Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
14 - Landmark Buildings Code Amendment
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 14 February 11, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager (949) 644 -3222 swood @ city. 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 nonconforming uses in Landmark Buildings. RECOMMENDATION: Introduce Ordinance No. 2003- approving Code Amendment CA 2002 -007 and pass to second reading on February 25, 2003. DISCUSSION: Background: 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. 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. It will also establish an exception that would allow a nonconforming use in a Landmark Building to change its operational characteristics without the approval of a use permit; provided there is no net Landmark Buildings February 11, 2003 Page 2 increase in the number of required off - street parking spaces or the required number of off - street parking spaces are provided. To ensure that the primary use of the building is not supplanted by any new uses allowed under the proposed exception, all new uses associated with the change in operational characteristics must not occupy more than 25 percent of the floor area of the building. 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: 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 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. 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. Therefore, uses normally requiring a use permit, such as arcades, cabarets, nightclubs, and restaurants, would be permitted by right provided these uses meet the criteria of the exception. However, any new use associated with the change in operational characteristics would still be subject to other regulations 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. Likewise, arcades would have to abide by the location restrictions in Chapter 5.34 of the Municipal Code and alcoholic beverage outlets would be required to obtain a use permit under the provisions of the Chapter 20.89 (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) of the Municipal Code. I Landmark Buildings February 11, 2003 Page 3 Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission held hearings on the proposed amendment on December 5, 2002, January 9, 2003 (continued without discussion), and January 23, 2003. Discussion at the Planning Commission focused on restricting the intensity of new uses allowed under the exception. Several text changes were incorporated to ensure all other city regulations remain in effect and that new uses allowed under the exception remain incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the Landmark Building Planning Commission voted (7 -0) to recommend approval of Code Amendment CA 2002 -007 to the City Council. 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 Theatre, the Balboa Pavilion, all property business and community associations. Submitted by: 6 IWIFTMOVARTi Toes g Attachments: owners of the Lido Theater, Balboa Theater, Port owners within 300 feet of these properties, and to 1. Draft ordinance. 2. Proposed revisions to Chapter 20.62 (Exhibit A). 3. January 23, 2003 Planning Commission staff report. 4. Draft January 23, 2003 Planning Commission minutes. 5. December 5, 2002 Planning Commission minutes. 6. 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, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held a duly noticed public hearing 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 Municipal Code, as provided in Exhibit "A." i 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 February 11, 2003, and adopted on the 25th day of February 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 2 Attachment 2 Proposed Revisions to Chapter 20.82 (Exhibit A) I 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 in a Landmark Building (see Secfion 20.62.065) may be expanded, increased or intensified by way of a change in operational characteristics without obtaining_a use permit required by this section subject to the following provisions_ 1. Any new uses associated 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. ,4 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 operational characteristics are required to obtain any permits that may be required_ by other title_ s 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-steel parking prior to the modification, expansion or intensification or the Number of off - street parking spaces required by Cha_pter_20.66 (Off= Street Parking and Loading Regulationslare 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. 91 20.62.065 Landmark Buildings A. The following types of buildings are recognized as having importance to the history or architecture of the City of Newport Beach and are designated as Landmark Buildings: 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. B. The restrictions on nonconforming uses and structures are modified in the individual sections of this chapter in order to discourage the demolition of landmark buildings and to encourage their adaptive reuse. Attachment 3 January 23, 2003 Planning Commission Staff Report i� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 3 January 23, 2003 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department (949) 644 -3200 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 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. Landmark Buildings January 23, 2003 Page 3 Proposed Revisions: The text of 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. 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. M- Steven Kiser, Chairman Shant Agajanian, Secretary 0 Ifr, Attachment 2 Proposed Revisions to Ch. 20.62 (Exhibit A) ,,I- 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 in a Landmark Budding see Section 20.62.065) may be expanded, increased or intensified by way of a change in operational characteristics without obtaining a use _Permit _required by this section subject to the following provisions; 1. Any new uses associated with the change in operational charsctensiics 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 peimif shall be required for any 'alcoholic beverage outlet- pursuant to provisions of Chapter 20.89_ (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets). 3. Any new uses associated with the change in operatfonsl characteristics are required to obtain any permits that may be required_ by_other titles o_f 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. IK 30.62 065 Landmaric_Buitdings A. The folloinnng types of buildings. are recogn¢ed as having importance to the History or architecture of the City of Newport Beach and are 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. priorto December. 12, 1950. B. The'restrictions on nonconforming use and structures are modified in the individual sections of this chapter in order to discourage the demolition of landmark buildings and to encourage their adaptive reuse. _,A- Attachment 3 Dec. 5, 2002 PC Staff Report h� O• � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 4 December 5, 2002 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3235 pa If o rd @ city. n ewpo rt-b each. ca. u s SUBJECT: Zoning 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. 