, under this
ordinance it would only require a use permit if there was an intensification of the
non - conforming use. If it went back to essentially the some use it had been used
before, I don't believe what we are doing tonight would have any effect on that.
Ms. Temple answered that so long as they had operated it from time to time so as
to maintain there nonconforming right. Any intensified use, some form of that use
had to have occurred on the property previously. You couldn't convert it to a
nightclub for instance. At Commission inquiry, she added that there may be some
distinction between film and live performances.
Chairperson Kiser noted that we have the noise ordinances, all of which can be
applied to this property. What we are doing tonight would not have any affect
on their ability to create noise that would go beyond the property.
Ms. Temple added that no more than what would be allowed by Code if it were
to be live performances, they would also need a Live Entertainment Permit.
Jon Loper. vice President of the California Division of the Fritz Duda Company,
12
�a
r'
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 5, 2002 INDEX
manager and owners of the Lido Theater and the Via Lido shopping center next
door at 3425 Via Lido. He noted that they are the second owners of a theater
that was built in 1939 and seats about 700 people so they would fail under the
landmark designation proposed. As one of only two operators of a single screen
theater in Orange County. last year they renovated their theater. They are in
support of this proposal as this is on unusual structure that has difficulty being
economically viable and finding operators to run it. This designation would give
staff the flexibility that is needed for minor changes in operation and run a theater.
They support the change and note it would support his theater to become viable
tax paying entities and put them to some use and let them fall into different ways
to market the building. One of the things they do at the Lido Theater is to be one
of the participants of the Newport Film Festival. Because their theater has a stage,
they have events where there are people speaking in addition to showing films.
Having the flexibility of allowing staff to review parking implications if there are
none. then not going for a full public process and expense and difficulty involved.
we think is beneficial and appropriate for these types of uses. We support this
issue.
Dick Nichols noted that the wording of the document states that as long as there
is no additional parking required. a venue would not have to apply for a use
permit. No use permit is required if the zoning of the building allows that use. As
these buildings are all in commercial areas. that means liquor could be served
and no permit from the city is required at all for any use up to the parking of the
300 or whatever the limit of the theater is. Is this correct?
Public comment was closed.
Chairperson Kiser noted his understanding is if the examples given amount to
intensification to the use of the property. then a use permit would be required.
Mr. Alford answered that approval of this designation does not exempt them from
any other requirements. For example. in the case of alcoholic beverage service. it
would require a use permit under the Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance. which is a
separate chapter of the Zoning Code. The exception that is being proposed
pertains to the non - conforming use. Essentially, the use itself, which would
normally be permitted either by right or with a use permit in itself and for whatever
reason such as in the case of the theaters they do not have a use permit that
makes them nonconforming. As long as that use and the ancillary uses within that
use meet those criteria, then they could be intensified. It means they could
change their operational characteristics. expand or be modified and would not
need a use permit.
Commissioner Tucker noted that the confusion in the language he saw was that it
did not state that on owner who is changing the use characteristics isn't
exonerated from any other use permit that may be required associated with that
changed use. such as the alcohol beverage license. I think we need some
language in there that makes it clear because it can be confusing.
13
J�
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 5, 2002 INDEX
Commissioner Gifford clarified that any kind of live performance would require a
live entertainment permit. In response to public comment any proposed service
of alcoholic beverages would require a use permit and any live entertainment
would require a live entertainment permit. The City would have control and the
ABC would have control in that way. This does not allow new uses in and of
themselves, perhaps the language might state that the nonconforming use may
be modified so that it is clear that we are talking about the modification of the
essential present use.
Commissioner Selich clarified that under the existing land use classifications, under
entertainment we have cinemas, live theater, nightclubs and cabarets. In regard
to the three portions of this item, they are classified as cinemas and theaters and
not as nightclubs and cabarets. There is no way that under this they could be
turned into nightclubs or rock halls, etc. Staff concurred.
Commissioner McDaniel noted that everyone who is on this list was notified.
Staff noted that the City is the owner of Balboa, Port Theater has been notified,
Lido Theater spoke and staff has spoken with the Balboa Pavilion ownership as
well. Public notice has gone out to all residences vAthin 300 feet of each of the
four properties. The residential property noted, is not nonconforming so it does not
fall under the definition.
Mr. Alford noted that what was done in the previous staff report was to list all of
the properties that are on the national registry of historic places. We said in the
report that of all of those, only the Balboa Pavilion is currently a nonconforming
use. The Balboa Inn was recently made conforming by its recent approval for
their expansion. In the case of the Lovell Beach House it is a residential use in a
residential area, so it is conforming.
Chairperson Kiser suggested some language change to the exception in
20.62.050 to take care of the issue of this change not being read to say that no
use permit would be necessary for change in operational characteristics of these
buildings, but rather that this exception is only saying that no use permit would be
required for the change itself. The proposed revision is: '.....use permit for the
change in operational characteristics, provided....'
Public comment was reopened.
B. J. Johnson, chairperson of the Corona del Mar Residents Association presented
a letter from the association stating they support the landmark theater zoning
code amendment and urge the Commission to approve this amendment.
Tom Hyans, resident of the peninsula noted that this item is very confusing. He
asked if the Lido Theater has snack bar, and someone decided to make a
restaurant out of the ground floor of the building and retain the balcony for the
showing of the movies is that something that is permitted without a use permit.
14
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 5, 2002 INDEX
Public comment was closed.
Ms. Temple answered yes, so long as the parking requirement was not being
changed and alcohol was not being added to the operation. The parking
demand would be analyzed and they could not exceed the requirement of the
existing operation. If it was determined that additional parking was required and
was not being provided, then they would need to get a use permit.
Commissioner Tucker noted that language needs to be added to clarify under
what circumstances existing requirements go along. I would like to give this time
for the language and see if there is any feedback. It sounds like for two theaters
there is no objection, for one theater, the Business Improvement District and the
Chamber of Commerce and the residents want it and the Councilmember for the
District is not enthused about it. I think we should continue this item and come up
with language so that when we do adopt it, it will be clear.
Ms. Temple noted that this item was requested at a Council meeting, and was
initiated by the Planning Commission.
Commissioners Selich noted his concurrence with continuing this item. We
received direction from the Council to move ahead on this item, albeit came
from Councilmember O'Neil and now there will be a different Councilmember
from that District. Unless the Council gives us a change in direction, we should
clean this up and work on it as best we can. If the Council has a change in heart,
they will let us know.
Commissioner Gifford noted that when the Balboa Theater was still operating and
had applied for a use permit to become sort of a luxury theater offering special
amenities. One was a limited area where there could be some tables and hors
d'oeuvres served and would be a more comprehensive movie experience. Based
on my sense, that is the direction these theaters want to go and that is why my
concern is that we preclude any worse case scenarios. For example, the way the
resolution is worded now, the use of the landmark building may be modified. One
of things I would include is the existing nonconforming use may be modified and
then go on to talk about the fact specifically saying it does not excuse the
necessity for any other types of use permits that may be required.
Chairperson Kiser noted this item should be continued to allow time for
clarification language in the exception portion.
Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian to continue this matter to January
9, 2003.
Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker
Noes: None
15
J�
'03 FEB 19 A 9 :29
Newport Beach City Council
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, Ca. 92658
Dear Members:
I am writing you abcut my feelings on the Port T.hea`_re. TtJ_s theatre
is an important landmark in Corona del Mar. It should he refurbished
and preserved. it should be done be'-ore the building collapses. The
caracter of Corona del Mar villace is rer_an.t and :._.ique and the Port
is part of it. 4+hy destroy an art_ deco landmark" when the__- are so few
left?
I hope the owner and the --ity wi__ ccns_der hcw important special
buildings are to the area. It rakes people want to come, tour and shop
Sincerely,
virg =n_�a {emple-
311 Poinsettia
Corona del Mar, ^_a. 92625
!Dale `�11 q k:
Copies Sent TD:
�3yDf
U A!45ney
J
31
Message
Alford, Patrick
Pa .ae 1 of l
From: Walkie Ray [walkle @sjrd.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:46 PM
To: Patrick Alford (palford @city. newport-beach.ca.us)
Cc: Don Glasgow (donglasgow45 @aol.com); 'edselich @adelphia.net'; Mike Ray; Gary Long; Lisa
Lovely; Dennis & Roxie Bordelon (art4roxie @aol.com)
Subject: Port Theater
Dear Mr. Alford,
Unfortunately I will be unable to attend tonight's city council hearing but wanted to register my position regarding
designating the Port Theater for Landmark Building status. Following a productive meeting with Don Glasgow
and Ed Selich, my opposition has softened to the point that I am prepared to be supportive, WITH qualifications.
Before I articulate my qualifications, let me say that I understand the new owner intends on redeveloping the
facility into a dinner theater with approximately 100 seats, which use may not currently be allowed even if the City
concludes the facility enjoys legal non conforming status as a movie theater. Landmark Building status,
however, could expand the allowed uses under the current alleged legal non conforming status to permit a dinner
theater operation, in which event the only discretionary entitlements would be for a liquor license. MY concern, of
course, relates to the burden that would be placed on our adjacent parking which could be used without
authorization by patrons of the theater. Presently our parking spaces are abused primarily by patrons of adjacent
stores who can see their cars while shopping and thus move them just before the tow truck pulls up. Our threats -
signs, attendants etc. - are "hollow ", and the adjacent tenants and their patrons know it. If, however, the facility is
used as dinner theater, patrons would need to have parking for extended periods of time, perhaps two hours or
more, and we would be afforded ample opportunity to tow. I dare say, once a patron has had is car towed, he is
unlikely to park in our lot again; and, in a reasonble period of time, we should be free of unathorized parking by
patrons of the dinner theater. With the foregoing in mind, I respectfully request two conditions be imposed,
presumably during the liquor license approval process: (1) That the developer be required to prepare a Parking
Management Plan in which he details just WHERE he will obtain his parking along with the associated mechanics
(e.g. remote, rented lots, valet parking, queing geometry, etc), and (2) That, once the dinner theater is approved
and developed based on, say, 100 seats, the applicants specifically be enjoined from "thinking" he has legal, non-
conforming entitlements to a larger number of seats, greater intensity, or an "un- policeable" parking use pattern;
in other words, that the NEW entitlements be "baseline" for future redevelopment. If you have any questions,
please do not hisitate to call.