2002- recommending approval or modification of Code Amendment 2002 -007 to the City Council. DISCUSSION: Introduction: 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 which is nonconforming by virtue of the required conditions of the zoning district in which it is located. Proposed Amendment: The proposed amendment designates certain types of buildings as Landmark Buildings and establishes an exception that would allow a nonconforming use in a Landmark Building to change its operational characteristics without the approval of a use permit, provided there is no net increase in the number of required off - street parking spaces or the required number of off - street parking spaces are provided. Landmark Buildings December 5, 2002 Page 2 The Zoning Code defines changes in operational characteristics as "any change in the operation of a use which conflicts with the precepts or conditions under which the use was initially permitted; or any factor presented in the individual chapters of [the Zoning Code], either explicitly or for purposes of illustration, as constituting a change in operational characteristics." Therefore, such changes could include involve modifying, intensifying, or expanding existing uses in the building. For example, a snack bar in a Landmark Building could expand to another type of food service use, such as restaurant, provided either off - street parking requirements are met or the number of required off - street parking spaces is equal to or less than the number required before the food service use was intensified. Allowing a change in operational characteristics provided there is no net increase in the number of required off - street parking spaces is consistent with nonconforming parking section of the Zoning Code. Section 20.62.060 (B -1) states that nonconforming uses in nonresidential zoning districts may be changed to a use requiring the same or less on- site parking. 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 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 of Historic Places is an official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. Authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Register is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and Private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect our historic and archeological resources. Properties listed in the Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The National Park Service administers the National Register, which is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior. q, Landmark Buildings December 5, 2002 Page 3 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, the Lovell Beach House at 1242 West Ocean Front, and Crystal Cove Historic District in Crystal Cove State Park. The Bank of Balboa building was demolished in the late 1980's. Of the sites on the National Register, only the Balboa Pavilion is a nonconforming use. Environmental Review: 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. 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. Prepared by: Patrick J. Alf6rd Senior Planner Submitted by: P 4', 4 !A )-74' Patricia L. Temple Planning Director Attachments: Draft resolution. Proposed revisions to Chapter 20.62 (Exhibit A). Attachment 4 Correspondence �f -I-q- Alford, Patrick From: Bill DeMayo [billd511 @adelphia.net] 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 1 Page I of I Alford, Patrick From: Andrew Tore Ili [eatorelli@adelphia. net] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 4:30 PM To: palford @city.newport- beach.ca.us Cc: JArde11909 @aol.com; Kathy Prough; Kathy Sommer; Susan Royce; ]self4@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 Tide 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 eatoretli@adelphia.net 12/11/2002 4 CORONA DEL AJAR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION Dedicated to preserving the quality of life of the community since 1987. "In unity there is strength" B. J. CAMEO SNORES: Laura Dto. We urge you to approve this amendment. Sincerely, B .7. 7o n Chairman 3334 E. Coast Hwy., P. 0. Box 1500, Corona del Mar, California 92625 1 December 6, 2002 OLDE C , : Michael 1 eree Pat Hauk Troy Mlku ka Patrick Alford U. Torelli Senior Planner Robert Sat ter City of Newport Beach Robert Scfi, arer 3300 Newport plvd. wpo Luvena H Bud Rasnef ioa Y Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 IRVINE Val Skoro RE: Landmark uiidings HARBOR IEWHILLS* ' Debbie All n Jane Lyo Dear Patrick, CORONA IGIILANDS. Carl do, em as At our monthlyjmeeting November 21, 2002 the Corona del Mar Residents Association SHORECE I voted to suppotit the Landmark Theater zoning code amendment. Scott Maso f It is our understanding that the amendment to Title 20 of the zoning code is to designate C.4NIEo JIGHLANDS., certain types of.buildvngs as "Landmark Buildings " and modify restrictions on :Marge sager nonconforming uses in the Landmark Buildings such as the Port Theater, CAMEO SNORES: Laura Dto. We urge you to approve this amendment. Sincerely, B .7. 7o n Chairman 3334 E. Coast Hwy., P. 0. Box 1500, Corona del Mar, California 92625 1 '7 ;+*,fh;i?l;�' ":• .af'S. '`,; HERDM �y 6 AM aN ?i�yF;iar +$S{..'St=a.;'f�" 1 949 3765582 P.6 ,dt 17' @S LUCAS & PERCIER 1-000 P.141AII F -100 A.10 Prpa -Bole! [ASGDE LYL WC +86d11200P18 X•1 Mm amseascaae ,.,' +" Yu�X� i�� Lu •.f .T. _If:. (. .l W .�z"i•�fy Yti Required Se ration B®tween Game ind Dwelling to Chapter 3 of the 1997 U00 "use or occupancy" it defines Or up R Division 3 occupancies as `Dwellings and lodging houses ". Group U. Div' ion t 0000pandes are . defined as 'Private garages, palrporm, sheds and agricultural bL tiding&" in $*Won 302 'Mixed Use or Occupancy' Section 302.4 exception 3 states; In Vie onwhour occupancy separation between Grbu R, Dhrision 3 and Group U ovoLoanest, the separation may be limited to the 00affor; at mstadals approved far one -hour tire- uesfsffve consinxtion on garage We ..,' The Hendbwk to the 1997 Uniform Building Code, when spaalog of exception 3, out": 'This reduced protection is aseen (ally based on Hte fa that a private game In oonfunenon wan a aKW#ify is ruueNp gwitr a bit arneft I than trio nrsxtmum are■ parrniftc! In a Group U Occupancy_ Therefore. the po antial frro saveaty Is scrMrvhat lower than far the gensrsi aatse.' On page 17 of tPm 1997 UBC, Code Applications Manual, located above a garage, It lutes: 9n the evbrd light wood tnlsaes are used as pert or a would recommend that a sino layeraf SAIWnch (11, accepted provided a x ssi^tpping spaced at i s inches provided where trusses arc spaced at 24 inches (sic The above research would indicate, where a garage, the required protection sp is one layer of 0" ilbnard. �(~ tai_ lam NOW 0106 W speoldnp of a dwelling nd -floor eystam, ... wb Type X wallboard be ontJ on centeria is, .0 0- to tad above a private d •e.Q (24_ oAc. if 2x stripping is used) ali U00 JUL -31 -2001 07 -55 AM HERDMAH 1 949 3765582 P -01 JUL /30 -2001 17105 LUCAS & MERCIER Timber and Wood Products Division Larnmated VeW Lumber lNeat'rn Are tm; �r� • ", , ,�, .. P.o. amt � White cittyy. Oregon 87503.0400 Sd1/826.0200 Saptamber 20,1996 Mr. Robert Srua Reiiable Lumber 19375 Beach Ave. Paragum CA 0:336 -•- DoacW Strut, P. 02/02 (V $ofse Cucade In amecnt discusrlon, Tom Coven rvqueafod tbst I do some meareb regards ng requirod aerupsncy separations, rpec6cally rho3a condidnns wbare a Smage is loca:ed below a dwallinx, and tolato ihaa requirements to the use of ourpsoduca. In gencrel. I Would 6kc io state that where ane hour Ciro sa aradons are reqt iced we cumeady have neo� frra msistive assmlblla llsoed in our Evaluation Report that nc ude th 2 1 yens g' or 2 layera of W' 'X' w are invol n anti na u wi-7 add l—imd assemblies to this list I hava included a copy of our eu rrenc ICBO Evaluation Report fa your use - see Exhibit 1. Both of our current amniblies ere similar io the( tequitrd for wgod joists is Item n 21 -1.1 is Table T-C of the 1994 Unfferm Building Code - please see &hibiu 2. In Chapter 3 of the UBC "Use of Owupancy- it defines Oroup R. DiviMon'j occupancies u "Dwellings and lodging hnuses". Croup U, Division I occupaacics ore aeflded as "Privjlii ft 6amps, tarpons, sheds and agricultural buildings." A Seedon 3Cd -Mx*d Use or Occupancy" 3or on 302.4 axeeption 3 mares - tee Eahibk 3' "In the one -hoar accupanq separation between Croup Rj Divlsiaa 3 and Group U Ocerponciax the reparation may be hinted to the Install tion of mdterials epprevcd for one- hourfire- revir)veconnrurdon;an the :awe si .. 