James "Walkie" Ray
Sanderson J. Ray Development
2699 White Road
Irvine, CA 92612
949 - 222 -5775 office
949 - 399 -9020 fax
walkie@s'r ,com
39
02/13/2003
Alford, Patrick
From: Oliver H. Winn [owinn@worldnet.att.netj
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:11 PM
To: palford @ city. newport- beach.ca.us
Subject: Landmark agenda item Feb 11, 2003
City Council Members,
On January 26, I sent an e -mail, copied below, requesting an opportunity to
comment on the Landmark proposal, It was not discussed on the that meeting
but is scheduled for tonight's meeting, February 11. I will be present and
would appreciate an opportunity to speak.
Oliver H. Winn
City Council Members,
I would like an a opportunity to discuss at your January 28 meeting the
Planning Commission recommendations to designate Lido, Balboa, and Port
theatres as "landmark theatres ".
I have no problems with such designations for the Lido and Balboa theatres.
Each of these theatres apparently have or will have sufficient parking
available at their locations.
The same can not be said about the Port Theatre. All of the parking that was
available when the theatre was built has been swallowed up by establishments
locating in the area.
Any significant crowds drawn to the Port location flood the city residential
street and the spaces used by other businesses. Even with the Port closed,
parking in tight in all of Corona del Mar. There are six restaurants within
a stone's throw of the Port. Frequently I cannot park in front of or even
near my own house.
Even if the Council decides to approve the Landmark designation. for Lido and
Balboa, I strongly recommend disapproving or at least tabling the Po=t
recommendation. This will give sufficient time for the city to gain
experience with the ramifications of the designations. The terms
accompanying the Landmark designation are broad enough to allow unevaluated
and unapproved developments that could be very detrimental if allowed in
Corona del Mar. Prudence requires that any proposals for significant
development of the Port theatre receive a full review according to the
present zoning and development rules.
Dr. Oliver H. ; ^;inn
422 Heliotrope Avenue
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
oorinn ?wor'_dnet.att.net
1 ��
Message
Alford, Patrick
Page 1 of 2
From: Walkie Ray [walkie @ sjrd.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:51 PM
To: 'Donglasgow45 @aol.com'
Cc: Patrick Alford (palford @city.newport- beach. ca. us); Ed Selich (EDSELICH @ adelphia.net); Mike
Ray; Gary Long; Dennis & Roxie Bordelon (art4roxie @aol.com)
Subject: RE: Port Theater
Don,
Thanks for the kind words. Let me say, however, that my views are "selfish" and do not concern themselves with
the adjacent HOMEOWNERS. If I lived in the block south of the Port Theater, I would be VERY concerned over
noise, drunk driving, parking and a host of other issues. The City would be making a tragic mistake NOT to
require that the applicant create a reasonable Parking Management Plan which addresses these concerns. The
cardinal rule - literally iron clad - of retail development is that people will park where it is most convenient for
them. Moroever, we Californians HATE to use valet parking, indeed WON'T use valent parking, if self parking is
close by. Ask Todd Ridgeway. On another level, I was very serious about the new "baseline ". It is not at all self
evident that a dinner theater will be successful, and I will be VERY strident in opposing any action which could
result in future compromise on a more intense use should the dinner theater fail. Good luck this evening.
James "Walkie" Ray
Sanderson J. Ray Development
2699 White Road
Irvine, CA 92612
949 - 222 -5775 office
949 - 399 -9020 fax
walkie @sird.com
-Original Message---- -
From: Donglasgow45 @aol.com (mailto:Donglasgow45 @ aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:00 PM
To: walkie @sjrd.com
Subject: Re: Port Theater
Walkie:
Thank you for the email copy of your letter to the city regarding the "Landmark
Buildings" issue before our city council, tonight. Glad we had the opportunity to meet to
exchange ideas and facts regarding how the pending council decision might affect the
Port Theater and ultimately your properties.
I respect your views. I also appreciate your local "global" understanding to the point
whereby you are "backing off" some with regard to this whole matter.
Later tonight we should all know how our city council members feel about all this.
Unless there are surprises, my assumption is that they will take a vote tonight. Only at
that time will we know the outcome. After the vote tonight, I am hopeful you are the one
of the first people to meet with the property owner and developer. This comment
assumes an affirmative result. It seems important to keep you "in the loop" all the way.
Ed could facilitate that meeting.
Thanks again for the meeting with Ed and me yesterday. Thanks too for you
"posture" modification and your recorded wish list to our city leaders.
See you again along the way.
4b
02/13/2003
Presentation to Newport Beach City Council:
My name is Oliver H. Winn. I live in Corona del Mar, one block from Pacific
Coast highway and the Port Theatre.
I have provided a number of copies of the one page letter I submitted for the record
of the Council's proceedings. In it I document the reasons why I believe the
proposed designation of the Port Theatre as a "Landmark Theatre" should be
rejected or at least be tabled for more investigation.
I have no objections to the Balboa, Lido, and Port theatres. I attend Lido regularly,
as I did the Port theatre when it was operating. The theaters present carefully
selected out -of -the- main - stream films of high quality and entertainment value. The
films are shown over an extended time period so potential viewers are spread over
time rather than being concentrated within a few days. Both the Balboa and Lido
theatres have ample public parking.
However, in Corona del Mar development over the years has left absolutely no
public parking for the Port. Attendees must park on the streets where concentrated
residences begin at the alley behind the theatre. Homes are packed 2 families for
every 30 feet of both sides of the street near the Port. Most residents have to park
their cars in front of their homes.
My deep concern is not about the Landmark designation itself but rather about the
relaxation of the zoning and development rules for possible changes in the use of
the property. Such changes could have great detrimental effects on the community.
I believe proposed redevelopment of any kind should be given all of the scrutiny
specified by the present rules for development.
I ask that the proposed designation for the Port theatre not be granted, so that the
needed review of any development can receive proper consideration, including
review by the public.
Dr. Oliver H. Winn
422 Heliotrope Avenue
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
owinn(u worldnet.att.net
949 - 675 -4016
0-
From: Chamber Executive [cdmchamber @sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:52 AM
To: Bromberg, Steven
Subject: Landmark Letter
"R' -1VED A�ER AGE" A
Ho' TEV' (1 -mac. l l I o
yVI�V/VW WoL!' �IVWf'�.
Chambei of,Com' m,efce'
2855 E. Coast Hwy. Ste. 101, Pd Box 72
Corona del Mar, U 92625
959.673.4050 Phone ( 949.673.3940 Fax _ r'
February 4, 2003 = u
To: Mavor Steve Bromberg —
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663 — f
RE: Landmark Buildings ~
Dear Mayor Bromberg:
At our Board of Directors' meeting for the Corona Del Mar Chamber of Commerce on February 4.
3003, we voted unanimously to support the Amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code to designate certain types of buildings as "Landmark Buildings" and modify restrictions on
nonconforming uses in Landmark Buildings. and we recommend Council approval of Code Amendment
2002 -007.
The Corona Del Mar Chamber of Commerce feels this will allow for the improvement of the Port
Theater and therefore the Corona Del Mar business district for the benefit of Newport Beach. The
mission of the Chamber is to provide our membership with the opportunity to cross - market their
products or s_- -%ices to a "captive audience ". Doing so provides our village the chance to attract
additional consumers. As a result of improving real estate presents the opportunity to bring additional
visitors and residents into our merchant locations.
We appreciate your attention and consideration and will look forward to a positive outcome of the abo %e
matter.
Sincerely,
10
Bill Sinclair
Newport Beach City Council & Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA
Re: The Port Theater
Richard Nichols
519 Iris Ave.
Corona del Mar,Ca.
Fax 644 -3020
palford@c4.newport-beach.ca.us
The Port Theater has seating for 900 patrons. Zoning code says theaters should furnish
one parking place for every three seats, or the Port Theater if built today would need to furnish
parking for 300 cars. This is the amount of street parking North of Bayside to 5"' Ave. between
Larkspur and Dalhia. Although the Port Theater furnished some parking behind commercial
between Goldenrod and Heliotrope, none would be required for the Port Theater playing movies
today.
We have never been for restricting the Port from showing movies. Movies let out usually
about 11 pm; and, we personally have parking. However both Residential and Commercial parking
is fair game to those going to the theater. Restaurants and other commercial have their lots filled
with theatergoers. Restaurants, however, pay for their parking and are now losing customers who
either can't find parking or who get mad because they can't use the restaurant parking. The same
is true of commercial such as Blockbusters, Albertson's, Subway, KFC, the Cleaners on both sides
of PCH, etc. The Newport Beach Police Department will have to handle increased calls from angry
citizens and business owners who will be affected by the new parking problems. The Port Theater
currently has no facilities for unloading supplies or food in any large quantity, and no place for trash
containers. In addition, there is very limited drop off and pick up space for patrons of the theater,
without completely blocking Coast Highway.