1 The above section wins to be speaidna mainly to venical saparmica Weil* {+here fire rnud wallboavd is myuired on both sides, In the handbook to the Uniform Buildint We whet spealdnS of exception 3 is States - see Exhibit 4: "Ttu's reduced protection Is essentially bared on rheJiltf t a prnwre garage is eart�umaton with a dwelling Is ustwlly qube a bit smaller the mwimum area permitted to a Oraup U OeceWcy. There /are. rho paten ai fire ssvrr)ry tr Somewhat lower than for the geural care." In the 1924 UBC Cade Applications Monual when speaking of a dwelling I &md strove a g:agc it states -sae Exh;btt s: I "!A the New light wood eruiral are «rid at part oft rrc oor ryrrem. Soo fist rhos a %eidd be necessmy to apply two layers of waf IbaeM regrtrad 6y lrem 21 -1.I in Table 7-C, art would recommend that a single tayergJ -swan 175.9mm) Typa Y wa➢board he accepted provided 2 r srrdppiag rpacad of 46 inches (a'Odmlw) on eewrer is provided whtre cruxier are spaced dr24 Bathes WOMW " new mar a t�teaaayw lne�aa ..'pr . -;. Ny3' i .. For SI: l tgare CCW =0.693 mo-. /1 �l Ut�� CcpG 1`�arvuAir mR RGURE a-1 oNENaua OCCUN.cr sevrturQN acamceo ;z a!'r'aMU -1mo 4, occupalCz9 C-7X ,p R, UIVIS/o 6V0,00, C1V1Srou 1 Q. Please explain how therequited occupancy separa- tion between a dwelling and a garage must be con- structed. Often the garage is located below a dwell! ng, and the floor above the garage is supported by wood trusses. Will gyp- sum wallboard orplaster applied directly to the lower chord of the truss be acceptable? Are the Columns and bearing walls sup- porting the floor system to be protected? t c 3 ,+..o FIGURE ]-a Aa The code requites that the gauge side of any corn- s matt wall between the garage and the dwelling be finished on the garage side as required for one -hour construc- tion. Additionally, in two-soory buildings the garage ceiling may also be required to be RnW)ed on the garage side with materiai as required for one -hour consouct?on. in the event the (lour joists in a two -spry building are supported by a wall which does not require one-hour finish on the garage side, since it is • a common wall between the garage and dwelling this wall rouse be finished on the garage side as required for .._ hourconstructionsinceitsupportstheprotetXedfloorcon- muction. Artachmentaf thewallbcard would beas required for Table 7-8 or 7{ of the code or as required in specific evalua- tion reports. d 41 Nor In the event !ight wood trusses are used as pan of a second - floor system, we feel that it would be necessary to apply two layers of wallboard as required by Item 21 -1.1. in Table 7-C. We gearing walls or columns supporting the floor system are also required to have a one-hour rating. I have had considerablediscussion with the fire mar- . shalandcontractors reganiing theintent ofthecode on separation walls between a residence and a private garage. We note (and all agree) that the separation is between a Gnwp & Division 3 Occupancy and Group U, Division I Oc- cupancy which requires a one-hour separation wall pursuant to Table 3 -8. in accordance with CNapwr 7, this would indicate 5!g -inch (15.9 mm) Type X gypsum board on both sides of the wall. The question arises as to what is actually required for this wall. The contractors feel this means %_inch (T5.9 mm) Type X on the garage side and r/j -inch (12.7 mm) nonrated on the dwelling side. the rite marshal (eels that the wall still needs to be rated atone- hournre- resistance using ratings similar to col- la J? TO Mild lla3aO ONIHO ZZTLO656O6 80:91 IOOZ /IE /G0 06/09/97 07:54 902083841301 T7 IUCKXM.A Juic-06 -97 02r43P ICBO EVAL SERV2C£ isInternational Conference of I 3360 WO&WAPi WLL ROAD • wtnn'ux. W rfow aa.aoava4cafaat common ...aaaana.a4 "' 4ag.aawaq ,aasr4aoe�o�ee osass+a, waoa.wm+, Moms" ataGO0lao,awidT�a aauwag+aara a�mwwro.w.w w,aaar¢aaa WSMOMMMO. arcs avrn Mffw 1o4rasw.n..a..e1a, ,ayra4:imee• a,wMerr aag-UNK-11438 �. ammawr WAPO moumow r %%DQM i rrsa..�•aew o4,e*a�M aa� sera aririgmg�r ra�.ar+ oaaateaa:e.vt •,o.la.ysa.� araaalc ^•- uaerdm.loo aeea4erwe�m rwro.wLr.exe `aau`ic� .uws..�scoa aamn...eo.. .i.as,iaagas a�c,atawxoa+rr �nwafo.eaao.r 4„ �a.areea4. aiO4►war.4af>ana taaa`aarog m ariart�.ulia g41raL�aaG�aL oewrw¢+aagfwa.�.we aaaqo/,a4a�eaar Sc,dL Oilb�ia wawa ro. VON - 4sart �-. aa�ac rm.ir row. saaaao hiay 30, 1997 Xcids L. rx3w, CB1 Aafnt; swidiag official City achioo dills 2001 Cvand Avenue Chino %''Us. CA 91704.4869 SOWcr: Tms Fuv4=sis&c nwwnaty. c .io cift 703 Unglar >, OW147 Jt 0.1944 E&Vu near Mr. dyer- This is in rmpo<Lm to yaw lcuar 4i W lalar 14.1997 x4sm- ding ebe cluiFc�scu of the UHC M refasioa to the Trus Joins Maeumm F'valuadan Report NTM -200. Yaw paraphrased and ore falaw= Q: In do Trus Joist Nlao. tV�Il an Evafamna Rqx= NOR -200 in Sciinn E.2, ehae is a requiavanon for a ca&6cur f>arre>Mve boriiwmW assembly for twa layers of mo- half inch Type X gypsum ban& The inure usually camei: iaaa pbty in the occupancy selmadan bats+eea a Group R Divman 3 ad a Group U, Dioism 1 Occ%*&ncy. Cat ffias:$eaNy1 -- re&ced wame layer of11. Type. Xwfiarthe joists are phced m w more dtm►16 inches Ca cenac!r And ff so, will the evalva ra vepar sW bcvarad wbcn *a speaft imquwanects is such rcpartere not meT A: We have previaasly steed is the UPC Code A Masud MU A do& layer arsis Type X wallboard he aospmd pravided2 -by shin % Oxced at 16 inches ca amw is provided under the bomoota tad of *a tresses which may be saved at 24 bAft an.. this paeticaLr eode app)Tcalian has been eayaraded to itldada the we ajpro-otaaufacmred I jcismwhich maybe spaeod 16 inclum an corer as vnjL liiopelialty this sadscm yourcancenm Should you have 8utbw goastiomk please fact free 10 Con= me. M Seaiw Stn$ , Teclu»ed 54rvicY fl PDA11k4j a276a t:�o+rEitxwil�C- tsttw7.aAamS.wc If Red...t etcgr iUOaia+p'dP .aa71ox1- Sw1.,m • Pkw—WL eacro ,La Wsea -61ta na Uw 79fa Cawss+a� -n ao,a. S,4e YA - ter• Y-$ %di.na 46Nd . 01n 179 -1677 '34 N.W. Tires 0w.e ra GIK Mb—jy 6+151 • (p Q 741 -2741 Attachment 4 Draft January 23, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2003 Discussion followed on the visioning process, standards for permitted uses in the Campus Drive area of Statistical Area L4 (airport area), General Plan versus Zoning Code as means to implement this land use change request, and site specific versus general. Public comment was opened. Dan Perlmutter, DMP Properties noted the following: • Owner of the property, the building was erected in 1962 and has had only one tenant. • This land was designated MIA, light industrial; in 1995 the zoning was changed to permit APF. • The tenant has sold his business and the building has been vacated. • The property is impacted by the airport. • Have done studies for use on this property for a shopping center, but as there is no traffic, that is not available. • There is a need for service retail, self storage. • He then presented an aerial view of the location. Commissioner Tucker noted that the Commission has varied opinions of this use and ability to control the looks and use. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Kiser noted that this needs to be looked at carefully as to whether this should be site specific and if this process is not the right one, the City Council should reconsider whether it's rezoning or some other process. To add the designation to the General Plan an APF for one particular site to allow self storage and then if the next project comes along for self storage, that we would be piece - mealing self storage to APF one by one. It makes less sense to broaden this to all APF General Plan in the airport area, or broader than that. Vote on the motion was called: Ayes: Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: Toerge 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 noted that this item had been initiated on November 7, 2002. A public hearing was held on December 5, 2002. The Planning Commission INDEX Item 3 PA2002 -218 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2003 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 clarified: • 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 determination: • Public notification of this hearing, in his opinion, was not enough. • Community members are not in support of this Port Theater. • The three hotels 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. Lavina 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. Val Skoro, 1601 Boyadere Terrace, noted that a preponderance of community members are in support of doing something with the Pod, Theater tCLtie,,hwith the 6 _; DRAFT f! INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2003 INDEX Visioning update of Corona del Mar. He asked that the Commission support this amendment. Bernie Svolsteadt, representing the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of this determination 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 and 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 an 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 then I just don't see the down side is on it. I am in favor of moving ahead with this. Commissioner Tucker noted his support of this determination noting: • This came to us from the City Council and is more of a policy matter. • 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 over time and there was never any parking provided. • This is not a good hand as it is an imposition but it has been an imposition for many years. CommissionerToerge 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. • Supports this determination so that the Council can make the policy decision. Commissioner Agajanian 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. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2003 Chairperson Kiser noted his support of this determination and then read the revised exception that, 'Any new uses associated 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.' Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to adopt Resolution No. 1586 recommending approval or modification of Code Amendment 2002 -007 to the City Council. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood noted that the City Council approved on the first reading the Planned Community Amendment for Fashion Island signs; called for review the use permit for Hottie's Pizza on the 231d. 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 meeting, but the subcommittee met to review all of the elements to determine the extent to which any or all of them need to be revised. Ms. Wood invited the Commission to a joint study session with the Council at 4:30 on Tuesday the 28th to hear a presentation of the results of the visioning process. d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - none. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. f) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. g) Status report on Planning Commission requests - none. h) Project status - none. i) Requests for excused absences - none. Ms. Temple noted that the meeting of February 61h is to be cancelled as the continued item (McDonald's) has provided additional information for presentation. A new public hearing notice will be done when the applicant is ready to presume. 0 INDEX Additional Business Attachment 5 December 5, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes City of Newport Beach .' Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 Noes: None 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 Agajanion 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 INDEX Item 4 PA2002 -218 Continued to 01/09/2003 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 INDEX permit. 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 property was not being increased and there was already a food use on the property. 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 Iandmarked? - No, it would be designated landmark now if this were approved. • There has been talk about the property 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 property 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. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 • Under the assembly type building, couldn't the building be used as a teen age nightclub or other enterprise for musical groups? • 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 6 of the staff report. Ms. Temple clarified that this establishes a definition for landmark structures which would allow an owner to consider alternative uses within the building should he choose to maintain the building. There is nothing in the provision that would preclude an 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 and 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. Lavina Heyton, resident of Corona del Mar representing the Corona del Mar Chamber noted their support of this project, as the Port Theater is an important aspect of the village. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 INDEX 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 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. 12 City of Newport Beach ! Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 INDEX Jon Loper, Vice President of the California Division of the Fritz Duda Company, 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 fall 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 an 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 an 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 13 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 INDEX language in there that makes it clear because it can be confusing. 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 within 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 14 City of Newport Beach ' Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 INDEX 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. 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 15 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 Noes: None SUBJECT: McDonald's Corporation, Use Permit No. 2001 -029 and Development Plan No. 2002- 001(PA2001 -155) 700 West Coast Highway Use Permit and Development Plan to redevelop the existing McDonald's restaurant. The existing 3,045 sq. ft. restaurant will be demolished and a new 3,113 sq. ft. restaurant building will be constructed with a reconfigured drive -thru. The application also requests a partial waiver of parking. Jim Campbell gave an overview noting: Existing building to be replaced with a new building located further to the west. • The entire site will be re- worked per the plans included in packet. • Public Works memo requests further conditions of approval. • Letter regarding lighting issues (attached). • Then gave a slide presentation of the site noting driveways, retaining wall, trash enclosure, transformer, elevation drawings (needing to be edited by applicant), • References to Mariners Mile Design Guidelines, roof screening, colors, landscaping. • Coast Highway widening aspects. • Light standard of 20 feet height structure. and removal of light bands on roof • Lighting plan and slope re- vegetation was discussed. • Photo simulation of block wall to be placed in front of the retaining wall. • Parking proposed for facility is adequate and is based on the amount of drive -thru business expected. Commissioner Selich verified that the Mariner's Mile Design Guidelines fall under the purview of the Commission's review of the use permit. The applicant has not made much of an effort to adhere to the Mariner's Mile Guidelines. He then noted the following concerns as this is the first major project to come since the Guidelines were adopted: Site PlonCl - the split driveway in the back where the orders are taken, I presume there to facilitate a fast moving of traffic through the driveway. I would be interested in why that is necessary and if the applicant can quantitatively tell us how much the efficiency of the operation is increased. I would rather see a single lane of traffic back there and the building slid back with more landscaping in front of the building, particularly with the prospect of losing twelve feet of the landscaping in front at some point in the future. Speaker box location. Presently it is on the highway side of the property. I am curious why it is proposed to be moved to the back and what kind of sound problems that might create for the residents up above, if any. iD INDEX Item 5 PA2001 -155 Continued to 02/06/2003 Jan 23 2003 3:31PM R. R. Nichols Engineering [949)640 -7316 P.1 Jan 23 03 02:16p Mistral 949 723 9687 p•1 °�Mwti�i6'�l��v��} '� 3225 FILE NON As owners of the property and business located at 440 Heliotrope Avenue (now the "Mistral Restaurant ", formerly "Trees Restaurant" and the "Pirates lnn "), 