The Landmark Theater ordinance would extend the Port grand- fathered parking to other
uses, i.e. arcades, live entertainment, restaurant uses with theater, bar/ lounge with music, etc.
unless more than 300 parking spaces are required and then only the excess parking over 300 cars
needs to be required.
Apparently, the Economic Development Communities and Planning Department want to
revitalize the Villages of Newport Beach. A plan was generated to use the Historical Building
designation to encourage alternative development in unused theaters, allow the owner free parking
requirements, and even possibly no City Use permits.
Some years ago, a prestigious committee of citizens was formed to come up with a Historic
Resource Inventory. 61 Places or Buildings were nominated. The Lido Theater was on the list, and
Balboa Pavilion was both on the list and a "National Landmark ". In 1996, without recognition on
the City Historic Resource Inventory; the Balboa Theater was added to the City Historical Register.
Also in 1996, the Balboa Theater was purchased by the City, leased to a theater Foundation for
$! /yr. and designated for live theater. However, basement problems and refurbishment costs
escalated and contributions did not keep up. The City tried to bail out the Balboa by leasing and/ or
buying the Orange Julius next door for up to $1.4M from the general fund, but the deal could not be
consummated. Despite a large $1M donation from the Crean's, the Theaters future is still
questionable. The Port Theater is neither on the Historical Register or listed in the City's Historic
Resource Inventory. The Port Theatre has little architectural merit and the building covers the
entire lot. Without purchase of the adjacent property or extensive building renovation, shown by
others to be specifically excluded on historical buildings, the building is nearly unusable for the joint
alternate uses: restaurant, arcade, dance hall etc.
It is clear that the Landmark Theater guise is being used to foster
center in CdM to the detriment of surrounding commercial and residential.
Balboa completed before starting a similar project three times as big.
a major entertainment
Let's get the 300 seat
qq
Page 2 The Port Theater 2/10/03
We have been considering for a year, revisions for the General Plan for the city. As the first
part of this process a visioning process was conducted. The results are supposed to be
summarized in the Visioning Summary. The Port Theater has not been mentioned in these plans.
But relevant findings were for example: ( Underline added by author)
"Community Directions for the Future, A summary of the general plan update visioning process
3. Directions for the Future
The Villages
Some support was expressed for protecting historic commercial and residential villages.
Although this issue was not addressed in the telephone surveys or citywide Visioning activities,
several neighborhood districts did provide feedback on what the City should do to protect historic
villages. These include, for example, Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, Mariners Mile and Lido
Marina village. Workshop participants in Districts 2 & 6 favored (in rank order): narrowing the
permitted uses in some commercial areas: adopting design and development guidelines: and
establishing a design review process. While Districts 3 and 5 workshop attendees were not asked
to prioritize policy directions, they supported all of the above mentioned suggestions and proposed
that the City adopt more Specific Plans and reduce the permitted size of buildings in residential
neighborhoods...... .
Areas to Revitalize
People are in general agreement about what areas of the City need revitalization and
GPAC members recommend that the city develop an overall vision for revitalization. Participants
at the Visioning Festival, website respondents and GPAC members agreed that the following areas
are in need of revitalization: Balboa Village. Mariner's Mile, Old Newoort Boulevard, Cannery
Village, Central Balboa Peninsula, McFadden Square, West Newport and the mixed
residential /industrial above Hoag Hosoital. GPAC members emphasized the importance for
improving sidewalks and pedestrian ways in the West Newport area. They also felt that the Airport
Business Area was a good candidate for revitalization. GPAC members discussed the meaning of
"revitalization" for Newport Beach. They envision that revitalization is making something nicer.
without making it bigger, respecting historic places and ambience, and creating pedestrian -dense
areas with high quality restaurants. Members agree that the City should be proactive in creating a
revitalization vision to guide future private development.
Areas Suitable for Mixed Use
From input collected at the Visioning Festival and throughout the website, specific areas
were deemed appropriate for mixed -use development integrating housing and commercial or office
space. These are Balboa Viliage, Cannery Village, McFadden Square Lido Marina Village, the
Airport Business Area and Newport Center. The GPAC favors mixed -use development in all
appropriate sites, and believes each site should be studied for its specific suitability."
The above passages from the summary of the current general plan visioning, specifically
exclude Corona del Mar from areas mentioned in need of revitalization. They defined
revitalization, and it specifically excludes enlarging the uses or capacity of current business, to
impose on existing residents or business.
The normal procedure both in Newport Beach and other cities for consideration as a
Historical Theater is for the individual theater owner to apply for such designation. To our
knowledge the owner of the Port has not asked for such consideration.
We ask that each theater be considered separately on its own merit, and that any action on
the Port Theater be deferred.
Richard Nichols
q5
FROM :RON YEO, FAIR ARCHITECTo 'C.
A
FAX NO. :9496440449 Jan. 23 2003 04:51PM P1
FILE C" P"To
RON YEO, FAIA ARCHITECT, INC.