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 8a, 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 Part Theaters 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 Port 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 G & D 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 our 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 entryway, 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 for our 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 local, 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 Heiietrooe, 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? �r 1 •'L'0 •.ter, Sincerely, " 7 w Jan 23 2003 3:31PM R. R. Nichols Engineering (9491640 -7316 510 Iris Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 January 23, 2003 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Commissioners: Re: Port Theatre as a Landmark Building JaVi We bought our first duplex, 510 Iris Avenue in 1969 and bought 512 in 1974. When my husband retired in 1973 we moved to 510 on the 1.3's 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 his 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 woul d 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 .; C FROM :RON YEO, FAIR ARCHITECT, INC. FAX NO. :9496440449 Jan. 23 2003 04:51PM P1 I ir 01 RON YEO, FAIA ARCHITECT, INC. 500 JASMINE AVENUE CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA I W11 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, Message Paae 1 of 1 - fo:��r�cK Ali ©�d rAX� -3�Zq Ruthe Gorman From: Walkie Ray — - -- Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 4:45 PM ;q� To: ' palford @city.newport- beach.ca.us'�77 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 silblings 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 is just south of the theater facing Heliotrope, 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 suffer 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. 1 simply cannot believe that the City would now countenance changes in the former Port Theater property which would so clearly adversely 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 walkie@slyd. M 1/23/2003 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 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPA,RTI,1EN 1 CiTV AM JAI 2 '12003 PN1 71819;10111,12i112,31�111510 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 extensive preservation experience, I would like to share some thoughts about preservation incentives offered by other communities and the standards that exist to guide preservation efforts. The City 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. Ss architecture historical rehabilitation planning 2821 newport blvd. newport beach california 92663 Phone (949) 673 -2643 fax (949) 673 -8547 e-mail tsainc3aol.com 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, Joh oomis Principal cc: Enclosures J The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation The Standards (Department of Interior regulations, 36 CFR 67) pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior, related landscape features and the building's site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. J� Chapter 25.45 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Sections: 25.45.002 Intent and purpose. 25.45.004 General provisions, 25.45.006 Historic register preservation incentives. 25.45.009 Procedures fur the alteration of historic register structures. 25.45.010 Procedures for demolition. 25.45.012 Unsafe or dangerous conditions 25.45.014 Illegal demolition Penalty for violations. 25.45.002 Intent and purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health. safety. and general welfare by providing for the identification. protection. enhancement, perpetuation, and use of improvements. buildings. structures. objects. monu- ments. sites. places. and areas within the city that reflect special elements of the city's architectural. artistic. cultur- al. engineering, aesthetic. historical. political. social. and other heritage to achieve the following objectives: (A) Safeguard the heritage of the city by providing for the protection of historic resources representing signifi- cant elements of its history: (B) Enhance the visual character of the city by en- couraging the preservation of those buildings which make a significant contribution to the older neighborhoods of the city particularly to the designated historic register structures reflecting unique and established architectural traditions: (C) Foster public appreciation of and civic pride in the beauty of the city and the accomplishments of its past; (D) Strengthen the economy of the city by protecting and enhancing the city's attractions to residents. tourists and visitors: (E) Promote the private and public use of historic resources for the education, prosperity and general wel- fare of the people; (F) Stabilize and improve property values within the city. (Ord. 1179 § 5 (part). 1989). 25.45.004 General provisions. (A) Laguna Beach Historic Resister. The city clerk shall maintain a current record of historic structures on the city's historic register. Structures identified on the historic resources inventory (which was officially recog- nized per resolution 82.111) and those structures idend- fied as heritage structures in the South Laguna Specific 1 • 11] Plan shall be referred to as the historic resources list and arc eligible to apply for placement on the city's historic register. Structures on the historic resources inventory which arc placed on the historic register are classified into three categories of historical significance, "E" Excep- tional, "K" Key and "C" Contributive. For a complete description of these categories see the city's Historic Resources Elanent. (B) Design Review Approval. The building official shall not issue a permit for construction. exterior alter- ation, enlargement or demolition of a building or structure listed on the city's historic register without prior approval by the design review board during a public hearing. Inraior modifications and minor exterior alterations shall be exempt as noted in Section 25.05.040(B) (2) (b) and (c) (design review). (C) Heritage Committee. The heritage committee. as established by city council. will serve an advisory role on matters pertaining to historic preservation as specified within this chapter. (D) Designation Procedures. (1) Structures identified on the historic resources list shall be placed on the historic register upon submittal of written request to the city cleric. Applications shall con- tain information on remodels or exterior alterations made after official recognition of the historic resources invento- ry (December 21. 1982) or the South Laguna Specific Plan (September 1983). whichever is applicable. Thera shall be no filing fee for application to the historic regis- ter. Only the property owner may apply for placement on the historic register. (2) If a structure is not on the historic resources list. but the owner desires inclusion of the structure on the historic register application shall be made to the heritage committee. That committee may require a survey of the structure by a qualified architect or historian with a demonstrated expertise in historic preservation. Placement on the register shall be recommended by the heritage committee and finalized by the director of community development. There shall be no filing fee for register con- sideration. (E) Removal from the Historic Register. Removal from the register shall be subject to city council approval with recommendation from the heritage committee. The decision to remove a structure from the historic register shall take into consideration any utilized benefitsfincen- tives as set forth in Section 25.45.006. Filing fees for removal of a structure from the register shall be deter- mined by resolution by the city council. (Ord. 1179 § 5 (part), 1989). 