500 JASMINE AVENUE CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 PHONE: (949) 644 -8111 FAX: (949) 644.0449
FAX MEMO
TO: Honorable Planning Commission Members
City of Newport Beach
FROM: Ron Yeo, 604 Iris, Corona del Mar
DATE: January 23, 2003
RE: Agenda item #3
Number of pages including this one: 1
RE: Grandfathering pre 1950 theaters without a use permit
When considering this item, I would appreciate it if you would
consider how different the "Port Theater" building & location differs
from the Lido and Balboa facilities.
The total lack of parking, trash area and its relationship to a quiet
neighborhood makes it considerably unlike the other theaters.
I join many neighbors in our village that want to encourage and
support revitalizing the Port, but see no valid reason to open up the
facility to future uses without a use permit. The use permit review is
the only tool available to make sure that the use is compatible to the
area.
It is my understanding that if this passes the allowable uses without
any review could include nightclubs, restaurants, live entertainment,
arcades and theaters. All of these need some sort of review rather
than an open hand for development.
A use permit is a minor hindrance to something as important as the
re use of this facility. Please include the use permit requirement or
separate the Port from the other theaters and deal with it through the
general plan amendment.
Thank you for your consideration, i0
Message Page 1 of 1
Ruthe Gorman
From: Walkie Ray
Sent: Thursday, January 23. 2003 4:45 PM T
To: 'palford @city.newport- beach.ca.us` i}I
Cc: 'cdunn@city.newport- beach.ca.us'; Ruthe Gorman; Lisa Lovely; Mike Ray
Subject: Tonights Planning Commission Agenda Item 3 - Port Theater Landmark Status
Dear Mr. Alford:
My siblings and I are the owners of what we call James Square Center (2929 -2939 East Coast Highway). Our
tenants in this building include KFC, Mayurs Restaurant, The Coffee Bean restaurant, Holiday House Liquor,
Subway Sandwich and Mr. Best Drycleaners. It is my understanding that the City is considering either
Landmark Building status for the former Port Theater or reinstatement of theater entitlements which have
expired due to non -use, For your information both alternatives would be devastating to our center and its
tenants owing to Inadequate parking. At present our small parking areas are already overwhelmed with illegal
parking by patrons of the adjacent retail building which is sandwiched between the former Port Theater and our
property AND Mistrals Restaurant which i5 iust 5cuth of the theater facing Heliotrcpe, both Of which have
NO ONSITE PARKING whatsoever. Were the former Port Theater reopened or converted into some use
which is parking intensive, there would be no practical way to control unathorized parking on our property; and
our tenants, all but one of which are "mom and pop ", would suf`:er catastrophic reductions in business. You
may be aware that our tenants and we recently invested in excess of $1,000,000 to remodel our center and
make it a more attractive and desireable facility for the village of Corona del Mar. I simply cannot believe that
the City would now countenance changes in the former Port Theater property which would so clearly adverseiy
impact our tenants and us. In our conversation a few minutes ago you remarked that the owner of the former
Port Theater believes it has used it as a "theater "with sufficient ythat its theater use entitlements remain intact
and have not expired through non -use for six months. As a resident of Corona del Mar for over 20 years I can
assure you that the theater is used very little. While I would have to do some research. I would wager money
to marbles that such is NOT the case. Bottom Line: Please convery to the Planning Commission my fervent
opposition to either Landmark status or reinstatement of expired entitlements.
Sincerely,
James " Walkie" Ray
Sanderson J. Ray Development
2699 White Road
Irvine, CA 92612
949 -222 -5775 office
949 - 399 -9020 fax
walkieQp ctorl
Lp
1/23/2003
Jan 23 2003 3:31PM R. R. Nichols Engineering (949)640 -7316 P.1
Jan 23 03 02:16p Mistral 949 723 9697 P.1
FILE CDPY
As owners of the property and business located at 440 Heliotrope Avenue (now the "Mistral
Restaurant ", formerly "Trees Restaurant" and the "Pirates Inn "),.we (Ed Waters and Jacques de
Quillien) are in the closest proximity to the Port Theater and therefore most likely to be affected by
any changes in status to the theater.
Our capacity is 88, and we lease the parking lot located at 2865 Pacific Coast Highway from C & D
Shammas Realty for $450 per-month ($5,400 per year). We are required by law to have 40 parking
spaces available for our customers, regardless if we are only using 25% of our available capacity.
Without this agreement we would not be allowed to conduct business in Corona del Mar within
current "Use Permit Restrictions'.
The Port Theater's capacity is 650 people. They should be required to have 300 parking spaces
which, if even available, would cost approximately $3,400 per month, or $40,500 per year.
Without any Use Permit or Parking restrictions, it will anger residents who are unable to park on
their own street, and virtually ruin business at 440 Heliotrope, since theatergoers will park for free in
the lot we pay for, leaving no space for cur own customers. This situation has already arisen on 3
occasions between 1999 and 2001; the theater was rented out and allowed to open without any
use permits or parking agreements. As a result, we lost 40% of our reservations. One of these
events hired a Valet service in our tot, without the knowledge of us or C & D Shammas Realty. This
is selfish and inconsiderate to the entire neighborhood and community, and hardly seems a
precedent for special treatment.
The Fort Theater and the Pirates Inn shared a parking lease agreement with Erik Welton to use his
lot at Goldenrod and Second Avenue since the early 1960's. After the theater had already shut
down. Mr. Welton constructed two residential units on his property, and we were obligated to
negotiate a new parking agreement with C & 0 Shammas Realty at a 300% increase of our
previous lease. The Port Theater has made no effort to secure a new parking agreement n the
possibilty of reopening. There never was, to cur knowledge, any "off - street parking" consideration
to be allowed for the theater.
To consider the Port Theater as a "Landmark Status" structure is absurd. it does not qualify as an
architectural masterpiece. It is too structurally damaged to be adapted or restored to anything other
than the cement eyesore that it currently is. The owner, Scott Burnham, seems unaware of the trash
collecting in his theater's entr}rway, or the homeless people who live in the alley behind the theater.
We have taken on both responsibilities as a necessity and source of pride 1cr cur own business and
community.
if the qualifications for "Landmark Status' only include theaters with a capacity of over 300 built
before 1950, or places that are listed in the "National Register" (who are they, are they kcal, and
where does their information come from ?), then what legal recourse is there to protect gems such as
Sherman Gardens, the Five Crowns Restaurant, or even 440 Heliotrope, built in the 1940's, a
treasured local restaurant since 1963, with two 80 year old Ficus trees living within the premises
that deserve more "Landmark Status" than the Port Theater?
Sincerely, /1�? /,,
Jan 23 2003 3:31PM R. R. Nichols Engineering (949)640 -7316
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Connmissioners:
Re: Port Theatre as a Landmark Building
510 Iris Avenue
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
January 23, 2003
We bought our first duplex, 510Iris Avenue in 1969 and bought 512 in 1974. When my
husband retired in 1973 we moved to 510 on the 1.3t' of April 1973. Since the day we moved
here, in looking out our front window, the first thing we saw was the Port Theatre. It looked bad
then and looks worse now. People going to the Port would park any place on Eris and on Third
Ave. It was a mess then and would be worse now.
A few weeks ago, I received a card saying what they want to do with the Port. I can't see
it as a historical landmark In a good earthquake, it would fall all over PCH. The best thing that
could happen is to tear it down and build something nice for Corona del Mar.
Sincerely,
Betty Estes
p.2
L{ i
thirtieth
street
architects
inc.
January 20, 2003
Ms. Patricia Temple, Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance
Dear Patti:
founding principals
john c. loomis, architect
james c. Wilson, architect
principal
elwood 1. galley, architect
BY
Affil `1,01 2 '' 2003 y,l
a
It is my understanding that the City of Newport Beach is in the process of
preparing a Historic Preservation Ordinance to foster the preservation of the three
historic movie theaters and the Balboa Pavilion.
As a longtime local architect with very emensive preservation c:cperience, I would
like to share some thoughts about preservation incentives offered by other
communities and the standards that exist to guide preservation efforts.
The Citv of Laguna Beach has a very good ordinance (based on Santa Barbara's)
that has two key components:
1) Parking incentives include a reduction in required parking (even for
intensification of use) of up to 75%, depending upon the extent and quality
of the proposed project.
2) All City fees are waived for projects involving properties listed as Local
Landmarks. This includes CUP, Plan Check and Permit fees.
I have attached a copy of the City of Laguna Beach's ordinance for your review.
cJ
architecture historical rehabilitation planning
=1 neepo rt blcd. ne'sport beach ,liiar^a J2653
phone I9#9)n73 -_n49 fax 19491677 -3.147 -mail ':ainrsaolxora
In 1976, the National Park Service developed "The Secretary of the Interior
Standards for Preservation Projects" to help guide preservation projects in the
United States. These ten (10) subjective standards have recently been revised and
apply to the restoration, rehabilitation and stabilization of historic buildings and
sites. They have been adopted by numerous communities across the country to
provide guidelines to protect and preserve the integrity and authenticity of historic
resources.
You may wish to specify that incentives are only available for preservation
projects that follow these standards to insure the appropriateness of any proposed
modifications to historic building. I have also attached a copy of these standards
for your review.
In addition to planning incentives, Chapter 34 of the California Building Code also
offers relief from full code compliance for preservation projects involving
designated historic structures. The key here is the distinction of being a
"designated historic structure ".