25 -127 F, - ?5.45.006 25.45.006 Historic register preservation incentives Structures listed on the city's historic register are eligible to apply for the following preservation benefits. The granting of any benefit shall be conditioned upon a written agreement between the city and property owner that ensures preservation of the building's historic charac- ter. (A) Parking. The following benefits are subject to design review board approval. except when a conditional use permit is required, in which case the city council shall be the final approval authority. upon recommenda- tion by the planning commission. The planning commis- sion shall consider recommendations of the heritage com- mittee. unless the community development director dew - mines that an unreasonable delay in the review process would occur. (1) Historic single - family dwellings that are noncon- forming due to substandard parking shall not be required to provide parking in accordance with Chapter 25.52 when additions are proposed. provided that such additions do not exceed more than fifty percent of the original square footage of the structure and that at least one cov- ered parking space has been provided on -site. When a second residential unit is being added to a historic struc- turc under the provisions of Chapter 25.17 (Second Resi- dential Units). parking shall be in accordance with the requirements of that chapter unless modified by the city council for purposes of achieving the goals of the historic preservation ordinance. (2) Historic multiple -family dwellings that are non- conforming due to substandard parking shall not be required to provide parking in accordance with Chapter 2552 when additions are proposed. provided that such additions do not exceed more than fifty percent of the original square footage of the structure and that at least half of the parking spaces required in Chapter 25.52 have been provided. (3) "E" rated historic structures located in commercial zones may be granted a conditional use permit to allow a reduction in parking requirements up to a maximum of seventy-five percent based on the degree to which the historic character of the building is preserved and/or en- hanced. The historic character of the building shall in- clude exterior and visible interior elements if. and only if. integral to the historic building design. (4) Historic structures located in commercial zones and which have "K" or "C" ratings may be granted a conditional use permit to allow a reduction in parking requirements up to a maximum of fifty percent based on the degree to which the historic character of the building is preserved and/or enhanced. The historic character of (.p. ead, 3-96) the building shall include all exterior and visible interior elements if. and only if. integral to the historic building design. (B) Building Permit and Planning Application Fees. All building permit and planning application fees for structures placed on the historic register will be waived by the director of community development for those proposed projects compatible with preserving the historic character of the subject building. (C) Building Code Deviations. The city tray allow deviations from Tide 14 of this code requirements when findings can be made by the director of community development that the historic building is in conformance with the State of California Historical Building Code. (D) Additions to Historic Commercial Structurm. Historic commercial structures may add up to fifteen percent of the existing floor area not to exceed five hundred square feet. without providing additional parking and without bringing any existing nonconformities into compliance with current zoning regulations. subject to review and approval by the design review board. The addition must be removed if the historical building is demolished (E) Setback Flexibility. Additions to historic structures shall be allowed to maintain setbacks up to the line of existing encroachments: provided. that all setbacks as required by the Uniform Building Code are maintained for new construction. (F) Density Bonuses. Historic structures located in the local business professional zone and in the downtown specific plan area may be eligible for residential density bonuses. See Section 25.18.002(0) and the downtown specific plan for applicable provisions. (G) Official Recognition. Properties on the historic register shall be eligible for special designation plaques. A program for such recognition will be established by the heritage committee. (H) Financial Incentives. Owners of properties on the historic register are eligible to apply for local. state and national financial benefits. (I) Relief from Nonconforming Structure Require- ments. (1) Structures listed on the historic register may be allowed to add more than fifty percent of the original structure without bringing existing nonconformities into compliance if it is determined that such an addition will not diminish or detract from the historic significance of the original structure. and if such addition is found to be compatible in scale and character with the surrounding neighborhood. (2) Properties located in multifamily zones (R -2 and R -3). where only one unit currently exists. may apply for 25 -128 5� if additional units without bringing existing nonconformities into corfoxmance. if it is determined that the additional unit will not diminish or detract from the historic signifi- cance of the original structure, and if such additional unit is found to be compatible in scale and character with the surrounding neighborhood. Requests for this benefit shall be subject to approval by the design review board with recommendation of approval provided by the heritage committee. (Ord. 1309 § 2. 1995: Ord. 1179 § 5 (part). 1989). 25.45.008 Procedures for the alteration of historic register structures. (A) Prior to the issuance of a building permit to re- model or alter any historic structure (with the exception of minor exterior modifications), the design review board shall review the proposed changes in accordance with Chapter 25.05 and find the proposal consistent with the following applicable rehabilitation guidelines. Interior changes shall not be reviewed unless the changes involve interior elements which are integral to the historical building design. Prior to design review board review of any alterations to "E" rated structures. the heritage com- mittee shall provide a recommendation on the proposed change(s). (B) Rehabilitation Guidelines. The following guide- lines shall be used to evaluate any proposed alteration to structures on the historic register. (1) When altering or adding to historically significant structures. the historic character of the original structure shall be retained Any changes shall be guided by the policies of the city's historic resources element and, specific plans where applicable. (2) Alterations and additions to any historically signif- icant or architecturally significant building shall not introduce some new or conflicting element and shall complement the prevailing architecture. (3) Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for the property which requires minimal alteration to the building. (4) The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features shall be avoided (5) Changes which may have occurred over time are evidence of the history and development of the building. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right and shall be preserved except where such changes have occurred inappropriately. (6) Distinctive stylistic features or examples of dolled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure, or site shall be preserved. (7) Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event KEMP a replacement is necessary. the new material shall match the material being replaced in composition. design. color. texture. and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architecnual features shall be based on accu- rate duplications of features, substantiated by historic. physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectrral designs or the availability of different architectrral elo- ments from other buildings or structures. (8) Surface cleaning of historic structures shall be conducted carefully and gently. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that damage historic materials shall not be utilized. (9) Contemporary design for alteration and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant his= - cal. architectural or cultural materials. and such design is compatible with the size, scale. color. material, and char- acter of the property. neighborhood or environment. (10) Wherever possible. new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future. the essential form and integrity of the structure will be unimpaired. (Ord. 1309 § 3. 1995: Ord. 1179 § 5 (part). 1989). 25.45.010 Procedures for demolition. The following procedures shall be applied to all histor- ic structures listed on the historic register and those structures listed on the historic resources list, which are located in commercial zones: (A) Demolition permits are subject to compliance with the provisions of Title 14 of this code. (B) Applicants for demolition of historic buildings which appear on the city's historic register or as required in this chapter shall make application for a demolition permit with the department of community development. (C) Upon receipt of the application to demolish. the department of community development shall. within twenty days, schedule the request for public hearing before the design review board and shall solicit input from the heritage committee. Public noticing shall be as specified in Section 25.05.065(0). (D) Design Review Board Action. The design review board shall receive a recommendation from the heritage committee and shall address and mitigate the cu rnulative impacts of allowing the demolition of structures that contribute to the overall neighborhood character or streetscape. but which may be individually insignificant. After conducting the public hearing. the design review board shall take one of the following actions: 25 -129 (Lpm ash 3}96) 25.45.010 (1) Approve Permit. The design review board may approve the demolition permit in conformance with the provisions of subsection (E) (Findings) of this section. (2) Approve permit, subject to a waiting period of up to ninety calendar days to consider relocation and/or documentation. (a) During the waiting period. the applicant shall advertise the proposed demolition in a paper of general circulation in the city once a month for the rust two months following the design review board's hearing. Such advertisement shall be one-quarter page in size and shall include a photograph of the structure. the address at which the structure proposed for demolition is located, information as to how arrangements can be made for relocation and the date after which a demolition permit may be issued. Evidence of this publication must be submitted to the department of community development prior to issuance of a demolition permit. (b) Any application for relocation of the structure shall be filed within the specified waiting period as deter- mined by the design review board. (c) The design review board may extend the waiting period up to one hundred eighty days if it determines that relocation is imminent. (d) During the continuance period, the heritage com- mittee may investigate relocation of the building or modi- fication of the building for for= uses in a way which preserves the architectural and historical integrity of the building. (e) During the continuance period. the applicant may pursue plan approval. (E) Findings. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the design review board shall make one of the following findings: (1) The action proposed is consistent with the purpos- es of the ordinance and the historic resources element of the general plan: or (2) There are no reasonable alternatives to demolition. (Ord. 1179 § 5 (part). 1989). 25.45.012 Unsafe or dangerous conditions. None of the provisions of this chapter shall be con- strued to prevent any demolition necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous conditions of any structure. feature. or part thereof. when such condition has been declared unsafe or dangerous by the building official or the fire chief and where the proposed measures have been de- clared necessary by such official to correct said condi- tions. However. only such wort as is necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous condition may be performed. in the event any structure or other feature shall be damaged by rue or other calamity. the building official may speci- lt+rm. Be.h isal 25 -130 fy. prior to the commission's review. the amount of repair necessary to correct any unsafe conditions. (Ord. 1179 § 5 (part). 1989). 2SAS.014 fllegal demolition- 41enak7 for violations. The removal or partial demolition of any historic register structure or structures listed on the historic re- sources list located in commercial zones. without a prior demolition permit approval, shall result in a five -year stay in the issuance of a building permit for any new coo- stroction at the site previously occupied by the historic structure. (Ord. 1179 15 (part). 1989). Alford, Patrick From: Oliver H. Winn [owinn@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 4:52 PM To: palford @ city. newpo rt- beach.ca. us Cc: nbcouncil@ranichols.into Subject: Landmark Theatres 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 Port 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. Winn 422 Heliotrope Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 owinn @worldnet.att.net 1 J � Richard Nichols 519 Iris, CdM Newport Beach City Council & Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Fax 644 -3020 Newport Beach, CA palford @city.newport- beach.ca.us Re: Code Amendment CA 2002 - 007 "Landmark Buildings" This Code Amendment designates theatres, built before 1950 and with more than 300 seating, as "Landmark Theatres ". Three theatres qualify, the Balboa, Port, and Lido. This ordinance officially recognizes them and gives them incentives to modify their nonconforming use within the building without losing any grandfathered parking. Dennis O'Neil suggested this ordinance, which avoids public scrutiny of the General Plan review. The Planning Commission has passed the Ordinance; and, only review by the City Council, Tuesday January 28, 2003 can prevent this from being in the zoning code. This Ordinance is necessary for the Balboa theatre, which seats about 350, has been purchased by the City for $560K, and was leased to a foundation for $1 /yr with special help from at least two councilmen. They gutted the building and tried to put in a basement. Bad soil conditions stopped initial progress. Next the City tried to lease or buy Orange Julius for over $IM to provide above ground support. Orange Julius refused to sell or lease. Now the theatre foundation estimates it needs $3M and 3.5 years to get the basement and the project to fruition. Most of this is City money. The theatre has not operated for years. The Lido theatre operates regularly, was not initially informed of the ordinance, but does not oppose it. The theatre is not near residential or schools and has parking. The Port theatre, seating nearly 900, hasn't operated regularly for years. Although acknowledging that the theatre massively impacts both surrounding commercial and residential. The Chamber and BID and Resident Association representing CdM and surrounding areas, think Old CdM can live with it. The CdM Community Association thinks, at least regarding the Port theatre, this action should be postponed and considered publicly as part of the General Plan for the following reasons. The Planning Commission action is at odds with Newport Beach's own general plan and zoning codes. The guiding Zoning Code: "20.15 Commercial Districts 20.15.010 Specific Purposes The commercial districts regulations are intended to: D. Minimize the impact of commercial development on adjacent residential districts; E. Ensure that the appearance and effects of commercial buildings and uses are harmonious with the character of the area in which they are located; F. Ensure the provision of adequate off - street parking and loading facilities; G. Provide sites for public and semipublic uses needed to complement commercial development or compatible with a commercial environment. "Landmark Buildings" Page 2 Further Zoning Code 20.62 Non - Conforming Structures and Uses Section 20.62.010 Purpose states ".... This chapter is intended to limit the expansion of nonconforming structures and uses to the maximum extent feasible, to establish the criteria under which they may be continued or possibly expanded, and to bring these structures and uses into conformity in an equitable, reasonable and timely manner, without infringing upon the constitutional rights of property owners. (Ord. 97 -09 Exh. A (part), 1997)" We suggest the case of meriting landmark status should first be made. The general plan revision is the appropriate point for this. We believe the Public should be appraised of the City plan for the Theatres. Let's state it publicly and debate it. The Lido had not even been approached and the Port has never appeared publicly. Where the theatres have parking, historical design features, and have serviceability as the Lido theatre, the large theatre has a place. The Balboa theatre with beach parking has potential but the Port has few of these features. The Port theatre is a Quonset Hut as used for hangers and large warehouses. Is this outstanding design? The Port theatre seats about 900 and there is no parking. At 3 /car is 300 parking places. At 11 - 30' wide lots/block there are about 15 parking spots/block long and 12 wide or 54 spots per block. This is 6 blocks of residential parking or 50% parking in 12 blocks. This is equal to the street parking within 6 blocks of the theatre. If as current City Code requires, the theatre provided parking, say behind adjacent commercial, as other uses, the situation would improve. Arcades, Cabarets, Nightclubs and Restaurants are suggested alternate uses. Use permits are required for Arcades, Cinema, Live Entertainment and Dance Halls. Beer, wine and liquor also require permits. These would be required under present code with building use change. Such changes should also trigger hours of operation limitations, and a phase out of non - conforming uses for example, parking. The Code suggests phase -outs of Residential, 5 years and Commercial 10 years (20.62.090 Abatement) The Port has no alley or place for waste containers. So food service for large numbers of people is not convenient. Arcade games attract kids, the Port Theatre is right at the minimum 1000' limit from Harbor View Elementary and is less than 100' from residential, the Code minimums. Kids love the games but have bikes and congregate. There is no room for bike parking also required by Code and kids fooling around next to PCH and 50K cars/day is hazardous. At a minimum the Port theatre should be considered separately for Landmark status. For more information Contact Dick Nichols, Te1.644 -7735, Fax 640 -7316. nbcouncil @ranichols.info �I Page 1 of 1 Alford, Patrick From: WSebr72219@aol.com Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 1:55 PM To: palford@city .newport- beach.ca.us Subject: (no subject) As a CdM resident I completely support the Port Theatre being granted Landmark Status. It is currently an unbelievable eyesore in an otherwise beautiful community. We must transform the Port soon. Sincerely, Walter Sebring 219 Orchid Ave. �-�2 02/03/2003 3309 OCEAN BLVD. CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92623 �-" 4 ) 2003 �n-t 129(.3 (v,.* N-;+'. C-4 C 0 TIC I L AGENDA NO. From: Chamber Executive [cdmchamber @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:52 AM To: Bromberg, Steven Subject: Landmark Letter „'RECEIVED ER AGENDA o PRINTED:” 1 MS 1r. Coast "wy. Ste. 101, PO Box 72 Corona del Mar, G 92625 949.673.40S0 Phone / 949.673.3940 fax February 4, 2003 To: Mayor Steve Bromberg - City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. = Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Landmark Buildings Dear Mayor Bromberg: At our Board of Directors' meeting for the Corona Del Mar Chamber of Commerce on February 4, 2003, 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 services 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 above matter. Sincerely, Bill Sinclair President "RECEIVE A 0 3 ER AGEND « NRI l7ED:" .- From: Alford, Patrick Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:31 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Port Theater - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Walkie Ray [mailto:walkie @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'; Roxie Bordelon (art4roxie @aol.com) Subject: Port Theater Dear Mr. Alford, Mike Ray; Gary Long; Lisa Lovely; Dennis & 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 w_alkie @sjrd.com \ u .0 'p �w -- w "RECEIVE! AfTER AG END PRINTED;" From: Alford, Patrick Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:14 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Landmark agenda item Feb 11, 2003 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Oliver H. Winn [mailto:owinn @worldnet.att.net] 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 Port 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 86velopment of the Port theatre receive a full review according to the present zoning and developu ment rules. Dr. Oliver H. Winn 422 Heliotrope Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 owinn @worldnet.att.net 1 - o "RECEIVED AFTER AG NDA Richard - s Nichols 519 Iris Ave. Corona del Mar,Ca. Newport Beach City Council & Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Fax 644 -3020 Newport Beach, CA palford @city.newport- beach.ca.us Re: The Port Theater 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'h 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 Theater's 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 a major entertainment center in CdM to the detriment of surrounding commercial and residential. Let's get the 300 seat Balboa completed before starting a similar project three times as big. 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 Village, Central Balboa Peninsula, McFadden Square, West Newport and the mixed residential /industrial above Hoag Hospital. 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 Village, 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 "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED :" � a ►j Cs From: Alford, Patrick Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 8:43 AM To: City Clerk Cc: Temple, Patty; Wood, Sharon; Clauson, Robin; Burnham, Bob; Berger, George; Trimble, Daniel Subject: FW: Port Theater - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Mark D. Simon [mailto:markdsimon @adelphia.net] Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 9:53 PM To: nbcouncil @ranichols.info Cc: palford @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Port Theater Dear Don, I was saddened by your letter suggesting constraints upon the reuse of the Port Theater in Corona del Mar. This area has only two after school sites where children can hang out in a safe and supervised environment and it's currently starved for nightlife by the actions of the City Council. Most disturbing to me as a father, is the remark that "kids ride bikes and congregate ". The City has tried its best to eliminate skateboarding, is bike riding next? Honestly, kids need fun places to congregate, if properly supervised it keeps them out of trouble and there just aren't enough places like that in CdM. It also disturbs me that the City has systematically forced new bar & grille establishments in CdM to close at 11 pm, and has almost completely eliminated dancing in the locality. Residents of CdM are now forced to travel out of the area for any type of nightlife. This to satisfy those who do not wish to allow anyone else any fun, or are just too old to remember what is is to go dancing. I moved to CdM because I enjoy being able to walk to where I need to go! Compromise, and let somebody have some fun around here! Not everyone is afraid of kids, and not everyone wants to go to bed before 11 pm! Respectfully, Mark D. Simon 02/10/2003 0�11�03� A 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@worldnet.att.net 949 - 675 -4016