To my knowledge, there is no official designation process (Local Landmark
Designation) in the City of Newport Beach, although the historic society has some
kind of listing or inventory of historic resources. As a result, the Building Official
may not be able to offer favorable code interpretations (which could result in
substantial rehab cost reduction) to projects not designated as "historic ". Of the
four structures under consideration, only the Balboa Pavilion is listed in the
National Register of Historic Places.
Perhaps the City could consider establishing some kind of local designation
process to help identify and designate historic properties. Obviously, there are
numerous other important historic properties in the City limits in addition to the
three theaters and the Balboa Pavilion. Why not consider expanding the ordinance
to offer incentives (on a case by case basis) to any locally designated historic
property?
If you have any questions regarding my comments please feel free to call.
/Ve ruly yours, . oomis
Principal
cc: Enclosures
�a
Alford, Patrick
From:
Bill DeMayo (billd511 @adelphia.netj
Sent:
Friday, December 13, 2002 7:49 PM
To:
palford @ city. newport- beach.ca. us
Subject:
Amendment re Theaters
We support the Landmark Theater zoning code amendment,
Bill & Donna DeMayo
511 Hazel Drive
CDM, 92625
53
Page I of I
Alford, Patrick
From: Andrew Torelli [eatorelli @adelphia.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 4:30 PM
To: palford @city.newport- beach.ca.us
Cc: JArdeII909 @aol.com; Kathy Prough; Kathy Sommer; Susan Royce; jself4 @msn.com; Paul & Jillian
Glowienke; Bill DeMayo
Subject: Landmark Theater Zoning
Note to neighbors: If you are at all interested in helping the city move forward and approve the plans that the owners of these
historic properties have in restoring them, please forward your comments to Mr. Alford. As it stands now, the properties have
become eye sores yet have such significance in the history of our little community. Let's rally!!
Liz Torelli
Dear Mr. Alford,
My husband and I wish to express our support for the Landmark Theater zoning code amendment currently being considered
by your department. We are very much in favor of getting the Port, Lido, Balboa Theaters and the Pavilion renovated and up
to par with this beautiful city in which we are so fortunate to live. Anything you can do to expedite adopting this amendment
to Title 20 of the zoning code would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your hard work and dedication to making our town
special!
Best Regards,
Elizabeth & Andrew Torelli
516 Hazel Drive
Corona Del Mar
eatorelli C' adelphia.net
J
12/11/2002
CORONA DEL MAR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
Dedicated to preserving the quality of life of the community since 1987. "In unity there is strength"
BOARD 0 DIRECTORS.
B. J. Joh on
Chairman
I
December 6, 2002
OLDE c
.
Michael T
ierge
Pat Hauk
Tray Miku
ka Patrick Alford
Lc Toreill
Senior Planner
Robert Sat
ler City of Newport Beach
Robert SO
crer
3300 Newport ;Blvd.
Lurena H
ton
Bud Rasnef Newport Beach, Ca. 92663
IRVIN£ T CE:
Eal Skoro
HARBOR !EW HILLS
Debbie All n
Jane Lyo
CORONA IGHLANDS
Cart Jerem as
SHORECLFS
Seorr bfoso
C AYEO H.�GHLANDS.•
Ma ge S er
CA,WEO SF�ORES.•
Laura Dmig
RE: Landmark uildings
i
Dear Patrick,
At our monthlylmeeting November 21, 2002 the Corona del Mar Residents Association
voted to support the Landmark Theater zoning code amendment.
s
It is our understanding that the amendment to Title 20 of the zoning code is to designate
certain types ofibuildings as "Landmark Buildings " and modify restrictions on
nonconforming uses in the Landmark Buildings such as the Port Theater.
i
We urge you to approve this amendment.
Sincerely,
B.J. Jo n Cl�imtan
3334 E. Coast Hwy., P.O. Box 1500, Corona del Mar, California 92625
"RECEIVED AFTER AGEND
PRINTED:" 03
March 24, 2003
City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3884
RE: March 25, 2003 City Council Agenda Item No. 19
Code Amendment CA 2002 -007 - Landmark Buildings (PA 2002 -218)
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
As President of the corporation that manages the company, FHP Port LLC, that owns the building at 2905
East Coast Highway in the village of Corona del Mar known as the Port Theater, I support the adoption of
the "Landmark Buildings' amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code proposed by the
City Attorney and the Planning Director at the direction of the City Council.
I share the City Council's collective interest in the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic buildings as
a means of revitalizing older commercial areas by allowing accessory uses within specific conditions.
Of the conditions to be satisfied for accessory uses, I encourage the City Council to consider: (a)
increasing the total floor space for accessory use from 30% to a full one -third or 33 %; and (b) expanding
principal use and accessory use hours of operation from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 A.M. to 6:00 A.M. to 12:30
A.M. consistent with the standard in the community.
Sincerely,,
6
Rick Avers'an
President
Maverick Point Holdings Corporation
Manager
FHP Port LLC
a
cc: Sharon Z. Wood
Assistant City Manager
c: