HomeMy WebLinkAbout23 - Introduction of a Nonconforming Sign Code Amendment (PA2019-184)Q �EwPpRT
O
c —
'9
TO:
FROM:
CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Staff Report
June 23, 2020
Agenda Item No. 23
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director - 949-644-3232,
sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: David Blumenthal, AICP, Planning Consultant
dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov
PHONE: 949-644-3204
TITLE: Ordinance No. 2020-16: Introduction of a Nonconforming Sign Code
Amendment (PA2019-184)
ABSTRACT:
Nonconforming signs are signs that were permitted, but due to a change in the Newport
Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), are no longer meeting the requirements of the code. The
NBMC requires certain nonconforming signs to be removed no later than October 27,
2020. The proposed code amendment would allow the City Council to extend the deadline
for removal of the nonconforming sign. Conversely, and as recommended by the Planning
Commission, the City Council could initiate an amendment to allow for the elimination of
the deadline. For City Council's consideration is to decide to either extend the abatement
period for five additional years or eliminate the abatement time frame.
RECOMMENDATION:
a) Conduct a public hearing;
b) Find this project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use
Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division
6, Chapter 3;
c) Waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only, introduce Ordinance No.
2020-16, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California,
adopting Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 to Amend Section 20.42.140(A)
(Nonconforming Signs) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code to Extend the Amortization of Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
(Attachment A), and pass to second reading on July 14, 2020;
d) Waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only, introduce Ordinance
No. 2020-17, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, Adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 to Amend
Section 21.30.065(E) (Removal of Nonconforming Signs) of Title 21 (Local Coastal
Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to Extend the
Amortization of Nonconforming Signs and Authorize Staff to Submit the Amendment
to the California Coastal Commission (PA2019-184) (Attachment B), and pass to
second reading on July 14, 2020;
23-1
Ordinance No. 2020-16: Introduction of a Nonconforming
Sign Code Amendment (PA2019-184)
June 23, 2020
Page 2
or
e) Adopt Resolution 2020-66, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach, California, Initiating Amendments to the City of Newport Beach General Plan
Natural Resources Element and the Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan
Related to the Amortization of Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184) (Attachment C).
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
There is no fiscal impact related to this item.
INTRODUCTION:
In October 2005, the City comprehensively updated its sign regulations. Sign standards
changed and certain previously allowed signs were prohibited. Newport Beach Municipal
Code Sections 20.42.140 and 21.30.065 require certain signs that do not conform to the
new regulations to be abated within 15 years (amortization period) from the effective date
of the sign code update (October 27, 2005 + 15 years = October 27, 2020). There were
approximately 400 legal nonconforming signs in 2005, of which approximately 140 have
either brought into conformance or have been removed.
Initiation of Code Amendment
Zoning Code Section 20.66.020 (Initiation of Amendment) provides that a code
amendment may be initiated by the City Council with or without a recommendation from
the Planning Commission. On October 22, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
2019-92, thereby initiating the Code and LCP Amendments to consider an extension of
the amortization period for nonconforming signs (Attachments D and E). In discussing the
initiation of Code and LCP Amendments, City Council provided guidance for an extension
period of five years.
Initial Outreach efforts
On March 12, 2020, staff sent letters to 327 property and business owners for properties
and/or businesses that were previously identified as having a nonconforming sign. The
intent of the letter was to inform them of the pending code amendment to extend the
amortization period and to elicit feedback. Several business and property owners
contacted staff to communicate that they were unaware of the requirements and to
express their concerns that the amortization requirements will negatively impact their
businesses and tenants.
Planning Commission Review
On May 7, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the request. Staff's complete analysis and recommendation is contained in the
attached Planning Commission staff report, dated May 7, 2020 (Attachments F and G).
As noted in the Planning Commission staff report, staff's original recommendation was to
extend the amortization period for five years.
23-2
Ordinance No. 2020-16: Introduction of a Nonconforming
Sign Code Amendment (PA2019-184)
June 23, 2020
Page 3
In response to the initial outreach efforts and public hearing notice, the Planning
Commission received 79 pieces of written correspondence (Attachment H) and had seven
public speakers. The overwhelming response to the proposal was to extend or eliminate
the amortization period.
The Planning Commission expressed concerns that maintaining or extending the
amortization period would result in additional financial impacts on businesses that are
already suffering during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The Planning Commission
further noted that the nonconforming signs are likely associated with businesses that have
been in the City for a long time, and natural attrition will result in the eventual removal of
the nonconforming signs. After considering all written and oral evidence, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution Nos. 2020-015 and 2020-016 (Attachments I and J) to
recommend the City Council amend Section 20.42.140 and delete Section 21.30.065(E)
to eliminate the deadline for removal of the nonconforming signs. If adopted by the City
Council, the recommendation eliminates the abatement time frame.
DISCUSSION:
A nonconforming sign is a sign that was legally installed, but as a result of changes to the
municipal code are no longer allowed. Not only does this include over -sized signs, but
also includes the following sign types:
Pole sign: A sign that is supported b �A
g g Pp Y a
single pole or similar support structure
so that the bottom edge of the sign is
one foot or more above grade. •
Roof sign: A sign that is erected upon e
or above a roof of a building.
Signs are important to businesses, as it provides a form of advertising and assists
customers in locating the business. However, maintaining a unified and appropriate
appearance of signs has a direct relationship to the character of the community. As sign
regulations change, the elimination of older signs helps achieve the community character.
To accomplish this, the use of an amortization period is a common planning tool. The
theory behind the amortization period is a nonconforming sign can remain for a specific
period of time, thus allowing the owner to recoup their investment before the sign must
be abated. In this case, a 15 -year amortization period was set in 2005.
23-3
Ordinance No. 2020-16: Introduction of a Nonconforming
Sign Code Amendment (PA2019-184)
June 23, 2020
Page 4
Based on community and business input, the Planning Commission felt that requiring
removal of nonconforming signs represents a financial burden on business and/or
property owners. As such, the Planning Commission is recommending elimination of the
amortization period.
Notwithstanding this, elimination of the amortization period would be in conflict with
General Plan Policy No. NR21.2 (Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs), which
states, "Implement programs to remove illegal signs and amortize legal nonconforming
signs" and with Coastal Land Use Plan No. 4.4.4-4, which states, "Implement programs
to remove illegal signs and amortize legal nonconforming signs." Accordingly, staff is
presenting the following options for the City Council's consideration:
tion 1- Extension of the Amortization Period
This option extends the abatement deadline by five years to October 27, 2025, in
accordance with City Council's guidance from October 22, 2019. This option is consistent
with the policies of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. The City Council may
choose a different amortization period. For example: The City Council may decide to
extend the amortization period to 10 years. To implement this option, the City Council
would introduce both attached ordinances (Attachments A & B) to amend Sections
20.42.140(A) and 21.30.065(E) of the NBMC.
tion 2- Elimination of the Amortization Period
This option is the Planning Commission's recommendation of eliminating any time frame
for the abatement of non -conforming signs. To implement this option, the City Council
would adopt the attached resolution (Attachment C) initiating a General Plan amendment
and Coastal Land Use Plan amendment. Should the City Council initiate these
amendments, staff would prepare updates to the relevant policies along with the
associated changes to the NMBC to implement the new policies. Staff would then return
to the Planning Commission for a final recommendation, and subsequently return to the
City Council for adoption.
This option also directs staff not to enforce the October 27, 2020 deadline, until such time
the City Council has taken final action on the proposed General Plan amendment and
Coastal Land Use Plan amendment.
Local Coastal Plan
The proposed amendments would affect both Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21
(Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC. For properties located in the
Coastal Zone, proposed changes would not be effective until certified by the California
Coastal Commission (CCC). Therefore, should the City Council determine to either
extend or eliminate the amortization period, staff will submit a corresponding ordinance
amending the LCP for review and approval by the CCC. The ordinance will become
effective immediately upon approval by the CCC; however, should the CCC suggest
modifications, staff will return to the City Council with a new ordinance.
23-4
Ordinance No. 2020-16: Introduction of a Nonconforming
Sign Code Amendment (PA2019-184)
June 23, 2020
Page 5
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Code Amendment is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use
Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6,
Chapter 3. Class 5 exemption applies to minor changes in land use limitations, provided
the Property has an average slope that does not exceed twenty (20) percent and the
changes do not result in change to the permitted land use or density. The Amortization
Period is considered a limitation on a land use. The Code Amendment would provide for a
minor change by extending the Amortization Period. No new signs would be authorized and
no change to existing sign standards would occur. Lastly, there would be no alteration to the
conforming status to any sign.
NOTICING:
Pursuant to Section 13515 of the California Code of Regulations, a review draft of the
LCP amendment was made available and a Notice of Availability was distributed on
April 22, 2020.
Notice of the proposed amendments was published in the Daily Pilot as an eighth -page
advertisement, consistent with the provisions of the NBMC. The item also appears on the
agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City Website. Finally,
notice was mailed to all property and business owners for properties and/or businesses
that were previously identified as having a nonconforming sign; as well as, emailed to all
persons that submitted written correspondence regarding this item.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Ordinance No. 2020-16
Attachment B — Ordinance No. 2020-17
Attachment C — Resolution No. 2020-66
Attachment D — Resolution No. 2019-92
Attachment E — October 22, 2019 City Council Minutes
Attachment F — May 7, 2020 Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment G —May 7, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment H —Written Correspondence
Attachment I —Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-015
Attachment J — Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-016
23-5
Attachment A
Zoning Ordinance No. 2020-16
23-6
ORDINANCE NO. 2020-16
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ZONING
CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2019-007 TO AMEND SECTION
20.42.140(A) (NONCONFORMING SIGNS) OF TITLE 20
(PLANNING AND ZONING) OF THE NEWPORT BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXTEND THE AMORTIZATION OF
NONCONFORMING SIGNS (PA2019-184)
WHEREAS, Section 200 of the City of Newport Beach Charter ("Charter") vests
the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws, rules and regulations with
respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained in the
Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to exercise, or act pursuant to any and
all rights, powers, and privileges, or procedures granted or prescribed by any law of the
State of California;
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach ("City") comprehensively updated its sign
regulations in October 2005 and certain previously allowed signs were prohibited;
WHEREAS, Sections 20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs) and 21.30.065 (Signs)
Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"), require certain signs that do not conform to
the new regulations to be abated within 15 years ("Amortization Period") from the effective
date of the sign code update;
WHEREAS, the Amortization Period is set to expire on October 27, 2020, at which
time all nonconforming signs would need to be removed,-
WHEREAS,
emoved;
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2019, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
adopted Resolution 2019-92 initiating an amendment to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning)
("Title 20") related to signs including extending the Amortization Period ("Zoning Code
Amendment"),-
WHEREAS,
mendment');
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach General Plan ("General Plan") Natural
Resources Element Policy No. NR21.2 (Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs),
states the policy goal of, "Implement[ing] programs to remove illegal signs and amortize
legal nonconforming signs",
WHEREAS, the Zoning Code Amendment is consistent with this General Plan
Policy NR21.2 since the amortization of legal nonconforming signs is still required;
23-7
Ordinance No. 2020 -
Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, this Zoning Code Amendment is also consistent with General Plan
Land Use Element Policy No. LU 1.5 (Economic Health), which "Encourage[s] a local
economy that provides adequate commercial, office, industrial, and marine -oriented
opportunities that provide employment and revenue to support high-quality community
services";
WHEREAS, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses in the City are
facing an economic hardship as a result of reduced services or temporary closure;
WHEREAS, this Zoning Code Amendment is consistent with this General Plan
Policy No. LU 1.5, as it will reduce the financial burden on businesses during the COVID-
19 crisis and assist in the recovery of the local economy;
WHEREAS, the Zoning Code Amendment is consistent with Title 20 (Planning and
Zoning) of the NBMC in that it will extend an existing Amortization Period but does not
authorize any new signs;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held telephonically by the Planning Commission
due to the Declaration of a State of Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency
related to COVID-19 on May 7, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center
Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing
was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph
M. Brown Act") and Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NEMC. Evidence, both written
and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public
hearing;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. PC2020-015 by a majority vote (6 ayes, 1 absent, 0 nays)
recommending the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. CA 2019-007 to
eliminate the Amortization Period, in lieu of extending it; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held telephonically by the City Council due to the
Declaration of a State of Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to
COVID-19 on June 23, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive,
Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was
given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of
the NEMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the
City Council at this public hearing.
23-8
Ordinance No. 2020 -
Page 3 of 5
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach ordains as
follows:
Section 1: Section 20.42.140(A) (Nonconforming Signs) of Chapter 20.42 (Sign
Standards) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC shall be amended to read as
follows:
20.42.140 NONCONFORMING SIGNS
A. Abatement of Nonconforming Signs. The following nonconforming signs shall be
removed or altered to be conforming within twenty (20) years from October 27, 2005,
unless an earlier removal is required by the provisions of subsection (B) of this
section.
1. Roof signs;
2. Pole signs;
3. Internally illuminated signs with a translucent face;
4. Signs with letters, text, logos, or symbols taller than permitted by this chapter;
and
5. Signs that exceed seventy-five (75) square feet in total sign area.
Section 2: An amendment to Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation
Plan is also underway pursuant to Ordinance No. 2020-_ to approve LCP Amendment No.
LC2019-005. Zoning Code Amendment CA2019-007 shall not become effective for projects
located in the coastal zone for which Title 21 is applicable until approval of Local Coastal
Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 by the California Coastal Commission, including
adoption of any modifications suggested by the California Coastal Commission, by
resolution and/or ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach.
Section 3: The recitals provided in this ordinance are true and correct and are
incorporated into the substantive portion of this ordinance.
Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
23-9
Ordinance No. 2020 -
Page 4 of 5
Section 5: The City Council finds the introduction and adoption of this ordinance
is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant
to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because
extending the sign amortization period has no potential to have a significant effect on the
environment. The Class 5 exemption applies to minor changes in land use limitations,
provided the property has an average slope that does not exceed 20 percent and the
changes does not result in change to the permitted land use or density. The Zoning Code
Amendment is considered a limitation on a land use. This Zoning Code Amendment will
provide for a minor change by eliminating the Amortization Period. No new signs are
authorized and there is no alteration to the conforming status to any sign. None of the
exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines are applicable.
Section 6: Except as expressly modified in this ordinance, all other sections,
subsections, terms, clauses and phrases set forth in the NBMC shall remain unchanged
and shall be in full force and effect.
Section 7: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be
published pursuant to City Charter Section 414.
23-10
Ordinance No. 2020 -
Page 5 of 5
This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Newport Beach held on the 23rd day of June, 2020, and adopted on the 14th day of
July, 2020, by the following vote, to -wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
WILL O'NEILL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
LEILANI I. BROWN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
C ff ,,,
AARON C. HARP, CITY ATTORNEY
23-11
Attachment B
LCP Ordinance No. 2020-17
23-12
ORDINANCE NO. 2020-17
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. LC2019-005 TO
AMEND SECTION 21.30.065(E) (REMOVAL OF
NONCONFORMING SIGNS) OF TITLE 21 (LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN) OF THE
NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXTEND THE
AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING SIGNS
AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SUBMIT THE
AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL
COMMISSION (PA2019-184)
WHEREAS, Section 200 of the City of Newport Beach Charter ("Charter") vests
the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws, rules and regulations
with respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained
in the Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to exercise, or act pursuant to
any and all rights, powers, and privileges, or procedures granted or prescribed by any
law of the State of California;
WHEREAS, Section 30500 of the California Public Resources Code requires each
county and city to prepare a Local Coastal Program ("LCP") for that portion of the coastal
zone within its jurisdiction;
WHEREAS, in 2005, the City adopted the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal
Program Coastal Land Use Plan ("Local Coastal Program") as amended from time to
time including most recently on February 12, 2019 via Resolution No. 2019-16;
WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission effectively certified the City's
Local Coastal implementation Plan on January 13, 2017, and the City added Title 21
(Local Coastal Program implementation Plan) ("Title 21 ") to the City of Newport Beach
Municipal Code ("NBMC") whereby the City assumed coastal development
permit -issuing authority on January 30, 2017;
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach ("City") comprehensively updated its sign
regulations in October 2005 and certain previously allowed signs were prohibited;
WHEREAS, Sections 20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs) and 21.30.065 (Signs) of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"), require certain signs that do not conform
to the new regulations to be abated within 15 years ("Amortization Period") from the
effective date of the sign code update;
23-13
Ordinance No. 2020 -
Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, the Amortization Period is set to expire on October 27, 2020, at which
time all nonconforming signs would need to be removed;
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2019, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
adopted Resolution 2019-92 initiating an amendment to Title 21 (Local Coastal Program
Implementation Plan) ("Title 21") related to signs including extending the Amortization
Period ("Local Coastal Program Amendment");
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13515 (Public Participation and Agency
Coordination Procedures) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 5.5,
Chapter 8, Subchapter 2, Article 5, review of the Local Coastal Program Amendment was
made available and a Notice of the Availability was distributed on April 21, 2020, which is
a minimum of six weeks prior to the final action date;
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element
("General Plan") Policy No. NR 21.2 (Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs) states
the policy goal of "Implement[ing] programs to remove illegal signs and amortize legal
nonconforming signs";
WHEREAS, while there is already a program to remove nonconforming signs
(NBMC Sections 20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs) and 21.30.065 (Signs)), the Local
Coastal Program Amendment is consistent with this General Plan Policy NR 21.2 since it
does not eliminate the amortization of legal nonconforming signs, but rather just extends
the deadline for their removal;
WHEREAS, the Local Coastal Program Amendment is also consistent with
General Plan Land Use Element Policy No. LU 1.5 (Economic Health), of "Encourag[ing]
a local economy that provides adequate commercial, office, industrial, and marine -
oriented opportunities that provide employment and revenue to support high-quality
community services";
WHEREAS, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses in the City are
facing economic hardship as a result of reduction in services or temporary closure,
WHEREAS, the Local Coastal Program Amendment is consistent with this General
Plan Policy No. LU 1.5, as it will reduce the financial burden on businesses during the
COVID-19 crisis and assist in the recovery of the local economy;
WHEREAS, the Local Coastal Program Amendment is consistent with the City of
Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.4.4-4 to "Implement programs to remove
illegal signs and amortize legal nonconforming signs";
23-14
Ordinance No. 2020 -
Page 3 of 5
WHEREAS, the Local Coastal Program Amendment does not eliminate the
amortization of legal nonconforming signs, but rather just extends the deadline for their
removal;
WHEREAS, the Local Coastal Program Amendment is consistent with Title 21
(Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC in that it will extend an
existing Amortization Period but does not authorize any new signs;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held telephonically by the Planning Commission
due to the Declaration of a State of Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency
related to COVID-19 on May 7, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center
Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing
was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph
M. Brown Act") and Chapter 21.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written
and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public
hearing;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. PC2020-016 by a majority vote (6 ayes, 1 absent, 0 nays)
recommending the City Council approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No.
LC2019-005 to eliminate the Amortization Period, in lieu of extending it; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held telephonically by the City Council due to the
Declaration of a State of Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to
COVID-19 on June 23, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive,
Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was
given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and Chapter 21.62 (Public Hearings) of
the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the
City Council at this public hearing.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach ordains as
follows:
Section 1: Section 21.30.065(E) (Signs) of Chapter 21.30 (Property Development
Standards) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC is hereby
amended to read as follows:
21.30.065 SIGNS
E. Removal of Nonconforming Signs. The nonconforming roof and pole signs shall
be removed or altered to be conforming by October 27, 2025, with the exception
of signs designated as heritage signs.
23-15
Ordinance No. 2020 -
Page 4 of 5
Section 2: The City Council does hereby authorize City staff to submit LCP
Amendment No. LC2019-005 to the California Coastal Commission for review and
approval.
Section 3: This Local Coastal Program Amendment shall not become effective
until approval by the California Coastal Commission, including the adoption of any
modifications suggested by the California Coastal Commission, by resolution and/or
ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach.
Section 4: The Local Coastal Program including the Local Coastal Program
Amendment No. LC 2019-005 shall be carried out in full conformity with the California
Coastal Act of 1976 as codified in California Public Resources Code Section 30000 of
seq.
Section 5: The recitals provided in this ordinance are true and correct and are
incorporated into the substantive portion of this ordinance.
Section 6: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
Section 7: The City Council finds the introduction and adoption of this ordinance
is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant
to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because
extending the sign amortization period has no potential to have a significant effect on the
environment. The Class 5 exemption applies to minor changes in land use limitations,
provided the property has an average slope that does not exceed 20 percent and the
changes does not result in change to the permitted land use or density. The Local Coastal
Program Amendment is considered a limitation on a land use. This Local Coastal Program
Amendment will provide for a minor change by extending the Amortization Period. No new
signs are authorized and there is no alteration to the conforming status to any sign. None of
the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines are applicable.
Section 8: Except as expressly modified in this ordinance, all other sections,
subsections, terms, clauses and phrases set forth in the NEMC shall remain unchanged
and shall be in full force and effect.
23-16
Ordinance No. 2020 -
Page 5 of 5
Section 9: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be
published pursuant to City Charter Section 414.
This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Newport Beach held on the 23rd day of June, 2020, and adopted on the 14th day of
July, 2020, by the following vote, to -wit:
FWAY14�
NAYS:
ABSENT:
WILL O'NEILL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
LEILANI I. BROWN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
"
C_
AAR N C. HARP, CITY ATTORNEY
23-17
Attachment C
Resolution No.2020-66
23-18
RESOLUTION NO. 2020- 66
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT AND
THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM COASTAL LAND USE
PLAN RELATED TO THE AMORTIZATION OF NOW
CONFORMING SIGNS (PA2019-184)
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2019, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
("City Council") adopted Resolution No. 2019-92 initiating amendments to Section
20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Section
21.30.065 of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code to extend an amortization period for the removal of nonconforming signs;
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport
Beach conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider said code amendments. After
considering all written and oral evidence, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. PC2020-015 and Resolution Nos. 2020-15 and 2020-016, thereby recommending the
City Council eliminate the amortization period;
WHEREAS, amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code to eliminate the
amortization period would be in conflict with City of Newport Beach General Plan
("General Plan") Natural Resources Element Policy No. NR 21.2 (Illegal Signs and Legal
Nonconforming Signs), which states the policy goal of "Implement[ing] programs to
remove illegal signs and amortize legal nonconforming signs";
WHEREAS, amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code to eliminate the
amortization period would further be in conflict with City of Newport Beach Local Coastal
Program Coastal Land Use Plan ("Local Coastal Program") Policy No. 4.4.4-4, of
"Implement[ing] programs to remove illegal signs and amortize legal nonconforming
signs";
WHEREAS, City Council Policy K-1 (General Plan and Local Coastal Program)
requires amendments to the General Plan or Local Coastal Program to be initiated by the
City Council; and
23-19
Resolution No. 2020 -
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the General Plan and Local Coastal
Land Program to eliminate policies that require the amortization of nonconforming signs.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as
follows..
Section 1: The City Council hereby initiates amendments to the Natural
Resources Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the City of Newport
Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan to update the policies related to
nonconforming signs.
Section 2: Staff is hereby directed not to enforce the October 27, 2020 deadline
set forth in Section 20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning)
and Section 21.30.065(E) (Removal of Nonconforming Signs) of Title 21 (Local Coastal
Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code until such time the
City Council has taken final action on the amendments initiated by this resolution.
Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
Section 4: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are
incorporated into the substantive portion of this resolution.
Section 5: The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
pursuant to Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) of the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because
Section 15262 exempts projects involving feasibility or planning studies for possible
future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved or adopted.
23-20
Resolution No. 2020 -
Page 3 of 3
Section 6: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by
the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting this resolution.
ADOPTED this 231d day of June, 2020.
Will O'Neill
Mayor
ATTEST:
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
" C. U "
Aaron C. Harp
City Attorney
23-21
Attachment D
Resolution No. 2019-92
23-22
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-92
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 ENTITLED "PLANNING AND
ZONING" AND TITLE 21 ENTITLED "LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN" OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO
SIGNS (PA2019-184)
WHEREAS, Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.66.020
provides that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach ("City Council") may initiate
an amendment to the Zoning Code with or without a recommendation from the Planning
Commission;
WHEREAS, City Council Policy K-1 entitled "General Plan and Local Coastal
Program" requires amendments to the City of Newport Beach certified Local Coastal
Program codified in NBMC Title 21 to be initiated by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend NBMC Title 20 and Title 21 to
modify regulations related to signs.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as
follows:
Section 1: The City Council hereby initiates amendments to NBMC Title 20
"Planning and Zoning" and Title 21 "Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan" to
modify regulations relating to the date by which legal nonconforming signs must be
removed or altered to conform to the NBMC.
Section 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall
not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The
City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
Section 3: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are
incorporated into the substantive portion of this resolution.
23-23
Resolution No. 2019-92
Page 2 of 2
Section 4: The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is exempt
from environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because Section 15262 exempts projects involving
feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board,
or commission has not approved or adopted.
Section 5: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by
the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting this resolution.
ADOPTED this 22T" day of October, 20 9.
Diane B. Dixon
Mayor
ATTEST:
"(i.�
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFIC
Aaron C. Harp
City Attorney
23-24
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH }
I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the
whole number of members of the City Council is seven; the foregoing resolution, being Resolution
No. 2019-92, was duly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting
of said Council held on the 22nd day of October, 2019; and the same was so passed and adopted by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Mayor Diane Dixon, Mayor Pro Tem Will O'Neill, Council Member Brad Avery, Council
Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Duffy Duffield, Council Member Jeff Herdman,
Council Member Kevin Muldoon
NAYS: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of
said City this 23rd day of October, 2019.
a
�w�
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
Newport Beach, California
H
U
SEW
23-25
Attachment E
October 22, 2019 City Council Minutes
23-26
City of Newport Beach
Study Session and Regular Meeting
October 22, 2019
• Took her second tour of the Orange County Groundwater Replenishment System
• Displayed slides to announce a free community fair to kick-off the General Plan Update process and the
3rd Annual Halloween Spooktacular on October 26, 2019
• Read the Newport Beach Police Department announcement requesting that parents talk to their teen
about driving safely and announced that National Teen Driver Safety Week is October 20-26, 2019
XIII. MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ASKED TO BE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA
• Consideration of prohibiting all electric or motorized bicycles and vehicles from the Peninsula
boardwalk [Dixon]
City Clerk Brown recused herself due to real property interest conflicts.
With the exception of Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill and Council Member Muldoon, the remaining Council
Members concurred to place the matter on a future agenda.
• Evaluate opportunities for installation of protected bicycle lanes with curbs or physical
barriers, without reducing parking spaces, and intersection bulb -outs within Newport Heights
[Muldoon]
Council Member Avery recused himself due to real property interest conflicts.
With the exception of Council Member Herdman, the remaining Council Members concurred to place the
matter on a future agenda.
XVI. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR
Regarding Item 9 (Proposed Amendments to the Non -Exclusive Franchise Agreement), David Fahrion, CEO
of the California Waste and Recycling Association, stated the association supports the City meeting the State
mandates, but expressed concerns relative to the proposed increases to the insurance requirements,
amendments to the CalGreen mandates, and the length of the agreement. He added that the haulers did not
have the opportunity to meet with staff to discuss the substantive changes, and requested Council consider
extending the term of the agreement beyond 2024.
Public Works Director Webb reviewed the process, stated staff received correspondence and were available to
meet with haulers, and staff did meet with some of the Tier 1 haulers whose suggestions were incorporated
into Exhibit E.
Council Member Muldoon requested Item 9 be pulled for further discussion.
XV. CONSENT CALENDAR
READING OF MINUTES AND ORDINANCES
1. Minutes for the October 8, 2019 City Council Meeting [100-2019]
Waive reading of subject minutes, approve as amended, and order filed.
2. Reading of Ordinances
Waive reading in full of all ordinances under consideration, and direct the City Clerk to read by title
only.
RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION
3. Resolution No. 2019-92: Initiation of Zoning Code and LCP Amendments Related to the
Abatement of Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184) [100-2019]
Volume 64 - Page 229 23-27
City of Newport Beach
Study Session and Regular Meeting
October 22, 2019
a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3; and
b) Adopt Resolution No. 2019-92, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, Initiating Amendments to Title 20 Entitled "Planning and Zoning" and Title 21 Entitled
"Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan" of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Related
to Signs (PA2019-184).
CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
4. Approval of Amendment No. Three to Janitorial Services Agreement with Quality Commercial
Cleaning, Inc. for Sidewalk Steam Cleaning (C-6303) [381100-2019]
a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a
physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and
b) Approve Amendment No. Three to Janitorial Services Agreement with Quality Commercial Cleaning,
Inc. dba Spectrum Facility Maintenance for sidewalk steam cleaning services to increase the total
not -to -exceed amount by $120,000 for a total not -to -exceed amount of $1,370,000, and authorize the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute the amendment.
16th Street Water Pump Station Upgrades and Backup Generator (18W13) - Approval of
Professional Services Agreement with Dudek Inc., Contract No. 7693-1 [381100-2019]
a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a
physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and
b) Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Dudek Inc. of San Juan Capistrano, California, for
the 16th Street Pump Station Upgrades and Backup Generator project at a not -to -exceed price of
$311,798.00, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement.
6. Approval of Amendment No. Three to Maintenance/Repair Services Agreement with Park West
Landscape Maintenance, Inc. for Landscape Maintenance of Medians and Roadsides (C-5959)
[381100-2019]
a) Determine that the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a physical
change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and
b) Approve Amendment No. Three to Maintenance/Repair Services Agreement with Park West
Landscape Maintenance, Inc. for landscape maintenance of medians and roadsides to extend the term
of the agreement for one year and increase the not -to -exceed contract amount by $2,303,175 for a total
not -to -exceed amount of $12,087,966, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
amendment.
7. Approve a Cooperative Agreement with the City of Irvine for a Regional Traffic Signal
Synchronization Project on the MacArthur Boulevard Corridor (C-8570-2) [381100-2019]
a) Determine that the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a physical
change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and
b) Approve Cooperative Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine for the
MacArthur Boulevard Corridor Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Project (RTSSP) and direct
City Manager to include the City's required funding match (approximately $158,000) within the
FY 2020-21 Capital Improvement Program.
Council Member Muldoon recused himself on Item 7 due to business property interest conflicts.
8. Amendment No. One to a Professional Services Agreement with Sagecrest Planning and
Environmental for Consulting Services (C-7132-2) [38/100-2019]
a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a
physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and
Volume 64 - Page 230 23-28
Attachment F
May 7, 2020 Planning Commission Staff Report
23-29
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
rV., PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
May 7, 2020
Agenda Item No. 3
SUBJECT: Amortization of Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
■ Code Amendment No. CA2019-007
■ Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005
SITE LOCATION: Citywide
APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach
PLANNER: David Blumenthal, AICP, Planning Consultant
949-644-3200, dblumenthal(a)newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
Amendments to Section 20.42.140(A) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Section
21.30.065(E) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code (NBMC) to extend an amortization period for nonconforming signs. NBMC
currently requires nonconforming signs to be removed by October 27, 2020. These
amendments would extend the deadline for removal to October 27, 2025.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing;
2) Find this project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land
Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
Division 6, Chapter 3;
3) Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-015 (Attachment No. PC 1) recommending the City
Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 to amend Section
20.42.140(A) (Nonconforming Signs) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code; and
4) Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-016(Attach ment No. PC 2) recommending the City
Council approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 and
authorize staff to submit the amendment to the California Coastal Commission to
amend Section 21.30.065(E) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation
Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
1 23-30
2 23-31
Amortization of Nonconforming Signs
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Background
In October 2005, the City comprehensively updated its sign regulations. Sign standards
changed and certain previously allowed signs were prohibited. Newport Beach Municipal
Code Sections 20.42.140 and 21.30.065 require certain signs that do not conform to the
new regulations to be abated within 15 years (amortization period) from the effective date
of the sign code update (October 27, 2005 + 15 years = October 27, 2020). There were
approximately 400 legal nonconforming in 2005, of which approximately 140 have either
brought into conformance or have been removed.
On October 22, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution 2019-92, initiating the subject
Code Amendment and LCP Amendment directing staff to analyze extending the
amortization period. The impetuous of initiating the amendment was due to a lack notice
to the impacted business and property owners. The consideration of the extension is to
give additional time for legal nonconforming signs to be brought into compliance or
removed.
On March 15, 2020, the City of Newport Beach proclaimed a local emergency due to the
COVID-19 global pandemic. Due to the peril on personal safety that is based on the
existence or threatened existence of COVID-19 within and/or around the City of Newport
Beach, many businesses have been forced to reduce services or temporarily close, which
has place a financial burden on these businesses and property owners.
Proposal
A nonconforming sign is a sign that was legally installed, but as a result of changes to the
municipal code are no longer allowed. Not only does this include over -sized signs, but
also includes the following sign types:
S 23-32
Pole sign: A sign that is supported by a
single pole or similar support structure
so that the bottom edge of the sign is
one foot or more above grade.
Roof sign: A sign that is erected upon
or above a roof of a building
Internally illuminated signs with a
translucent face: A sign that is
illuminated from an interior light source
and more than the actual lettering
and/or a registered trademark or logo is
illuminated.
Amortization of Nonconforming Signs
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 3
II Kr+ -L I I I i iI111 I 11 I =Ii 1 1 r!
a>srsl�.►rr+l�
t?Ri'flI►�1�1�
CRON OF S.E. WISCONSIN
y QIlI+I/w ff
Signs are important to businesses, as it provides a form of advertising and assists
customers in locating the business. However, maintaining a unified and appropriate
appearance of signs has a direct relationship to the character of the community. As sign
regulations change, the elimination of older signs helps achieve the community character.
4 23-33
Amortization of Nonconforming Signs
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 4
To accomplish this, the use of an amortization period is a common planning tool. The
theory behind the amortization period is a nonconforming sign is allowed to remain for a
specific period of time, thus allowing the owner to recoup their investment before the sign
must be abated. In this case, a 15 -year amortization period was set in 2005.
Over the past 15 years, approximately 35 percent of the nonconforming signs have been
remedied through natural attrition. The initial intent of this code amendment was to grant
additional time for signs to be brought into compliance with the code or be removed.
Notwithstanding this, with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, an additional financial
burden has been placed on many local businesses, as they have been required to reduce
services or temporarily close. Since replacing a sign is a capital expense that the business
or property owner would be required to undertake, extending the amortization period
would provide some financial relief.
Additionally, enforcing the deadline and working with business owners would require
significant amount of staff, including code enforcement, planners, and attorneys,
dedicated to the efforts. Extending the deadline would allow staff to focus on COVID-19
management and recovery efforts, as well as implementation of higher priority projects.
This proposed would amend Sections 20.42
is recommending a five-year extension
amendments are as follows:
20.42.140 NONCONFORMING SIGNS
140(A) and 21.30.065(E) of the NBMC. Staff
the amortization period. The proposed
A. Abatement of Nonconforming Signs. The following nonconforming signs shall be
removed or altered to be conforming within f;f+,�5) twenty (Lyears from October 27,
2005, unless an earlier removal is required by the provisions of subsection (B) of this section.
1. Roof signs;
2. Pole signs;
3. Internally illuminated signs with a translucent face;
4. Signs with letters, text, logos, or symbols taller than permitted by this chapter; and
5. Signs that exceed seventy-five (75) square feet in total sign area.
21.30.065 SIGNS
E. Removal of Nonconforming Signs. The nonconforming roof and pole signs shall be
removed or altered to be conforming by QGteber '',202- October 27, 2025, with the
exception of signs designated as heritage signs.
5 23-34
Amortization of Nonconforming Signs
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 5
Outreach Efforts
On March 12, 2020, staff sent letters to 327 property and business owners for properties
and/or businesses that were previously identified as having a nonconforming sign. The
intent of the letter was to inform them of the pending code amendment and to elicit
feedback. Staff has spoken to and/or received comments from approximately 70
respondents, the consensus of which is the City should extend or eliminate the
amortization period. Comment letters are included in Attachment No. PC 3
General Plan Consiste
General Policy No. NR21.2 (Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs) states,
"Implement programs to remove illegal signs and amortize legal nonconforming signs."
While there is already a program to remove nonconforming signs (NBMC Sections
20.42.140 and 21.30.065), the action is consistent with this General Plan Policy since it
does not eliminate the amortization of legal nonconforming signs, but rather just extends
the deadline for their removal.
The Code Amendment is also consistent with General Plan Policy No. LU 1.5 (Economic
Health), which states, "Encourage a local economy that provides adequate commercial,
office, industrial, and marine -oriented opportunities that provide employment and revenue
to support high-quality community services." Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many
businesses in the City are facing an economic hardship as a result of being required to
reduce services or close temporarily. The Code Amendment would reduce the financial
burden on businesses during the COVID-19 crisis and assist in the recovery of the local
economy.
Local Coastal Plan
This proposal includes amendments to Title 21(Local Coastal Program Implementation
Plan) of the NBMC. Amendments to the LCP must also be reviewed and approved by the
City Council, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission, prior to submitting
the amendment request to the Coastal Commission. Coastal Commission review and
approval is required for any proposed amendment to the certified LCP.
It is staff's opinion that this amendment would not have an impact to public access or
views to coastal resources. The proposal does not authorize new development or
additional signs, but rather extends an amortization period for existing legal
nonconforming signs.
Alternatives
The Planning Commission may recommend a longer or shorter timeframe for the
amortization period. The Commission may also recommend denial of the suggested code
0 23-35
Amortization of Nonconforming Signs
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 6
amendment. Should the code amendment be denied by the City Council, all legal
nonconforming signs would need to be removed by October 27, 2020.
Environmental Review
The Code Amendment is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use
Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6,
Chapter 3. Class 5 exemption applies to minor changes in land use limitations, provided
the Property has an average slope that does not exceed 20 percent and the changes does
not result in change to the permitted land use or density. The Amortization Period is
considered a limitation on a land use. The Code Amendment would provide for a minor
change by extending the Amortization Period. No new signs would be authorized and no
change to existing sign standards would occur. Lastly, there would be no alteration to the
conforming status to any sign.
Public Notice
Notice of this amendment was published in the Daily Pilot as an eighth page
advertisement, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. The item also
appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City
website. Notice was also mailed to all property and business owners for properties and/or
businesses that were previously identified as having a nonconforming sign. Additionally,
notice was sent to all persons and agencies on the Notice of the Availability mailing list
for amendments to the LCP.
Prepared by:
David Blumenthal, AICP
Planning Consultant
ATTACHMENTS
Submitted by:
Jim Campbell
Deputy Community Development Director
PC 1 Draft resolution recommending the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment
No. CA2019-007
PC 2 Draft resolution recommending the City Council approve Local Coastal Program
Amendment No. LC2019-005 and authorize staff to submit the amendment to the
California Coastal Commission
PC 3 Correspondence Received
7 23-36
Attachment G
May 7, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes
23-37
Planning Commission Minutes
May 7, 2020
Secretary Lowrey agreed with continuing the item and forming an ad hoc committee. He had some concern about
property rights and the potential for litigation.
Commissioner Klaustermeier expressed some concern that the State would not accept the proposed amendments
because of SB 330 provisions. Staff did a good job of addressing loopholes. She wanted to move forward with a
recommendation given the amount of public outreach staff conducted.
Chair Koetting expressed concern about the proposed amendments complying with SB 330 and agreed with
continuing the item.
In reply to Chair Koetting's inquiry, Community Development Director Jurjis advised that staff sent questions to the
legislative counsel approximately a month prior but has not received a response. He did not know if staff would
receive any direction from either legislative counsel or the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD).
Vice Chair Weigand felt staff probably would not receive a response from the State legislative counsel's office.
Motion made by Chair Koetting and seconded by Secretary Lowrey to continue the item to a future date with
staff to attempt to obtain feedback from the State and to consider comments from Commissioners.
Commissioner Kleiman noted SB 330 imposes a penalty for violation. Her main concern is the ability to enact
an amendment that may conflict with State law.
In answer to Commissioner Klaustermeier's query, Community Development Director Jurjis understood the
item would return to the Planning Commission in 30-45 days.
AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Kleiman
NOES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: Rosene
The Planning Commission recessed for a short break.
ITEM NO. 3 EXTENSION OF AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR NONCONFORMING SIGNS (PA2019-
184)
Site Location: Citywide
Summary:
Amendments to Section 20.42.140(A) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Section 21.30.065(E) of Title
21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) to extend
an amortization period for nonconforming signs. NBMC currently requires nonconforming signs to be
removed by October 27, 2020. These amendments would extend the deadline for the removal to October
27, 2025.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3;
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-015 recommending the City Council approve Zoning Code
Amendment No. CA2019-007 to amend Section 20.42.140(A) (Nonconforming Signs) of Title 20
(Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and
4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-016 recommending the City Council approve Local Coastal Program
Amendment No. LC2019-005 and authorize staff to submit the amendment to the California Coastal
Commission to amend Section 21.30.065(E) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan)
of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
6of10
23-38
Planning Commission Minutes
May 7, 2020
Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell reported in October 2005, the City comprehensively
updated the Sign Code and adopted a 15 -year amortization period for certain nonconforming signs. In October,
the Council initiated a Code amendment and suggested extending the amortization period by 3-5 years. The
proposed amendment would extend the 15 -year amortization period five years to October 27, 2025. Public
outreach consisted of requests for comments sent to every property owner and business on whose property a
nonconforming sign subject to amortization is located; notices published in the Daily Pilot and on the City website;
direct mail notices sent to property and business owners; and emails sent to individuals having expressed interest
in the topic. Staff has received written comments from 76 individuals who overwhelmingly support extending the
amortization period. The Zoning Code contains a process for declaring a sign a heritage sign, which if approved,
the nonconforming sign would become conforming and not subject to removal. The 2005 Municipal Code
amendment was subject to a public hearing process, but the process did not include written notice to business and
property owners. With the pandemic, businesses are struggling, and requiring them to invest in new signage may
not be an appropriate course of action.
In response to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that notice
was sent to 327 property and business owners, and written comments continue to be received. Since 2005, sign
permits have been issued in accordance with the Municipal Code requirements. When a business or property
owner applies to change or modify a sign, staff discusses the status of the sign with the business or property
owner. The face of a pole sign can be modified during the amortization period if it complies. The City Council did
not instruct staff to eliminate the amortization period or to amend the Sign Code through its initiation of the
amendment process; although, the Planning Commission may recommend such an action to the Council.
In reply to Commissioner Kleiman's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the
Municipal Code contains comprehensive regulations for signage, some of which provide flexibility in design. Since
2005, approximately 25% of nonconforming signs have been removed or corrected. Staff has tools to address
illegal signage. The Crab Cooker's roof sign that was nonconforming would not be allowed to continue and through
the Heritage Sign Program process recently considered by the Planning Commission, the sign was allowed.
In answer to Commissioner Ellmore's queries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained that
staff felt a five-year extension is a reasonable time period as some owners became aware of the amortization
period in 2020. In addition, the Council suggested three and five years when the amendment was initiated. The
Planning Commission could recommend a different timeframe. A longer extension could be valuable because as
businesses come and go, nonconforming signs will be removed. However, roof and pole signs probably will not
be removed unless their physical condition requires it.
In response to Vice Chair Weigand's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that
the Planning Commission may discuss and recommend eliminating the amortization process or increasing the
extension.
Vice Chair Weigand noted the financial impacts of the pandemic on businesses and proposed eliminating the
amortization period. Nonconforming signs are likely associated with businesses that have been in the community
for a long time.
Chair Koetting opened the public hearing.
Craig Batley commented that many of the nonconforming signs are 40 and 50 years old and were conforming
when they were installed. The Planning Commission should eliminate the amortization period or extend it 10-15
years.
Bob Carson indicated the pole sign at 3050-3040 Pacific Coast Highway was legal when it was installed and hoped
the Planning Commission would grandfather it.
Jim Mosher supported elimination of the amortization program and did not understand the rationale for eliminating
signs that are part of the City's heritage.
Patricia Langsam, Balboa Peninsula, opposed the construction of very large homes because they are not
compatible with Newport Beach's charm.
7of10
23-39
Planning Commission Minutes
May 7, 2020
Wallace Rodecker, 2823 East Coast Highway, concurred with comments regarding the financial impacts of the
pandemic on businesses. He would not have known about the amortization meeting or the hearing if he had not
received the notice. He supported eliminating the amortization period.
J.C. Clow, The Winery, remarked regarding the inopportune timing of staffs proposal and supported elimination
of the amortization schedule.
Art Pease, 410 32nd Street, agreed with eliminating the amortization period and allowing attrition to resolve the
issue.
Seeing no additional speakers, Chair Koetting closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Klaustermeier concurred with eliminating or extending the amortization period. Requiring business
and property owners to change signs that were conforming at the time of installation is not fair. Attrition will solve
the problem.
In reply to Vice Chair Weigand's query, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that
eliminating the amortization period would be fairly easy to accomplish if the Planning Commission wishes to
recommend it to the Council.
In response to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell recalled staffs
desire to address nonconforming signs and raised the issue with the Council in a Study Session. Eliminating the
amortization period is different from the Council's initial thoughts to extend the amortization period, but the Planning
Commission may recommend elimination of the amortization requirement to the Council. The Planning
Commission may recommend the City Council extend the amortization period. Eliminating the amortization period
would not change code enforcement related to illegal signs.
At Commissioner Kleiman's request, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell shared photos of
nonconforming signs in the City. He also indicated that there is a fee associated with the Heritage Sign Program
review.
In answer to Commissioner Ellmore's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained the
enforcement process for nonconforming signage once the amortization period ends. Enforcement is time
consuming and staff intensive and could involve litigation.
Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Secretary Lowrey to recommend the City Council
eliminate the amortization period.
AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: Rosene
VIII. NEW BUSINESS:
ITEM NO. 4. CITY COUNCIL POLICY K-3 AMENDMENT (CEQA PROCEDURES) REGARDING SB 743
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED POLICY AND PROCEDURES
Site Location: Citywide
Summary:
Senate Bill (SB) 743, signed in 2013, changes the way transportation studies are conducted in California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) replaces motorist delay and
level of service (LOS) as the new metric for transportation impact determinations in CEQA. The State
requires all cities to adopt a VMT policy to include transportation impact thresholds. Public Works staff has
prepared a framework for completing a CEQA-level VMT transportation analysis for proposed land
development projects and transportation improvement projects.
8of10
23-40
Attachment H
Written Correspondence
23-41
Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
From: Niall Saunders <niall@architectsoc.com>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 10:07 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Nonconforming Sign Code Amendment - PA2019-184
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Re: Project File No.: PA2019-184 / Activity No.: CA2019-007 and LC2019-005
Dear City Clerk and Newport Beach City Council,
I write regarding the upcoming June 23, City Council meeting to extend an amortization period for
nonconforming signs. I wish to offer my support in favor of extending the deadline for the removal of
such signs to October 27, 2025, or much longer if possible.
I am both a local NB resident and architectural business owner, having been located here since 1996
and in business our current address since 2013. In the case of Saunders + Wiant Architects, we hold
a modest sign slot on the marquee at 2700 W. Coast Highway. Although not a primary source of
business referral, it is nonetheless an important signifier to clients and visitors alike that our business
exists and thrives here. In fact the sign as a whole provides clean, well-contained and attractive
evidence of business vitality at this complex. It is in keeping with all properly constructed, lively and
well maintained signage along the Mariners Mile business corridor.
Without any viable alternative for like -replacement, I wish to express my strong opposition to removal
of our building signage. The signs have existed at 2700 W. Coast Hwy. for many, many years - one
could say they have become an integral part of the street landscape. We consider the sign vital to our
business interests.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Niall F. Saunders AIA RIBA
Saunders + Wiant Architects
2700 West Coast Highway, Suite 200,
Newport Beach, CA. 92663
Tel: (949) 721 0730
Fax: (949) 721 0767
www.architectsoc.com
23-42
Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
From: Keith Karlsen <kkarlsen@visitingangels.com>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 10:20 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Cc: Keith Karlsen; Ned McCune
Subject: Signage at Mariners Mile 2700 W Coast Hwy
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I would like to specifically request that the current signage at 2700 W Coast Hwy be permitted to remain in
place and as is.
The signage is tasteful and gives a solid representation to those that see it from PCH.
It is also very important to all our businesses, and mine in particular during this time, so that all can see where
there are some currently deemed essential services that are provided for seniors and their families in the
Newport Beach community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Keith Karlsen
Keith Karlsen
Owner and Managing Director I Visiting Angels Newport Beach and South Orange County
A: 2700 W Coast Highway Suite 220, Newport Beach, CA 92663
P: 949-524-3077 F: 877-324-1899
E: kkarlsen@visitingangels.com W: www.visitingangets.com/nb
CA License: #304700183
aeon
Please Leave Us a Review!
WE'RE HERE FOR YOU
America's Choice in 9fomecaree
8E5i OF'
H6IAFCAAE
Ksit�Anffel
BEST OF'
HChIF CAAF
WING Zi;TESERVICES� PROVIDER
EMPLOYER
hcNW 4
2oao
N�
aoaa
1
23-43
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential
information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate,
distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this a -mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or
taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
23-44
Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
From: Sonia Frey <schnuckil@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 5:30 PM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Visages sign
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To
City Clerk of Newport Beach,
I have been at this location since 1987 and with covid 19 worries and the effects that are following for our businesses I
think removing or changing the signages on our Mariners Mile building is a bad idea.
The sign is facing coast hwy. which gives my business as well as many other tenants a visible and only exposure to the
public. It looks clean and tidy and has been there for many decades ! The city of Newport Beach has a lot of personality
and charme , not like the planned and boring Irvine !
Thank you,
Visages By Sonia
2700 west coast hwy#270
Newport Beach,Ca.92663
Sent from my Wad
23-45
DLII Duca- McCoy, Inc.
3846 East Coast Highway
Corona Del Mar, CA. 92625
Telephone 949-675-4487
Fax 949.675-4455
June 16, 2024 Email dmieng@avl.aom
Office of City Clerk
City Hall
P.O.Box 1768
Newport Beach, Ca. 92658-8915
RE: NON CONFORMING SIGNS MEETING OF JUNE 23, 2020
I am the owner of the building at 3840 East Coast Hwy which I lease a portion
To the Nagisa Restaurant which has been here since 1980. We have had all of our
site plans and necessary permits approved since 1980
The restaurant has never had anyone complain about our sign and it is not
overpowering. We have always been a good neighbor with all of our neighbors for
Over thirty years.
The recent Coivid-19 virus has been a tremendous financial burden
on all businesses in this area.This is not the time to add additional cost to any
business.
Please extend the sign amortization.
Thank You
Pete J. Duca P.E.
23-46
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Cilc'.W : po / 100 Civic Center Drive
T li" Newport Beach, California 92660
949 644-3200
V newportbeachca:gov/communitydevelopment
V
` s?,OM�U�li'
',C,q</PORN P,� :iF11�'s�t"1raP�E;�.i� �✓�
MAR 2 3
048 115 07 March 12, 2020
Dino Clarizio `'`�' `� "a � � �'�
(C�� �,
1412 Orlando D ,., ��� / L>�
Arcadia, CA 91006-2107 `1/�'� ( 'U -t
5
Subject: Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove
nonconforming signs
Dear Dino Clarizio:
Chapter 20.42 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NEMC) regulates the type, size,
and location of signs within the City of Newport Beach. This includes provisions on the
removal of legally built signs that do not comply with the current code (nonconforming
signs). NBMC Sections 20.42.140.A and 21.30.065.E require the following types of signs
to be removed from all properties in the City no later than October 27, 2020:
1. Roof signs;
2. Pole signs;
3. Internally illuminated signs with a translucent face;
4. Signs with letters, text, logos, or symbols tallerthan permitted by the Zoning Code;
and
5. Signs that exceed seventy-five (75) square feet in total sign area.
In a citywide survey, your property located at 500 E Balboa Blvd has been identified as
having a nonconforming sign that is subject to the October 27, 2020 removal deadline.
The City of Newport Beach is now considering a proposal to extend this deadline.
The City seeks public comment from impacted property owners and businesses on a
proposed Code Amendment that would modify NBMC Sections 20.42.140.A and
21.30.065.E to grant additional time to remove nonconforming signs.
23-47
David Jalali
P. O. Box 8412
Newport Beach, CA. 92658
Phone: (949)433-5626
Email: dave@jalali.com
Date: March 14, 2020
Ake. 9 3 ?_0�
David Blumenthal, AICP
Planning Consultant
s? t
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive.
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Dear David Blumenthal, AICP:
I am a long time resident and business owner in the City of Newport Beach. Referenced to your
letter, a copy of which is attached, and your request to remove the 30 years old PERMITTED street
sign for my Property at 6000 W. Coast HWY. Newport Beach, CA. 92663, the building consists of 5
stores, conducting various trades, which significantly depend on the exposure, which this sign
provides to financially survive. Removal of this sign will not only cause the existing five businesses
hardship but also significant financial damages to the building value and desirability. This sign was
installed almost three decades ago and should be grandfathers due to the hardship that it will
cause. Not only the survival of the small businesses in the strip depends on this sign but also it is
very expensive to have this sign removed. During these tough economic times, it is unfair to expect
the building owner and or the existing businesses to cover the removal cost due to survival
hardship. Removal of this monumental sign, which not only adds to the beauty of the city but also
helps a few small businesses to survive to create employment and city tax revenues, will create
unbearable financial burden to cause hardship. Are these tradeoffs that we really want to make?
Having said:
1. Please consider an exception due to the existence of this sign for years before the adaption
of the new city codes (grandfather). As it has been for many other existing structures in the
City.
I am looking forward to your help.
Sincerely,
David Jalah
23-48
ql F0
BUSINESS
BUSINESS OWNER
6000 COAST HWY W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
949 644-3200
newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment
March 12, 2020
Subject: Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove
nonconforming signs
Dear Sir or Madam:
Chapter 20.42 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) regulates the type, size,
and location of signs within the City of Newport Beach. This includes provisions on the
removal of legally built signs that do not comply with the current code (nonconforming
signs). NBMC Sections 20.42.140.A and 21.30.065.E require the following types of signs
to be removed from all properties in the City no later than October 27, 2020:
1. Roof signs;
2. Pole signs;
3. Internally illuminated signs with a translucent face;
4. Signs with letters, text, logos, or symbols taller than permitted by the Zoning Code;
and
5. Signs that exceed seventy-five (75) square feet in total sign area.
In a citywide survey, your business located at 6000 COAST HWY W has been identified
has being located on a property with a nonconforming sign that is subject to the October
27, 2020 removal deadline. The City of Newport Beach is now considering a proposal to
extend this deadline.
The City seeks public comment from impacted property owners and businesses on a
proposed Code Amendment that would modify NBMC Sections 20.42.140.A and
21.30.065.E to grant additional time to remove nonconforming signs.
23-49
Please submit your written comments prior to April 2, 2020. Comments may be emailed
to dblumenthala-newportbeachca.pov or mailed to:
City of Newport Beach - Community Development Department
Attn: David Blumenthal, AICP
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at the above listed email address,
or call me at (949) 644-3204.
Sincerely,
David Blumenthal, AICP
Planning Consultant
23-50
e
NATCAT
Foundedin 1968
The National Cat Protection Society Non -Profit Cat Shelter
6904 W. Coast Highway • Newport Beach, CA 92663 • Tel: (949) 650-1232 • FAX (949) 650-7367
email: newport@natcat.org • www.natcat.org
March 20, 2020
City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department
Attn: David Blumenthal, AICP
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
s
Re: Proposed Extension of Deadline to Remove Non -Conforming Signs
Dear Mr. Blumenthal,
The National Cat Protection Society (NatCat) has been a staple of the Newport Beach
community since 1994. Throughout those 26 years, NatCat has prided itself on compassion,
consistency, and community involvement. We receive calls and letters from all over the county but our
core supporters are located here, in Newport Beach. Over the years, our building and sign have become
iconic, much like our neighbors at The Frog House, Cucina Alessa, and NBC Cafe.
Enforcing this code would have a severely negative impact on our organization for several reasons:
(1) The NatCat sign bears historical significance, uniqueness, and charm that remain a classic
example of craftsmanship style from decades ago. The old marquee aesthetic, welcoming
invitation to volunteers and a call for people to "Be Kind to [their] Pets" have all become
essential components of the Newport Beach experience. A drive up Pacific Coast Highway
would not be the same without picturesque beaches, Ruby's Diner, and the NatCat sign. For
all intents and purposes, the NatCat sign should be designated a Heritage Sign and be
allowed to remain despite its status as non -conforming.
(2) As an independent non-profit, we rely exclusively on donations to continue operating.
Individuals who have been casually passing by have noticed our sign, seen our facility, and
decided - then and there — to adopt a cat, make a donation or even add us to their last will
and testament. Removing our sign may have an abrupt and decidedly negative impact on
the number of individuals who discover our facility, which is already strained due to the
current economic climate.
(3) The COVID-19 virus has altered nearly every aspect of our business. Requiring us to remove
the sign at this time is commercially unreasonable and would impose undue hardships on
our organization.
Shelters • Adoptions • Retirement Center
No cats ever sold for vivisection
Page 1 of 2
23-51
The National Cat Protection Society Non -Profit Cat Shelter
6904 W. Coast Highway • Newport Beach, CA 92663 • Tel: (949) 650-1232 • FAX (949) 650-7367
email: newport@natcat.org • www.natcat.org
NATCAT
Foundedin1968
NatCat strongly supports a code amendment that would grant additional time to remove non-
conforming signs and seeks consideration regarding a Heritage Sign designation.
Kindest Re ards,
Wade Golden, J.D.
Sr. Operations Director
National Cat Protection Society
6904 W. Coast Highway
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(949) 650-1232
www.natcat.org
Page 2 of 2
Shelters • Adoptions • Retirement Center
No cats ever sold for vivisection
23-52
MAS' 3 0 202.0
�,I V OZ.
City of Newport Beach - Community Development Department
Attn: David Blumenthal, AICP
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
r
ALBOA NGLINGCLU15ORGANIZED 1828
March 26, 2020
Subject: Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs
Dear Mr. Blumenthal,
Thank you for notifying us that our business was sited in a survey pertaining to nonconforming signs. Our
building and two signs have been @ 200 A Street since 1948 and have never had an issue with building
codes. We work with the city on many levels and always follow a strict city compliance. I find it hard to
believe that our signs are nonconforming since the signs in adjacent businesses are larger and taller.
Our signs are on our single level roof, are not on a pole, do not have internal illumination, and I believe
meet all R2 zoning regulations. We look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
.J
Alison Ryffel
Club Secretary
23-53
THE CANNERY, LLC, 1901 Bayadere Terrace, Corona del Mar, CA
92625, phone 714-814-8142, jack@croul.com
March 28, 2020
City of Newport Beach - Community Development Departmen�`o'E„, �v,NITD 'R1
Att: David Blumenthal, AICP `,EVELOPPOEN-I
100 Civic Center Drive MAR 3 l 2020
Newport Beach, CA 92660
UITY OF
Re: Request for comment on propos,-t,,,,,
extension of deadline to remove
nonconforming signs
Dear Mr, Blumenthal
I request that the proposed Code Amendment grant additional time to
remove nonconforming signs.
Further, I request that we can continue to have the signage in place
that was approved by the Planning Commission Modification Permit
No.2001-113 at its meeting on January 3,2002.
Attached are seven documents regarding that 2002 meeting.
G
!11
23-54
�t SEW PORT
° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
cy�� Fa R��P
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(949)644-3209
NOTICE OF FINAL APPROVAL i �^
DATE: February 8, 2002
TO: Mr. Jeff Reuter
FROM: Planning Director
SUBJECT: Modification Permit No. 2001-113
Please be advised that Modification Permit No. 2001-113 (PA2001-204) was reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of January 3, 2002. Any deviation from the
applications and plans on file in the Planning Department may require an amendment to the
application(s) mentioned above for the project.
Applicant: Steve Herbert
Location: 3010 Lafayette Avenue
Description: Appeal of the approval of Modification Permit No. 2001-113. The applicant requests
relief from one condition of approval.
Should you have any questions, please contact our office.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Patricia . Temple, Director
By
Gin r Varin
Executive Secretary Planning Commission
Enclosure: ❑ Approved Resolution with Findings and Conditions of Approval
Approved Planning Commission minutes with Final Findings and Conditions of
Approval
cc: Property Owner (if not applicant)
Gvarin\PlanComm\ntcefftpc.doc
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
23-55
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 3, 2002
C mmissioner Agajanian noted he would not be in support of the project, as he
see o special circumstances that warrant the approval of a variance.
Commi ioner Kiser noted he would be in support of the project due to the
changes at have been made by the applicant with the understanding that
the neighb ing property owner is here and has seen these plans as far as they
go and belie s that she will be given the reciprocal easement that is needed.
I want to mak sure that Ms. Hirsch understands that no matter how much
deliberative effo we put into this tonight, she is giving a very significant
property right here in the reciprocal easement and should feel no hesitation
whatsoever to make re the project exactly meets her needs before agreeing
to give that reciproca right. It is not something that needs to be acted on
hastily and she should el no compunction whatsoever to make sure the
project exactly meets her eds. I am comfortable with what we have in front
of us tonight in the way of p ns and information in the way of approving this
project, I no longer feel wit the revised project that it is giving special
preference to this property. I a somewhat uncomfortable that we only have
two sheets out of the four of the lans in front of us tonight, we don't have
elevations. With the amount of time ave spent at looking at the property, the
plans and reviewing it at the last eeting, I am marginally comfortable
approving it without those two sheets. I uld like to see a site plan on what this
final revised project is, but in the interest f not having this back again and
because I don't think that with all the cons' erations given we have to have
those things I will be voting for it.
The following vote was recorded on the applica
Ayes: Kiser, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich
Noes: McDaniel, Agajanian
Commissioner Selich noted his concern of the setback for e property at 407
Dahlia. He then submitted a sketch of the two parcels that as prepared by
staff. He stated that this points out the reasons why we need va\be'
these
lots that are reconfigured from the original subdivision patternwhat
you see are two interpretations on what the setback woulde rear
property. Discussion then followed on the need for independent and
discretion per lot and not just a strict application of the Zoning L
The Planning Commission took a five-minute break.
SUBJECT: The Cannery Restaurant
3010 Lafayette Avenue
• Modification Permit No. MD2001-113 (PA2001-204)
Request to permit the installation of a 52 square foot wall sign over an entry
27
INDEX
Item No. 3
PA2001-204
Appeal Upheld
23-56
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 3, 2002
portico. This will be the fifth wall sign on the building where the Zoning Code limits
the site to a maximum of three wall signs. Existing wall signs are located on four
separate faces of the building. The proposed sign will be the second wall sign
facing the on site parking lot.
Ms. Temple distributed a picture of the front of the restaurant as provided by the
applicant. She noted that the sign in question is the one on the left, which says
'The Cannery Restaurant' in block lettering. Continuing, she gave a brief summary
of the staff report adding that the applicant is asking for a new wall sign. The
existing sign program for the restaurant consists of four wall signs, where the new
Balboa Peninsula Sign Regulations allow no more than three. In making their
action, the Modifications Committee thought that in approving a new sign over
the main entrance, That the total number of wall signs should not be increased.
Therefore, the other wall sign on the some fagade is the new wall sign was
required to be removed by condition. What is being proposed by the applicant is
a different sign over the entry, which is depicted on page 15 of the staff report.
Commissioner Agajanian, referring to page 16 of the staff report, asked for and
received clarification of the siting of the signs.
Chairperson Tucker clarified that the applicant previously had four painted on wall
signs, a painted on sign above the entry as well as another sign above the entry
for a total of 6 signs while the restaurant was opened?
Ms. Temple answered that there was a total of 4 signs and they have a right to
add a monument sign for the property in the front.
Mr. Campbell stated that the last page of the Sign Program has the colored
renderings, there is a schematic of the building locating the positions and types of
each of the existing signs.
Mr. Jack Croul, 1901 Bayadera Terrace stated that he bought the Cannery
property two years ago because the owner of the property was planning on
tearing it down and building residential units. I thought it would be a tragedy for
the City to have the Cannery disappear. It is a symbol and icon of the old days of
Newport Beach. Newport was at one-time an active fishing village with four
canneries. There are very few reminders of the old days in our City today. I don't
want the Cannery to disappear from the City and I am planning on placing it in a
foundation so that it will remain for future generations to enjoy. For the past year,
we have been remodeling the Cannery. It will be a beautiful restaurant and
outside we are trying to change it as little as possible to keep its existing character.
We have been required to make a few changes to the outside to meet current
building codes. For example, for seismic protection the outside stairway on the
side facing the Bay is now a structural member to support the building along with
a large steel framework that had to be installed inside the building. The photo I
gave to you is the way the Cannery has looked for almost thirty years and up to
the time we started the remodel. Regarding the signage, historically there has
been a sign on each of three sides of the building and the fourth side, which is the
28
INDEX
23-57
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 3, 2002
front, has had two signs. There has always been five signs. We are simply asking
you to let us continue this practice of this signage pattern. One change to this is
that we want to replace the sign over the entrance with a fresh sign. I ask that
you keep the outside of the building the same with one updated sign. The key is
we are not asking for an additional new sign, just the same old number of signs
that we have always had. If it has been acceptable for almost 30 years to have
two signs on the front of the building, we would hope you would let us continue to
do this particularly in light of the fact that we are trying to continue a historical
tradition. I feel the signage on historic buildings is an important issue for the City.
There has to be some flexibility for historic buildings.
Commissioner Kiser clarified with the applicant the proposal is to eliminate the
large red circular sign with Western Canners Co. and the small dark sign below it
and replace them with illuminated channel letters sign.
Commissioner Selich asked why the circle was going to be removed.
Mr. Croul answered that the circle will be continued on the water side, but we
thought we needed some sort of change to show that it is a new operation and
things are going to be different.
Public comment was opened.
Steve Herbert, operator of the Cannery stated he has worked on this project for a
year and a half. He noted that the Western Canners sign has been removed
because the structure was unsafe and had to come down. That is the only reason
we added a new sign. There is a red Western Canners sign on the oceanside.
That is the only new feature on the outside, even the paint will remain the same.
Ms. Temple stated that when the City adopted the Balboa Peninsula Sign
Regulations included, among other provisions, were specific limitations on the
number of wall signs per building. Whenever a sign is removed that is legally non-
conforming you lose the right to that non -conformity. Adding a new sign means
that the applicant has to come back for an approval. In this particular case, the
Modifications Committee did take a conservative view that there were at the
time 4 wall signs and that the applicant should not increase that number. It is
documented that there have been more signs on the walls in the past.
William Bluerock, 611 Lido Park Drive spoke in favor of the project. He noted the
Cannery is an icon in the community. He asked that the Commission approve the
application.
Bill Hamilton, 3620 Fifth Ave. spoke as the past owner/operator of the Cannery for
26 years. After he sold the property, he was so enthused that Mr. Croul was going
to save the building that he gave him the name Cannery Restaurant. The wall
lettering is part of the architectural significance of the building and adds
considerable value to the property. Many local artists have painted this building
signs and all. The public would give overwhelming support to a decision to allow
29
INDEX
23-58
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 3, 2002
all existing wall signage to stay and it certainly receives my support. I hope that
you allow them to keep the signage to represent the historic significance of the
building.
Kevin Weeda, 429 30th Street spoke as the majority property owner surrounding the
restaurant. He urged the Commission to approve this sign as it is a nice landmark
for the community and the owner has made a commitment to the property.
Jeff Rooter, representing Corporate Designs clarified that there were six signs on
the walls originally. The size of the red sign is immense and they are significantly
reducing the overall square footage of signage by taking both those signs down
and putting up a smaller one over the entrance.
Russ Fluter, 2025 West Balboa Blvd. spoke in support of the application and asked
that the signage be allowed.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Kiser clarified with staff that the Balboa Peninsula Sign Regulations
includes this property. If this signage is approved, will it be in conformance with
the Sign Ordinance?
Ms. Temple answered that an approval of this application is for a modification for
an increased number of wall signs pursuant to the Code.
Commissioner Gifford noted that she does not support this application. She
applauds the owner for his concern about the community and obviously putting
his money on the line to support that, however, he has clearly recognized that
there have to be changes. The interior is being remodeled, the Western Canners
Co. sign although it may not count as a sign under our Sign Ordinance, has been
removed and if there is anything in my mind that creates historical significance it
would be the reference to the Western Canners. There was a great deal of effort
to establish a Sign Ordinance to bring Balboa Peninsula into a place where we
would not be 'over -signed,' and have well designed signs and sufficient signage
for buildings. I don't think that there is a need for an exception to be made here.
There was a mis-statement about signs that don't have to be removed for fifteen
years. If they are taken down, then you start from ground zero. Malarky's has its
signs in place. This sign would now be an exception to the Sign Ordinance and I
just don't think there is anything particularly special about the nature of that
signage. The restaurant is very visible, nobody is going to miss it because there is a
smaller illuminated sign and not this wall sign. I am in support of implementing the
provisions of the Sign Ordinance.
Commissioner Selich noted his support of the application as he doesn't consider
these wall signs, as signs in the typical way we consider them. This is a very unusual
building and they are as much a part of the architectural style of the building as
they are a sign. The one that fronts on the Bay that has Western Canners, even
though it makes reference to the restaurant, may not be considered a sign. I think
30
INDEX
23-59
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 3, 2002
a significant investment is being made in preserving a significant part of the City's
heritage.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to uphold the appeal of the approval
of Modification Permit No. 2001-113 by eliminating Condition No. 5. He stated
he is very sensitive to signage, however he looks at this as a historical part of
Newport Beach. The signs fit the building so well.
Commissioner Kranzley stated that these are signs. We will probably be hearing
something from another merchant in the near future and whether that is a sign
or not. If we sit here tonight and talk about Western Canners on a side of a
building not being a sign, I don't think we are serving our purpose very well. I
am supportive of the appeal, somewhat reluctantly because a lot of time has
been spent on the Peninsula and on the signs. This isn't technically a historical
building, because I think the building was only built in 1972.
Commissioner McDaniel noted he was going to support the motion. He noted
however in the testimony tonight that it was going to be kept the same but we
are going to change it by making it smaller and a different sign. I am confused
on some of that but this is the Cannery and I would like to support it for all the
reasons. There are concerns here, but I will support the motion.
Chairperson Tucker noted that there are too many signs on the front of it and I
would have done it the opposite way. I don't think the illuminated sign that is
going up should have been approved. I like the sign that is on the exterior of
the building that's not illuminated other than by a spotlight. However, that is not
the issue before us. I am supporting the motion.
Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Kranzley Selich
Noes: Gifford
INDEX
Beacon Bay Auto Wash, Newport Place Item No. 4
4200 Birch Street PA2001-200
• PA2001-200
Request for a Us ermit (UP2001-035) to reconfigure and improve an existing Approved
service station and wash. The improvements include demolition and
reconstruction of the detail ding as well as redesign and replacement of the
gas dispensing islands and canoe - e proposed project also includes the partial
conversion of an existing landscape bu into additional tandem parking spaces.
Commissioner Kiser asked if there were any conce about the reflectivity of the
roofing materials.
Mr. Weber noted that this was mentioned to the architect and w * it had not
finalized, a condition has been included regarding reflectivity , that the e no
bare exposed metal and is subject to the Planning Director's review and appro
31
23-60
AN' &N
Am L'
s.
23-61
From: Barbara Dove <bjdcpa@msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 10:39 AM
To: Planning Commissioners; Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: Rooftop signs
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Planning Commissioners:
Barbara J. Dove, CPA has been in business in Corona del Mar for four years. I would like to voice my
concerns regarding removing the roof signs in Corona del Mar. I strongly object to the removal. I have
received several new clients from locals due to the signage. It is value to my business and critical for
many others. I hope that you will extend the use of the signs. With the current crises it is more important
than ever.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Be well and stay safe!
Thank you,
Barbara J. Dove, CPA
Wertz & Company, LLP
Mailing address:
5450 Trabuco Rd.
Irvine, CA 92620-5704
949-756-5000 Irvine office
949-756-1618
bdove wertzco.com
Secondary address:
3810 E Coast Hwy, Ste 5
Corona del Mar, CA 92625-2543
949-673-1040 telephone
949-673-1041 fax
714-321-1117 cell
bidcpa(a)-msn.com
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use
of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended
recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from
any computer.
23-62
From: bradford kuish <kuishb@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 9:36 AM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Cc: Valerie Kerr
Subject: Extension of Amortization Period for Non Conforming Signs (Revised)
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
PLEASE FORWARD TO STAFF
Dear Planning Commission:
As a property owner in the Village of Corona Del Mar, it is my position that the small businesses
and entrepreneurs in our community need every advantage they can to survive in a changing
retail world. The monument signs provide value to the small businesses in Corona Del Mar and
perhaps even hope; an opportunity to garner recognition, identity and even economic sustenance.
It gives each one of them some minor chance to eke out clients in a world dominated by mega -
retailers such as Amazon, Walmart, Walgreens and Home Depot.
Also, it seems THE LAST THING GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DOING IN THIS TIME OF
UNPRECEDENTED ECONOMIC STRESS (COVIDI9) IS REMOVING ANY SOURCE OF
SUSTENANCE OR INCOME. Eliminating the tenant signs will clearly reduce their identity,
visibility and to some degree, their clients. Why make their businesses more difficult, reduce
their patronage, reduce their potential clients and reduce their revenue at a time like this. It
makes no sense. Businesses are already stressed. Does the City of Newport Beach think it
prudent to make it worse???
I do not support removing the monument signs, certainly not in the short run and probably not in
the long.
23-63
Let's help the mom and pop entrepreneurs rather than harm them. Keep the signs.
On another note, I would also suggest delaying the hearing until you can have a true public
hearing. Having one by e-mail or write in does not constitute a true public forum or allow the
voice of the people to be heard.
A seminal moment for the revolution and the founding of our country was based on an objection
to taxation without representation.
Well, ruling or making laws or decisions on public matters without the full participation of the
public is similar and certainly lacks full representation. It's well down the slippery slope to be
functioning from the bog or shade.
Best,
Bradford Kuish
Principal
3800 East Coast Hwy
Corona Del Mar. CA 92625
phone 949.723.2050
23-64
From: Campbell, Jim
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 8:33 AM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: FW: non -conforming signs : 1495 Superior Avenue. Newport Beach CA
Email correspondence.
JIM CAMPBELL
Community Development Department
Deputy Community Development Director
icamobe11(aa)ne woortbeachca. aov
949-644-3210
From: mirala@aol.com <mirala@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 4:51 PM
To: Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Kimberly.Parenzan@7-11.com
Subject: non -conforming signs : 1495 Superior Avenue. Newport Beach CA
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Respected Madam(s) / Sir(s) ,
have received, via email, the attached notice.
wish to submit my comments for your kind review and consideration
Grace And Goodwill Enterprises LLC acquired the property at 1495 Superior Avenue on March 30th
2015, without the knowledge of this long -pending matter in regard to signs.
am of the strong opinion that my tenant, 7 -Eleven, needs to maintain appropriate and adequate signage
which displays their presence at this location. As you may be aware, 7 -Eleven has been at this property
since approximately 35 years. The signs at this location are standard 7 -Eleven signs, which are present
at all 7 -Eleven locations. These signs are not overly big, and neither are they causing any nuisance.
Therefore, I am requesting that this municipal code be rescinded in its entirety, or that the location at
1495 Superior Ave be granted a permanent exemption from this municipal code.
Respectfully
Sunil Lalwani
Grace And Goodwill Enterprises LLC
1349 South Broadway
Los Angeles CA 90015
tel 213 746 4853
23-65
David Jalali
P. O. Box 8412
Newport Beach, CA. 92658
Phone: (949)433-5626
Email: dave@jalali.com
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2020
David Blumenthal, AICP
Planning Consultant
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive.
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Dear David Blumenthal, AICP:
I am a long time resident and business owner in the City of Newport Beach. Referenced to your
letter, a copy of which is attached, and your request to remove the 30 years old PERMITTED street
sign for my Property at 6000 W. Coast HWY. Newport Beach, CA. 92663, the building consists of 5
stores, conducting various trades, which significantly depend on the exposure, which this sign
provides to financially survive. Removal of this sign will not only cause the existing five businesses
hardship but also significant financial damages to the building value and desirability. This sign was
installed almost three decades ago and should be grandfathers due to the hardship that it will
cause. Not only the survival of the small businesses in the strip depends on this sign but also it is
very expensive to have this sign removed. During these tough economic times, it is unfair to expect
the building owner and or the existing businesses to cover the removal cost due to survival
hardship. Removal of this monumental sign, which not only adds to the beauty of the city but also
helps a few small businesses to survive to create employment and city tax revenues, will create
unbearable financial burden to cause hardship. Are these tradeoffs that we really want to make?
Having said:
1. Please consider an exception due to the existence of this sign for years before the adaption
of the new city codes (grandfather). As it has been for many other existing structures in the
City.
I am looking forward to your help.
Sincerely,
David Jalali
23-66
March 29, 2020
City of Newport Beach - Community Development Department
Attn: David Blumenthal, AICP
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: Response to extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs
2613 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear David Blumenthal:
I have received your letter dated March 12, 2020 regarding the extension of deadline to remove
nonconforming signs for the referenced property above. Please extend the deadline to remove
the nonconforming signs later than October 27, 2020. Our business depends on the signage for
visibility within the community. The signage includes a lightbox that helps illuminate the area.
Without the signage, it would impose danger to others and us. In addition, we recently had the
signage remodelled for the reason mentioned earlier.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would reconsider our situation and extend the deadline to a
later date. Our business has been here in Newport Beach for nearly 30 years and I hope a
mutual consensus can be made so that we may continue our business for many years to come.
Thank you for taking the time to read this response letter. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Best regards,
Catherine Tran
23-67
From: Edson, Kirk <Kirk.Edson @cit.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 4:34 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Cc: Dinna Lugiman (DLugiman@idsrealestate.com)
Subject: Nonconforming sign extension requested - City of New Port Beach
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
David —
It has been brought to my attention that there is a sign ordinance issue at the OneWest Bank branch
located at 3700 E Coast Hwy, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625.
Please understand I just received this notice and I require some time to address the matter. Also, due to
the short notice and with the uncertainties of Covid-19 and not knowing how long restrictions may be
imposed, I'm not sure when we can get to this project.
Please grant us a sufficient extension period to get us well beyond the uncertain Covid-19 period, as well
as enough time to complete the project.
Thank you.
Kirk E. Edson
Vice President
Corporate Services
OneWest Bank,
A division of CIT Bank NA.
C: (626) 255-5387
75 N Fair Oaks Avenue
Pasadena, California, 91103
www.cit.com
This email message and any accompanying materials may contain proprietary, privileged and confidential
information of CIT Group Inc. or its subsidiaries or affiliates (collectively, "CIT"), and are intended solely for the
recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, any use, disclosure, printing,
copying or distribution, or reliance on the contents, of this communication is strictly prohibited. CIT disclaims any
liability for the review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon,
this communication by persons other than the intended recipient(s). If you have received this communication in
error, please reply to the sender advising of the error in transmission, and immediately delete and destroy the
communication and any accompanying materials. To the extent permitted by applicable law, CIT and others may
inspect, review, monitor, analyze, copy, record and retain any communications sent from or received at this email
address.
23-68
From: cynthia <cynthiacdm@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2020 4:44 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: FW: signage 2900 Newport Blvd
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
April 6, 2020
Dear Mr. Blumenthal,
I received your letter regarding the signs on the property located at 2900 Newport Blvd Newport
Beach. The illuminated signs which are currently on the roof and in the planter were existing when the
property was purchased in 1998 and I believed that there were permits on filed at the City,
Over time the various tenants changed the acrylic fagade per restaurant businesses but since I thought
the signs were conforming I did not require that they change the encasement. The property has now
been vacant for the past two years. It is a financial hardship for me to pay the taxes, insurance, flood
insurance, utilities, maintenance and repairs, in addition to the in lieu parking fees which I pay the City
$2,700.00 annually. It would be a relief to not be required to incur more coasts to make the changes I
have a tenant and cash flow. Additionally I am the full time caregiver in my home for my 90 year old
mother and it is difficult to leave her and take on a new project. That being said I do go to the property
daily (with mom waiting in the car) and verify everything looks presentable for potential tenants and just
planted new flowers, bulbs and new soil to add to the curb appeal.
Unfortunately due to the corona virus I am concerned that I may not find a tenant for sometime until
the restaurants are able to reopen. I would appreciate your consideration in extending the deadline and
forgive me for this late response. I called the city a few weeks ago but was unable to speak with you
directly and the planner told me to email you directly. Please let me know which signs are non-
conforming and what the signs should look like going forward. Thank you.
Best regards,
Cynthia Klanian
(949) 610-6568
23-69
From: Bencharat Morarit <bencharat@mind prossage.com>
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2020 3:39 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: Business Sign
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Mr. Blumenthal,
my name is Bencharat Morarit and I am the business owner of Mind Prossage, a business located at 3617 Coast
HWY E Suite B in Corona del Mar.
We have received your letter about non conforming signs.
Apologies for writing late but the last 3 weeks have been really chaotic with the business closure, social distancing
and uncertainty on when it will be possible to re -open again.
I am writing you to inquiry about the reasons our sign is considered non conforming. We went through the full
approval of the city for every minimal detail when we opened the business back in 2012 (including site visits to
check out everything) and we had no issues with that. Actually even the business previously located at our location
address had exactly the same sign (we just re -made it identical with our business name) for several years.
This is going to be a tough time for small businesses due to the inability to be open, running multiple costs with no
revenues at all and we would like to get a better understanding before incurring in further costs.
Thank you in advance and looking forward to your reply.
Bencharat Morarit
bencharatkmindprossa eg com
(949)630-5559
23-70
From: Art <cdmpease@sbcgloba1.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2020 3:13 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: Fw: Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to
remove non -conforming signs
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Forwarded Message
From: Arthur Pease <arthurpease58@gmail.com>
To: "cdmpease@sbcglobal. net" <cdmpease@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020, 3:03:00 PM PDT
Subject: Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove non -conforming signs
am opposed to enforcing the city sign ordinance at 408 32nd Street Newport Beach requiring non-
conforming sign removal.
The cost of new signs is exorbitant and unaffordable for most small businesses of one or two
employees. In my case the existing business impacted by your request for change could not be afforded.
Going forward we do not know what the economic impact will be on such a small scale business. I
therefore request you eliminate the demand for change on the existing non -conforming signs and allow
the signs to continue into use as built. The existing non -conforming signs have not created any negative
impact on the neighborhood or community. Any changes should be left to the discretion of the property
owner and business owner at such time as they request a sign change. At that time consideration of the
guidelines from the sign ordinance would be implemented. I feel this is a proper and adequate solution
the city council should consider and implement.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
23-71
Arthur Pease
408 32nd Street
Newport Beach
23-72
From: Colin Berger <colinberger@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2020 2:41 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: Extension non confirming rigs
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear David I just received your letter today as it was sent to Golden Mardikian LLC
the property owners address We at the CAR SPA at 1200 West Coast Hwy have been closed for
the past 16 days due to the rainy weather and the Coronavirus stay at home order
WE seeks businesses on a proposed Code Amendment that would modify NBMC Sections
20.42.140.A and 21.30.065 to grant additional time to remove nonconforming signs or consider
our sign as confirming as the sign cost us in excess of $25000 and the cost to remove it would
be very costly and further more with our business being closed due to the Corana virus stay at
home order
We hope you will consider our comments Thanking you Colin Berger Director THE CAR SPA
Colin Berger
23-73
From: CLASSOF47 <classof471ounge@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2020 12:12 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: Comment re: extension of deadline to remove allegedly
nonconforming signs
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Mr. Blumenthal:
On March 12, 2020 you sent a letter addressed to the Building Owner of the business
located at 209 Palm St, Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 requesting comment on a
proposed extension of the deadline to remove nonconforming signs pursuant to some
alleged NBMC Sections 20.42.140A and 21.30.065.E.
The business located at that address is Class of 47. I am the owner of Class of 47. I am
sending you this email in response to your letter dated March 12, 2020.
Class of 47 believes that it would be a wise move on behalf of the City of Newport Beach to
grant additional time for the removal of any allegedly nonconforming signs. Class of
47 believes that, at a minimum, the deadline should be extended from October 27, 2020 to
"indefinitely". Indeed, Class f 47 is of the position that any such NBMC should be revoked
and/or otherwise be eliminated in their entirety. There should be no such law on the books.
Nor, should the City make any effort or attempt to try to enforce any such NBMC.
Class of 47 has been located at 209 Palm St., Newport Beach, CA since March 1, 1977. The
business has operated in that location continuously since its grand opening almost 43 years
ago. Class of 47 is a historic and iconic part of the history of Newport Beach. Due to its
location in the heart of Balboa Village at the entrance and exit of the Balboa Ferry. Class of
47 is also a very significant part of the history of Newport Harbor. The sign was originally
installed in the mid 1960's, Kelly's Steak House.
23-74
Class of 47 has had prominent signage in place throughout its long history. That signage is
as much a part of the history of Newport Beach and Newport Harbor as is the Tavern named
Class of 47, itself.
Any attempt to "scrub" or rewrite the history of Newport Beach or the history of Newport
Harbor by attempting to force Class of 47 to remove or modify its historic signs is a
disgrace. We also believe that it is unconstitutional.
We believe that it would be most unwise for the City of Newport Beach to have such a rule
on its books. We also believe that it would be even more unwise for the City of Newport
Beach to attempt to enforce such an unconstitutional and disgraceful statute.
So, yes, the City of Newport Beach should, at a minimum, indefinitely delay enforcement of
any such alleged code section. But, more importantly, the City of Newport Beach should
eliminate any such code sections. Such code sections, if they do exist, never should have
been enacted in the first place.
Thanks,
Patrick Conners
3345 Newport Blvd., Suite 204
Newport Beach CA 92663
(949) 566-9375 Office
(949) 554-5725 Cell
(866) 784-7341 Fax
http://www.farmersagent.com/pconners
Pat Conners
CLASS OF 47
209 Palm St.
Newport Beach, CA 92661
Ph: (949)554-5725
Fx: (866)784-7341
23-75
From: Jeff Kennard <lymansbay@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2020 5:47 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: Comment on sign removal
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
I am the owner of 6480 West Coast Hwy. and because of the Coronavirus my comment would be to
postpone the non conforming sign removal indefinitely. Business and life changes are severe and the
cost of removal and replacing with a new sign would not be possible at this time or for the foreseeable
future for me or my tenant. Hopefully business will rebound in the future where such costs could be
considered. This Coronavirus has been crippling to small business and hopefully we can bounce back but
business right now is scary bad! It would be very helpful to us if this sign issue could be postponed to a
later date when business, hopefully, returns to profitability.
Thank you so much for your letter for comments and consideration, it is extremely appreciated.
Owner, Brian Kennard
Sent from my iPad
23-76
From: Alvin Ta <Alvin.Ta@unionbank.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2020 5:00 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: Union Bank Newport Beach - Extension of deadline to remove nonconforming
signs
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Mr. Blumenthal:
On behalf of MUFG Union Bank, our businesses located at 1501 Westcliff Dr (Westcliff) and at 396
Superior Ave (Superior) have been identified with a nonconforming sign that is subject to the October
27, 2020 removal deadline.
Union Bank Westcliff
The building top signage at this location is essential for visibility of the branch to existing clients and the
community at large. Union Bank is a regional Bank that needs visibility afforded to other national banks.
Due to the architecture and design of the building, signage visibility from the street and adjacent area
are only available from the upper portion of the building. Due to this unusual sightline, it is imperative
for this sign to remain in order to maintain visibility.
Union Bank Superior
The Pole Sign at our Superior location is essential as we have very limited signage at this location due to
the architecture of the building itself. We feel that this sign helps not only our customers know where
we are located, but the community at large as we are a regional bank with ties to the community for
over many years. The intersection of Superior and Placentia Ave have virtually no other signage visibility
but for this pole sign.
Please grant additional time to remove nonconforming signs. In addition, these signs were legally
approved and permitted. If the signs need to come down, who should pay for this.
Thanks very much for considering our request to extend this deadline and answering our question.
Sincerely,
Alvin Ta
JLL I Project Management
Contractor
Supporting Corporate Real Estate at MUFG Union Bank, N.A.
M +1 626.543.3211
Alvin.Ta(a)_unionbank.com lwww.JLL.com
Please note the MUFG logo and name is a service mark of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.
("MUFG") and may be used by it or other Group companies for marketing purposes, including
23-77
MUFG Americas Holdings Corporation affiliates and subsidiaries. Lending, deposit, securities,
investment banking, and other banking services are provided by banking and/or broker-dealer
affiliates of MUFG, including, MUFG Bank, Ltd. ("MUFG Bank"), MUFG Union Bank, N.A.
("Union Bank"), MUFG Securities Americas Inc. ("MUSA"), and MUFG Securities (Canada),
Ltd. ("MUS(CAN)"). MUFG Bank is not an FDIC -insured bank. MUB is an FDIC -insured bank.
MUSA is a member of FINRA and SIPC. MUS(CAN) is a member of IIROC and CIPF.
This message is intended for the named addressee(s) only. It may contain confidential,
proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by
any mis-transmission. If you receive this message in error, please delete it and all copies from
your system, destroy any hard copies and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly,
use, disclose, distribute, print or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
recipient. MUFG, its affiliates and subsidiaries reserve the right to monitor all electronic
communications through their respective networks. Any views expressed in this message are
those of the individual sender and do not constitute investment advice or recommendation,
except where the message expressly states otherwise and the sender is authorized to furnish the
same. MUFG (and its subsidiaries) shall (will) not be liable for the message if modified.
23-78
From: Meussner, John <John.Meussner@am.jll.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2020 4:58 PM
y To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
19t,x4R*xr Cc: coxtim1947@gmail.com; Meussner, John
Subject: RE: Request for Extension to Remove Nonconforming Signs.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
I'm happy an extension, however long, will be put in place. I'll be sure to update the BofA
branding team after I speak to a planner.
Thank you and have a great day!
John Meussner
M +1714 454 4034
From: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 4:49 PM
To: Meussner, John <John.Meussner@am.jll.com>
Cc: coxtim1947@gmail.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Request for Extension to Remove Nonconforming Signs.
John,
We are moving forward with a code amendment to extend the deadline for removal of the
nonconforming signs. Until this amendment moves through the public hearing process, we cannot
guarantee how long it will be extended for. Having said this, please call the planning counter at (949)
644-3204 to discuss the sign refresh with a planner.
DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP
Community Development Department
Planning Consultant
dblumenthal(c_newportbeaehca.gov
949-644-3204
F Please consider the environment before printing this email
From: Meussner, John <John.Meussner@am.Ill.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 10:40 AM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: coxtim1947@gmail.com; Meussner, John <John.Meussner@a m.ill.com>
Subject: Request for Extension to Remove Nonconforming Signs.
Importance: High
23-79
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Hello David —
I hope all is well in these interesting times we are all going through.
I received the attached letter regarding a nonconforming sign at the BofA mentioned within it
reached out to the banks branding team and this was their response;
Bank of America in 2019 began a multi-year program to rebrand its financial centers with its new
branded signage in a refreshed and updated design. The bank would respectfully request an
extension of up to five years of the deadline for conforming to the new sign regulations. It is
anticipated that permit requests to update the Corona Del Mar site would be submitted to the
City well in advance of an extended deadline for conforming the updated signage regulations,
but given the bank's over 4300 financial centers and over 3000 remote ATMs this will give the
bank time to respond to these new regulations. In the near term the bank would like to proceed
with refreshing the existing signs (primarily via repainting) to improve the look of those signs
pending the rebranding effort.
Please advise if we can move forward with this game plan
Thank you and have a great day!!
John Meussner
Facility Manager
JLL Bank of America
275 Valencia Ave
Brea CA 92823
M +1714 454 4034
www.all.com
(0) 1 LL lq"441�
One of the 2020 World's Most Ethical Companies®
Jones Lang LaSalle
For more information about how JLL processes your personal data, please click here.
This email is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and
then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this email without the author's prior
permission. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus
checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. The information
contained in this communication may be confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege. If you are the intended recipient and
you do not wish to receive similar electronic messages from us in the future then please respond to the sender to this effect.
23-80
From: Jamie Duarte <jduarte@duarte-law.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2020 4:51 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: Comment re: extension of deadline to remove allegedly nonconforming signs
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Mr. Blumenthal:
On March 12, 2020 you sent a letter addressed to the Business Owner of the business located at 2318
Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92663 requesting comment on a proposed extension of the deadline
to remove nonconforming signs pursuant to some alleged NBMC Sections 20.42.140A and 21.30.065.E.
The business located at that address is Woody's Wharf. I am the attorney for the owners of Woody's
Wharf. I am sending you this email in response to your letter dated March 12, 2020.
Woody's Wharf believes that it would be a wise move on behalf of the City of Newport Beach to grant
additional time for the removal of any allegedly nonconforming signs. Woody's Wharf believes that, at a
minimum, the deadline should be extended from October 27, 2020 to "indefinitely". Indeed, Woody's
Wharf is of the position that any such NBMC should be revoked and/or otherwise be eliminated in their
entirety. There should be no such law on the books. Nor, should the City make any effort or attempt to
try to enforce any such NBMC.
Woody's Wharf has been located at 2318 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA since June 1, 1965. The
business has operated in that location continuously since its grand opening almost 55 years ago.
Woody's Wharf is a historic and iconic part of the history of Newport Beach. Due to its location on the
harbor front, Woody's Wharf is also a very significant part of the history of Newport Harbor.
Woody's Wharf has had prominent signage in place throughout its long history. That signage is as much
a part of the history of Newport Beach and Newport Harbor as is the restaurant/bar named Woody's
wharf, itself.
Any attempt to "scrub" or rewrite the history of Newport Beach or the history of Newport Harbor by
attempting to force Woody's Wharf to remove or modify its historic signs is a disgrace. We also believe
that it is unconstitutional.
We believe that it would be most unwise for the City of Newport Beach to have such a rule on its books.
We also believe that it would be even more unwise for the City of Newport Beach to attempt to enforce
such an unconstitutional and disgraceful statute.
So, yes, the City of Newport Beach should, at a minimum, indefinitely delay enforcement of any such
alleged code section. But, more importantly, the City of Newport Beach should eliminate any such code
sections. Such code sections, if they do exist, never should have been enacted in the first place.
Thanks,
23-81
Jamie Duarte
Duarte & Associates
245 Fischer Ave., Ste. A-1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (714) 545-4800
E-mail: iduarte(@duarte-law.com
23-82
From: Holly Broxterman <hollyb@loungegroup.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2020 12:40 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Cc: Mario Marovic
Subject: Request to Extend: Non -conforming Sign October Deadline
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Hi David,
We are in receipt of the attached notice for signage changes requested at 106 22nd St.
Although this sign hasn't changed for years, we appreciate your associate Chelsea's explanation that the
amortization for sign code changes from 10 years ago will be ending in October and enforced soon.
Due to recent business closures and public health changes since the date of this notice, we kindly
request to postpone or extend the October 27th deadline for removal.
Thank you for your understanding. Your guidance in proceeding as we approach the deadline would be
greatly appreciated.
Holly Broxterman
Real Estate
Lounge Group
3334 E Coast Highway #418 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
tel: 949.675.1913 1 email: hollyb@loungegroup.com
web: www.loungegroup.com
��; 4 F f
C y4 `Pi�$ -
P1140 -
LOUNGE Mcia
BE LM.ff NiNi ny
r u eoo.r•
C 0OtSULT fNG
23-83
From:
Grace Dove <doveperch @sbcgloba1.net>
Sent:
Tuesday, March 31, 2020 1:52 PM
To:
Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Cc:
Campbell, Jim
Subject:
Extension of Time -Nonconforming Signs
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Mr. Blumenthal, following are my comments, as requested, on the proposed extension of time of
deadline to remove non conforming signs:
I support an extension of time. This deadline was included with a study of all signs more than 10
years ago. Pole signs were a minor consideration and punted. The requirement has long been
forgotten by most business/property owners along with the opportunity for a sign to be
considered for historic status.
Time is needed for sign owners to do any research necessary to achieve historic status and for the
City to review and consider applications. Should someone decide to remove a sign, time is
needed to contract for removal and to design and permit a replacement. Pole signs are found in
the older parts of the City and outside of areas controlled by CC&Rs with design requirements.
The buildings were placed, often on small lots, in consideration of locating a ubiquitous pole
sign and will not be easily replaced.
This deadline for removal comes at an especially bad time for burdening owners of small
properties and of small businesses. Compliance will be expensive at a time when businesses are
closed or experiencing reduced revenues. Once they are able to operate, time will be necessary to
recover or for the property to find a replacement tenant. They also will need the identity provided
by a familiar sign. Likewise the City staff and decision makers will be occupied with the
unexpected tasks of planning for an anticipated and substantial reduction in revenues.
This is a time to encourage and facilitate recovery not to burden it. Please consider a substantial
extension of time to comply with or reconsider this obscure requirement.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for Whone
23-84
From: carsoni@cox.net
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 1:20 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Cc: Eric Carson; Bob Carson
Subject: Fwd: Nonconforming Sign Removal Extension Request
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
City of Newport Beach — Community Development Department
Attn: David Blumenthal, AICP
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Mr. Blumenthal:
We are writing in response to your March 12, 2020 letter requesting comment from
property owners and others impacted by the nonconforming sign removal ordinance.
We own the property located at 3050 East Coast Highway in Corona Del Mar. We
believe the City should be focusing primarily on economic growth and take off the table
for the foreseeable future any actions with the real or perceived potential to have
adverse economic consequences to our local community. Therefore, we request that
the City of Newport Beach postpone enforcement of the ordinance to remove
nonconforming signs for no less than an additional five years — to October 27, 2025.
Yours very truly,
23-85
Bob Carson
Eric Carson
Hugh Carson Family, LLC
29 Chapital
San Clemente, CA 92672
Owners of 3050 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar
23-86
From: Meussner, John <John.Meussner@am.jll.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 10:40 AM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Cc: coxtim1947@gmail.com; Meussner, John
Subject: Request for Extension to Remove Nonconforming Signs.
Importance: High
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Hello David —
I hope all is well in these interesting times we are all going through.
I received the attached letter regarding a nonconforming sign at the BofA mentioned within it. I
reached out to the banks branding team and this was their response;
Bank of America in 2019 began a multi-year program to rebrand its financial centers with its new
branded signage in a refreshed and updated design. The bank would respectfully request an
extension of up to five years of the deadline for conforming to the new sign regulations. It is
anticipated that permit requests to update the Corona Del Mar site would be submitted to the
City well in advance of an extended deadline for conforming the updated signage regulations,
but given the bank's over 4300 financial centers and over 3000 remote ATMs this will give the
bank time to respond to these new regulations. In the near term the bank would like to proceed
with refreshing the existing signs (primarily via repainting) to improve the look of those signs
pending the rebranding effort.
Please advise if we can move forward with this game plan.
Thank you and have a great day!!
John Meussner
Facility Manager
JLL Bank of America
275 Valencia Ave
Brea CA 92823
M +1714 454 4034
www.all.com
i LL AdA.ZAI&
One of the 2020 World's Most Ethical Companies®
Jones Lang LaSalle
23-87
For more information about how JILL processes your personal data, please click here.
This email is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and
then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this email without the author's prior
permission. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus
checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. The information
contained in this communication may be confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege. If you are the intended recipient and
you do not wish to receive similar electronic messages from us in the future then please respond to the sender to this effect.
23-88
From: zu-hsiung hsiao <outpostl@att.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 11:34 AM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: Sign
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Mr. Blumenthal:
My name is Zu-Hsiung Hsiao (Tony), and I am the owner of the property located at 6110 W. Coast Hwy
and
The Outpost Liquor store which sits on the property. I am writing in response to your letter dated March
12, 2020
regarding Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs.
In this unprecedented time, the COVID-19 situation is affecting the communities in which you and I live
and work.
Unfortunately, my business is not immune to the financial crisis brought on the COVID-19 and the Safe At
Home Order.
Although as an essential business we are able to operate, our business is expected to suffer severe
financial loss. The time
and expenditure required to remove the sign before October 27,2020 world be an impossible
mission. Not only I am uncertain
when and if the sign vendor world be able to open for business, the extra cost of removal would impose
an undue financial
burden. The foreseeable result world be to layoff employees or filing bankruptcy.
have served the Newport Beach communities since 1985, and it has been an honor and pleasure
to serve the Newport Beach communities. The Outpost Liquor store is not just a convenience store: it is
also an indispensable
23-89
community center where neighbors gather to collect information and to support each. My services are
even more indispensable during the current
global pandemic.
For all of the above reasons, I request that the City to modify NBMC Sections 20.42.140 A and 21.30.065
E to grant additional time to remove
nonconforming signs. This world allow me more time and finance to focus on what I do the best to serve
and care for my beloved Newport
Beach communities.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Stay safe and stay healthy.
Sincerely,
Zu-Hsiung Hsiao (Tony)
The Outpost Liquor Store
Caywood Realty Inc.
March 28, 2020
23-90
From: Erin Alonso <erinalonso5@icloud.com>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 2:12 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: Re: Nonconforming signs
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
I have a building in Orange, a while ago they were offering grants to help make the city look better.
Many people took advantage of this. It was a win win.
Erin
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 27, 2020, at 12:26 PM, Blumenthal, David(Contractor)
<dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> wrote:
Erin,
Thank you for your comment. The proposal will be to grant a multi-year extension. What
do you mean when asking about a "beauty allowance"?
<image002.jpg>
DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP
Community Development Department
Planning Consultant
dblumenthalanewnortbeachca. eov
949-644-3204
<image003. gif>
-----Original Message -----
From: Erin Alonso <erinalonso5@icloud.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 10:09 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Nonconforming signs
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender
and know the content is safe.
This deadline needs to be moved since it's very hard to do business now as it is. This
won't be a trivial expense either. Does the city offer beauty allowances? This should be
reconsidered next year.
Erin Alonso
310-863-5961
23-91
2430 W PCH
NEWPORT BEACH
Sent from my iPhone
23-92
From: coxtim1947@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 10:05 AM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: APN 459 192 10
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Hi David,
I am the landlord for the APN above located at 3140 E. Coast Hwy. in Corona Del Mar. I would be In
favor of a proposal to extend the deadline of October 27, 2020 for removal of the nonconforming sign at
this location. The current sign has a Sprint Cell Antenna located inside the sign and Sprint has been
working on building a structure on the roof to house the antenna for the last year. They have still not
come up with an approved plan for the new structure. I would be in favor of a one year extension to
complete the transfer of the antenna to a new structure and removal of the sign.
Thank you for considering my proposal.
Tim Cox,
TJJ Cox Properties, LLC
760-519-7609
23-93
From: beaconservice@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 5:45 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: PROPOSAL FOR REMOVAL OF NONCONFORMING SIGNS
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
City of Newport Beach - Community Development Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Attn: David Blumenthal, AICP
Dear Mr Blumenthal,
I am in receipt of your letter to Donna Adele Gallant Trust, the owners of the property at
1501 E. 16th Street, Newport Beach. Beacon Healthcare Services,lnc, d.b.a. Newport
Bay Hospital has leased this property for the last 26 plus years. Newport Bay Hospital
is the only Freestanding Acute Psychiatric Hospital in Orange County that is licensed by
the State of California. Because of the uniqueness of the Hospital's Mental Health
Programs, the catchment area for patients extends to San Louis Obispo, Fresno,
Barstow, San Diego, as well as Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The subject sign
has been in place for more than 20 years and is important for ambulance drivers,
patients families and others who come from out of the area to be able to find the
Hospitals location. The Hospital sits adjacent to the Environmental Nature Center which
fortunately has a lot of foliage on 16th Street, but unfortunately blocks the view of the
Hospitals entrance until a driver is past it.
I believe that a permit was issued by the City to install the sign originally, but I will need
to do research in the Hospitals archives.
23-94
We respectfully request that the City of Newport Beach issue a Conditional or Special
Use Permit such that the signage remains in place.
Regards,
Phyllis Parkhurst, Senior Vice President
Newport Bay Hospital
1�6ZPer:T:M :M-ZMII
23-95
From: Tara Groover <mailgiftsandwine@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 10:48 AM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove
nonconforming sign
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Sir,
I am requesting for an extension on removal of sign.
Please let us know how our sign is not conforming with City's guidelines and how it can
be corrected.
When we installed our sign, it was per our property manager's requirements which were
following city's guidelines for store signs. They approved the sign after reviewing it.
Thank you,
Tara
Mail, Gifts and Wine of Newport Beach
4533 MacArthur Blvd., Ste A
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949)955-9171
Fax : (949)955-2066
We ship Wines domestic & International.
DHL, FedEx, UPS & USPS authorized agent.
We provide Mailboxes, Notary, Printing, LiveScans/Fingerprinting, Wine, Beers,
Cigars & Gifts
Store Hours: M -Th 10-6, Fri 10-5, Sat & Sun Closed
23-96
From: Valerie Kerr <bradfordaccounting@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 10:31 AM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: Re: 3800 E. Coast Highway- Corona del Mar- Letter received
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
HI David,
Thank you for the prompt response. I am a bit confused, those signs have been in place since
1961. What exactly is nonconforming?
Thank you,
Valerie Kerr
c/o, 39 Beach View LK100, LLC
c/o, Pacific Riviera Collection, LLC
Phone (949) 547-9167
On 3/25/2020 11:52 AM, Blumenthal, David(Contractor) wrote:
Valerie,
It appears that the nonconforming signs are the roof signs.
Be advised, this proposal is to extend the deadline for removal of the signs. We
are not asking for the signs to be removed at this time, but rather are working to
give the signs additional time.
W DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP
Community Development Department
Planning Consultant
dblumenthal(&newportbeachca.g
qy{+ * 949-644-3204
+�a
F Please consider the environment before printing this email
From: Valerie Kerr <bradfordaccounting@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 10:12 AM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 3800 E. Coast Highway- Corona del Mar- Letter received
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello David,
We received a letter in the mail regarding non -conforming signs. Will
you please tell which signs you are referring to?
23-97
I hope you are well and staying safe during this difficult time.
Thank you,
Valerie Kerr
c/o, 39 Beach View LK100, LLC
c/o, Pacific Riviera Collection, LLC
Phone (949) 547-9167
23-98
From: Robert Lee <boblee1792@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 12:54 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: Question about removing nonconforming sign - 4547 W Coast HWY
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Hello,
My name is Robert. I am the owner's son of the business, Al Cappuccino, at 4547 West Coast
Highway. I was shown a letter requesting a comment about the deadline for removing
nonconforming signs.
I believe these signs should be allowed to be up for small businesses. Family owned businesses
may not have the know-how or capital to recreate the necessary signs that are compliant with city
regulations. The sign we have in our shop has been there for almost 20 years. It helps us to tell
those looking in that we are open and what items we sell. These signs add a natural touch to a
business and can help make the city unique.
Thank you for your time,
Robert
23-99
From: Joe Vallejo <joevallejo22@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 12:29 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: Fw: Signage
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Sorry I got your email address wrong have now resent it.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Joe Vallejo <joevallejo22@yahoo.com>
To: dblunenthal@newportbeachca.gov <dblunenthal@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020, 12:09:54 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Signage
On Friday, March 20, 2020, 05:43:14 PM PDT, Joe Vallejo <joevallejo22@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello David,
I spoke with Liz in planning regarding the signage on my building at 1610 W. Coast
Hwy, across from the Balboa Bay Club apartments. She said I should contact you.
I first rented part of the premises in 1972 and moved away in a different location for a
few years and moved back in 1978 taking over most of the building till 2015. The
signage was already in place,at that time and was sited by the city that it was non-
conforming.
We presented our case to the City Council in 1978 and they approved the existing signs
stating, that the location of the business in relation to the bend of Coast Hwy requires a
sign that can be observed in either direction. (see enclosed minutes from the city). With
constructed of the walk bridge coming in a few months that will further block our building
going south makes the signage needed even more.
We have not had any complaints or contact with the city for 42 years regarding the
signs.
Thank you for your consideration.
With Regards,
Joe Vallejo
Cell 949-677-5713
23-100
-----Forwarded Message -----
>From: Joe Vallejo <valleiogallery(c_earthlink. net>
>Sent: Mar 20, 2020 5:04 PM
>To: Vallejo Gallery<valleiogallery(aD_earthlink.net>
>Subject: Signage
Sent from my Phone
23-101
From: ALRON7099@aol.com
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 4:04 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Cc: mhewitt@lawverdict.com; garen@korkerliquor.com;
jordan@arestaurantnb.com
Subject: Signs
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Mr. Blumenthal:
My husband and I are the property owners at 2325 East Coast Highway (Corona Del Mar Restaurant)
and the property at 2229 East Coast Highway (Korker Liquor)
I have received a notice dated March 12, 2020 concerning the signs at these properties.
would request an opportunity to come in and meet with you to discuss why my tenants need these signs
for their business, and especially now with the closures and social upheaval our community is
experiencing.
When may I meet with you?
Or what steps do I need to take register our vehement opposition to removal of the signage, and have the
signs stay?
Thank you for your attention on this matter,
Allyson Presta, Partner
Blackbird Investments, GP
PV 1984, GP
23-102
Phone 949-759-1275
Fax 949-759-1288
Mobile 949-874-1725
Email ALRON7099@AOL.COM
23-103
From: Kathy Humphries <kjhlrules@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 2:26 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: Re: Nonconforming signs, Newport Beach Code
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Thank you very much,
We are trying very hard to remove any unnecessary stress from our tenants.
Kathy Humphries
949 887-2232
-----Original Message -----
From: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov>
To: 'Kathy Humphries' <kjhl rules@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 18, 2020 3:56 pm
Subject: RE: Nonconforming signs, Newport Beach Code
Kathy,
Thank you for comment. The proposal is to amend the code and provide an automatic extension for
removal of non -conforming signs. We will send additional notices to you as this request progresses
through the public hearing process.
DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP
Community Development Department
t Planning Consultant
u dblumenthal(a)newportbeachca.pov
949-644-3204
bA, Please consider the environment before printing this email
From: Kathy Humphries <kjhlrules@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 1:58 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Nonconforming signs, Newport Beach Code
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
-----Original Message -----
From: Kathy Humphries <k4h1rules(cDaol.com>
To: dblumenthal <dblumenthal(aDnewportbeach.aov>; propertyanalyst
<propertyanalyst(cDbrighthorizons.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 18, 2020 1:56 pm
Subject: Nonconforming signs, Newport Beach Code
23-104
Dear Mr. Blumenthal,
My name is Kathy Humphries and my sister's and I own the property at 2500. W. Coast Hwy, Newport
Beach, CA, 92663.
am responding to the letter we received regarding our tenant, Bright Horizon's non conforming sign. We
are respectively asking for an extension of the proposed deadline for removal of the sign. Our tenant has
spent a lot of money in designing a tasteful sign that as far as we can see has absolutely no negative
effect on the property or the area.
In light of these trying times, it seems ridiculous to put business's under more financial stress that is
unnecessary.
Please consider our position, right now we are all trying to pull together so I'm hoping this issue can be
delayed for further consideration.
Thank you,
Kathy Humphries
949 887-2232
23-105
From: Kathy Humphries <kjhlrules@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 1:58 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: Fwd: Nonconforming signs, Newport Beach Code
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
-----Original Message -----
From: Kathy Humphries <kjhlrules@aol.com>
To: dblumenthal <dblumenthal@newportbeach.gov>; propertyanalyst
<propertyanalyst@brighthorizons.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 18, 2020 1:56 pm
Subject: Nonconforming signs, Newport Beach Code
Dear Mr. Blumenthal,
My name is Kathy Humphries and my sister's and I own the property at 2500. W. Coast Hwy, Newport
Beach, CA, 92663.
am responding to the letter we received regarding our tenant, Bright Horizon's non conforming sign. We
are respectively asking for an extension of the proposed deadline for removal of the sign. Our tenant has
spent a lot of money in designing a tasteful sign that as far as we can see has absolutely no negative
effect on the property or the area.
In light of these trying times, it seems ridiculous to put business's under more financial stress that is
unnecessary.
Please consider our position, right now we are all trying to pull together so I'm hoping this issue can be
delayed for further consideration.
Thank you,
23-106
Kathy Humphries
949 887-2232
23-107
eX- From: davidvoss@cox.net
P_
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 12:21 PM
15 To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
��kaR'r Subject: RE: No -Conforming Signs
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
a�
So basically the city somewhat snuck this code change in without consenting with property owners
first? These signs on older buildings give 'value' to the older buildings. As I understood, old buildings
would be grandfathered in until they are remodeled and then up to code. What's next, we need to add
more parking per code? Slippery slope here. At considerable expense we went up to code for ADA
compliance.
Why the push now? The old sign give CDM character. Again, these signs have a value, how does the
city plan to reimburse the property owners for that value?
Will they pay to have the signs removed? In these unprecedented times, we will be 'lucky' to keep our
tenants this year.
City needs to focus on helping business stay in business and not give reasons for tenants to want to
relocate or get a way to get out of their leases.
Our Governor is doing all he can to make business move out of CA (fact). Let's not let Newport follow
that example. Lead by example.
End of the day the city will dictate. It would be a help if the signs could be removed after leases are up
and then city pays for removal (which will be costly)
TY
Dave
From: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 12:08 PM
To: Dave Voss <dvoss@lrisCPG.com>
Subject: RE: No -Conforming Signs
A notice was not sent, which is why the City is one of the reasons the City is considering the extension.
DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP
Community Development Department
Planning Consultant
dblumenthal(d)newportbeachca.kov
23-108
949-644-3204
P 15iPlease consider the environment before printing this email
From: Dave Voss <dvoss@lrisCPG.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 12:04 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: RE: No -Conforming Signs
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
0
Yes. Need time. Also need the original notice that was sent to building owners notifying them that the
code had changed. I don't remember receiving this, it would not have gone unnoticed.
Dave
David Voss
Director of Sales - West
Iris Brands
C: 949/494-1124
E: dvoss@irisCPG.com
From: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 11:14 AM
To: Dave Voss <dvoss@lrisCPG.com>
Subject: RE: No -Conforming Signs
Hello Dave,
Thank you for your comments, and I understand your frustration. The proposal is to extend the deadline
to give property owners additional time and proper notification. Based on your comments, is it correct
to assume you would prefer the extension be over three years to give you time to work out the lease
issues with tenants?
DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP
Community Development Department
Planning Consultant
dblumenthalna-,newportbeachca.g
949-644-3204
h Please consider the environment before printing this email
23-109
From: Dave Voss <dvoss@lrisCPG.com>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 3:01 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: No -Conforming Signs
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Hi:
My family has owned that property at 3641/3643/3645 East Coast Highway, CDM for over 40 years. We
have always had these roof signs grandfathered in to the code. In these forty years, we have NEVER had
an issue with the city. I learned today from the 'other' David at the NB number on your letter that in
2010 the code changed and we had 10 years to comply? Where is that original letter, need to see it.
To get a letter saying we are now not to code is ridiculous. Especially when the letter does not give us
'specific issues' with our signs. Are you asking us to remove them, replace them, modify them? Be
specific! If it is just to remove, if that is the case, the next conversation will representation. We have it
in our leases to our lessee's these signs that have been legal for as long as we have owned the
buildings. This diminishes the value of our property as these signs are an important part of their
marketing. We do not want to remove them. IF we are forced to remove them or be faced with fines,
then we need time to work them out of our lease agreements. Mine a usually 2-3 year in length
depending on the unit. If I just go and take down the sign, I will be open to my tenants taking action on
the lessor.
I would be glad to meet you at our building so you can specifically point our to me what is not to
code. If it is something simple, I can address with my lessee's and we can address. if it is about removal
of the signs, we have a much larger issue that may take time to rectify.
You can't just decide the change the rules in 2010 because you don't like the signs. That is 100% unfair
and unjust without proper notice.
TY, Happy to go over this by phone as well.
TY
Dave
David Voss
C: 949/494-1124
23-110
From: mirala@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 5:32 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: Fwd: Your letter dated March 12th re: SIGNS.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Hello again Mr. David Blumenthal,
received a return phone call back from Miss.Jocelyn, in response to a voice message which I had left
earlier.
She indicated that there are three signs that were non -conforming at 1495 Superior Avenue... all three
are with a translucent face, internally illuminated. She described the locations of the signs, so that I could
tell which ones she was talking about.
She indicated that 10 years ago, the city council passed a resolution, granting upto October 27th 2020,
for removal of the non -conforming signs, and now, before the due date, they wish to seek comment from
businesses and property owners.
Grace And Goodwill Enterprises LLC acquired the property on 1495 Superior Ave on March 30th, 2015
without the knowledge of this matter in regard to signs.
am of the strong opinion that my tenant 7 -Eleven, needs to maintain appropriate and adequate signage
which displays their presence at this location. As you may be aware, 7 -Eleven has been at this property
since approximately 35 years. Further, these signs are standard signs, which are present at all other 7 -
Eleven locations. These signs are not overly big, and neither are they causing any nuisance. Therefore, I
am of the opinion that municipal code either be rescinded in its entirety, or that the location at 1495
Superior Ave be granted exemption from this municipal code.
Respectfully,
23-111
Sunil Lalwani
Grace And Goodwill Enterprises LLC
1349 South Broadway
Los Angeles CA 90015
tel 213 746 4853
-----Original Message -----
From: mirala <mirala@aol.com>
To: dblumenthal <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Tue, Mar 17, 2020 4:46 pm
Subject: Your letter dated March 12th re: SIGNS.
Hello Mr. David Blumenthal
received your letter dated March 12th ( copy attached ).
This is the first letter that I have received regarding the subject of signs.
Please, would you let me know which exact sign is the non -conforming sign at 1495 Superior Ave, and
what exactly makes it non -conforming ?
Based on your reply, i can then take this up with the appropriate tenant, who will then respond to your
request for public comment.
Thank You
Sunil Lalwani
23-112
Grace And Goodwill Enterprises LLC
1349 South Broadway
Los Angeles CA 90015
Tel 213 746 4853 ( 9:30 am to 6;30 pm M -F)
23-113
From: Shelly@hilbertproperties. net
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 1:57 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: 4667 MacArthur Blvd. Monument sign
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Mr. Blumenthal, I received your letter regarding our building signage. Although it was
not specifically mentioned, I am assuming that you were referencing the monument sign on
the street. We would like the sign to remain if at all possible. On most days the speed of
traffic is such that motorists pass our building before they can see the address. The sign for
Pacific Premier Bank is the most identifying aspect of the property. We don't necessarily
need the sign to be illuminated, however. The Bank closes at 5 pm. Please keep us informed
if the Code is amended or extended. Thanks!
Shelly Johnson
Hilbert Property Management
1300 Bristol Street North
Suite 190
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 476-0104
23-114
From: peteduca@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 9:41 AM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: non conforming sign at 3840 east coast hwy.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Mr. David Blumenthal
Thanks for your reply. We would like to keep the existing sign without a deadline. This sign has been
existing since 1979. We have provided on site parking and have conformed to all city requirements at that
time. We have been a good neighbor with all the local residents for many years.
was on the residents board of directors with Phil Sansone the mayor at that time and the main concerns
were parking which has evolved into a major problem in Corona del Mar.
The city has issued permits to businesses which do not have any parking or less then code requirements,
have doubled the density in Corona del Mar in the village without considering the impact on parking.
It is evident that the garages are being used for storage instead of parking cars.
They were blaming the commercial district for the parking but I would recommend taking a drive at 6 am
in the morning on the streets in Corona Del Mar when the commercial area is not open and you will see
all streets in the residential area without any parking available due to cars not parked in the garages.
am sorry for getting away from the sign subject but that is not the problem that I can see for the city and
the timing is very bad. Most of the businesses will be struggling financially in the very near future if they
are not already in that situation due to the impact of the virus situation. Hope I didn't bother you but I have
been in business for 47 years in Corona del Mar and have seen many good and bad times..
23-115
From: Pete <dmieng@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 4:21 AM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: Re: nonconforming sign at 3840 east coast hwy. Corona del mar
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
David
Thanks for responding
We want to keep the sign as it is since 1980
Believe me we are going thru some financial times right now due to this virus especially
restaurants
Thanks
Pete Duca
Sent from my 1Phone
On Mar 16, 2020, at 2:09 PM, Blumenthal, David(Contractor)
<dblumenthalknewportbeachca.gov> wrote:
Pete,
Yes, it appears the sushi restaurant's wall sign is nonconforming because it is internally
illuminated, but does not have an opaque background. Per Newport Beach Municipal
Code (NBMC) 20.42.060(H)(2), "Signs may be internally or externally illuminated.
Internal illumination is permitted only if the sign background is opaque and the only
portion of the sign that appears as illuminated is the actual lettering and/or a registered
trademark or logo." The code currently requires that nonconforming signs, such as the
wall sign for the sushi restaurant, be brought into compliance no later than 10/27/2020.
The proposal is to extend the removal deadline and allow a longer time for these signs
to be removed or changed.
When you say "We would like to have everything remain as is," I'm I correct in assuming
you are not proposing the existing deadline shall remain, but rather you want to keep
the sign without a deadline?
rrt�'� DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP
Community Development Department
r Planning Consultant
`g ra £ dblumenthalknewportbeachea.gov
"t o) 949949-644-3204
F Please consider the environment before printing this email
23-116
From: dmieng@aol.com <dmieng@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 8:49 AM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: nonconforming sign at 3840 east coast hwy. corona del mar
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mr. Blumenthal
Received your letter concerning a non -conforming sign at 3840 East Coast Hwy in
Corona Del mar of which I am the property owner since 1979.
My question is what sign are you referring to since the signs have been in place since
1979 on our conditional use permit.
We would like to have everything remain as is.
Very truly yours,
Pete J. Duca P.E.
23-117
From:
MMY <mmymanagement@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Monday, March 16, 2020 5:27 PM
To:
Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Cc:
mmymanagement@yahoo.com
Subject:
3305 Newport signage
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
hi David .
thanks for the call back about the signage
the signage post has been there since the building was there
the tenants rely on that signage since the location is challenging and many cars just pass by since it's
hard to locate
since the city took away the street parking in front of the stores when the redevelopment of the lido
house hotel and areas surrounding, it has been hard for the businesses
we kindly ask that the city consider grandfathering the sign if possible and allow it
thanks for your consideration
grace Pak
Sent from my Whone
On Mar 16, 2020, at 1:49 PM, Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
<dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> wrote:
Grace,
Below is my contact information.
<image002 Jpg>
DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP
Community Development Department
Planning Consultant
dblumenthalna,newvortbeachca. gov
949-644-3204
<image003.gif>
23-118
From: Dave Voss <dvoss@lrisCPG.com>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 3:01 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: No -Conforming Signs
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
My family has owned that property at 3641/3643/3645 East Coast Highway, CDM for over 40 years. We
have always had these roof signs grandfathered in to the code. In these forty years, we have NEVER had
an issue with the city. I learned today from the 'other' David at the NB number on your letter that in
2010 the code changed and we had 10 years to comply? Where is that original letter, need to see it.
To get a letter saying we are now not to code is ridiculous. Especially when the letter does not give us
'specific issues' with our signs. Are you asking us to remove them, replace them, modify them? Be
specific! If it is just to remove, if that is the case, the next conversation will representation. We have it
in our leases to our lessee's these signs that have been legal for as long as we have owned the
buildings. This diminishes the value of our property as these signs are an important part of their
marketing. We do not want to remove them. IF we are forced to remove them or be faced with fines,
then we need time to work them out of our lease agreements. Mine a usually 2-3 year in length
depending on the unit. If I just go and take down the sign, I will be open to my tenants taking action on
the lessor.
I would be glad to meet you at our building so you can specifically point our to me what is not to
code. If it is something simple, I can address with my lessee's and we can address. if it is about removal
of the signs, we have a much larger issue that may take time to rectify.
You can't just decide the change the rules in 2010 because you don't like the signs. That is 100% unfair
and unjust without proper notice.
TY, Happy to go over this by phone as well.
TY
Dave
David Voss
C:949/494-1124
23-119
From: Steven Hsu <countryhsu@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 2:48 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Cc: Steve Hsu
Subject: Nonconforming sign
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Hi David,
Received your letter about non conforming sign at 512 W Balboa Blvd Newport Beach today. Tried to
call you early this morning , however, you were not there. And talked to David Lee that he said will
check that if they can help them at this unique situation.
We have two business owners doing business downstairs. Could you tell us which one store is not
conforming sign ? As we understand, one store sign already installed more than 10 years. Another one
store replaced old sign with the similar size few months ago due to the old sign was in fading.
Due to the Coronavirus breakout,
There are no business in these store and could not support their finance and facing the shut down
business situation now.
While the Federal and local government tried to pass new law to aid and save the small business owners
to survive their business , your department send out this notice at this time , that will really hurt them
completely.
Hopefully, you can understand this current situation.
Steve 909-615-7000
Sent from my iPhone
23-120
From: Abdul Mozayeni <amozayeni@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 2:27 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: 2865 E PCH CDM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Good afternoon David
We have received your letter of March 12,2020 regarding the signs.
Please note we have not added any new sign for the last 10 or 15 years .
The temperature sign has been there for a long time and that is part of the building and allows
the public to recognize the building and the Bank.
Please reconsider and allow us to keep them there .
Best Regards
Abdul Mozayeni
Abdul Mozayeni
Abco Realty & Investments, Inc.
450 Newport Center Dr., Ste. 490
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 833-8917 ext. 106
(949) 833-8927 fax
(949) 466-7424 cell
23-121
From: Bill Cote <estates@fea. net>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 10:58 AM
To: Blumenthal, David(Contractor)
Subject: 3748 E Coast Hlghway sign
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Mr Blumenthal and City of Newport Beach management;
I am the sole owner of the building note in your letter to me of March 12, 2020.
I am nearly 78 years old and a recent widower. The only income I receive is that
from a lease I have with the current tenant in the above noted building.
If I am required to remove the existing sign on the building, the tenant, pursuant
to the existing lease, has the right to void the lease and vacate the premises.
In that event, I will have no income from the building which would put me in a
devastating financial bind.
Please know that an extension of the sign removal deadline is imperative for me
to be able to continue to pay my bills.
Thank you for the opportunity of submitting this e-mail for your consideration.
Respectfully,
William F. Cote
23-122
From: Keith Dawson <kdawson@dawsondawson.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 10:59 AM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: Non -Conforming Sign at 3701 E Coast Highway, Corona Del Mar
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
David, I represent William Edwards, Trustee of the William H. and Joyce M. Edwards Revocable Trust,
the ground lessee of the property located at 3701 E. Coast Highway in Corona Del Mar. Your letter dated
March 12, 2020 to the property owner/ground lessor, Farmers & Merchants Trust Company, was just
brought to my attention. Given the late date, it would appear that the property owner did not submit
comments concerning the City's sign ordinance prior to the specified deadline. Although tardy, please
consider this email in response to your March 12th letter.
Six separate small businesses occupy the property at the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Poinsettia.
Three have business addresses on Coast Highway and three have addresses on Poinsettia. The six
businesses include a cycling studio, a tanning salon, a nail salon, a chiropractor, a cigar/smoke shop and
a hair salon. A business known as Happy Nails, the nail salon, is located at 3701 E. Coast Highway and is
the subject of your letter.
Happy Nails occupies the premises based on a 5 -year lease which expires on June 30, 2022. June 30,
2022 is also that date that the ground lease expires. Although Happy Nails is responsible for its own
signage and is ultimately responsible for complying with the City's sign ordinance, it is my client, the
ground lessee, who will compel Happy Nails to comply with the City's new ordinance. However, recent
events surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic have put all six businesses completely out of business,
including Happy Nails. Although social distancing guidelines will hopefully be relaxed at some point in
the foreseeable future, it could be months before patrons feel comfortable patronizing a nail salon.
Given the circumstances and the difficult economic times for businesses like Happy Nails, I respectfully
request an extension of the October 27, 2020 deadline for compliance with the City's sign ordinance to
June 30, 2022, a period of twenty months. As previously indicated, June 30, 2022 is the date that Happy
Nails' lease expires. It is also that date that the ground lease expires. Once ground lease expires, the
property will likely be renovated which means that Happy Nails' sign will be removed. However, should
Happy Nails enter into a new lease with the property owner, a conforming sign will be a condition of the
lease.
Due to Covid-19, Happy Nails has been unable to pay its rent. To burden Happy Nails now with the cost
of a conforming sign could easily put them out of business. Although the non -confirming sign would be
removed, Corona Del Mar would lose another of its small businesses.
Given the fact that Happy Nails' non -conforming sign will almost certainly come down at the expiration
of its lease in June 2022 (or be brought into compliance if Happy Nails enters into a new lease with the
property owner), kindly give this request for an extension of the City's sign ordinance your serious
consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.
KEITH DAWSON
23-123
949-720-9414
FAX 949-759-9144
THIS E-MAIL TRANSMISSION AND ANY ATTACHMENTS ARE FOR THE CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE
RECIPIENT AND CONSTITUTE PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR ATTORNEY
WORK PRODUCT.
ANY UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
23-124
From: Lee, Amanda
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 4:53 PM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Cc: Rodriguez, Clarivel
Subject: FW: non -conforming signs : 1495 Superior Avenue. Newport Beach CA
From: mirala@aol.com <mirala@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 4:51 PM
To: Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Kimberly.Parenzan@7-11.com
Subject: non -conforming signs : 1495 Superior Avenue. Newport Beach CA
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Respected Madam(s) / Sir(s) ,
have received, via email, the attached notice.
wish to submit my comments for your kind review and consideration
Grace And Goodwill Enterprises LLC acquired the property at 1495 Superior Avenue on March 30th
2015, without the knowledge of this long -pending matter in regard to signs.
am of the strong opinion that my tenant, 7 -Eleven, needs to maintain appropriate and adequate signage
which displays their presence at this location. As you may be aware, 7 -Eleven has been at this property
since approximately 35 years. The signs at this location are standard 7 -Eleven signs, which are present
at all 7 -Eleven locations. These signs are not overly big, and neither are they causing any nuisance.
Therefore, I am requesting that this municipal code be rescinded in its entirety, or that the location at
1495 Superior Ave be granted a permanent exemption from this municipal code.
Respectfully
Sunil Lalwani
Grace And Goodwill Enterprises LLC
1349 South Broadway
Los Angeles CA 90015
tel 213 746 4853
23-125
April 1, 2020
SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY TO DBLUMENTHAL@NEWPORTBEACHCA.GOV
City of Newport Beach — Community Development Department
Attn: David Blumenthal
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: MUFG Union Bank, N.A.'s request for proposed extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs at
1501 Westcliff Dr. ( "Union Bank Westcliff") and 396 Superior Ave ("Union Bank Superior")
Dear Mr. Blumenthal:
MUFG Union Bank, N.A. ("Union Bank") received letters from the City of Newport Beach (the "City") dated as of
March 12, 2020 notifying us that our signage at the above -referenced locations have been identified as
nonconforming and subject to removal. It is also our understanding that the City is seeking comment from impacted
businesses on a proposed Code Amendment to grant additional time to remove nonconforming signs. We hereby
submit the following comments to the City for consideration:
Union Bank Westcliff
The building top signage at this location is essential for visibility of the branch to existing clients and the community at
large. Union Bank is a national bank that requires the same visibility afforded to other national banks. Due to the
architecture and design of the building, signage visibility from the street and adjacent area are only available from the
upper portion of the building. Due to this unusual sightline, it is imperative for this sign to remain in order to maintain
visibility.
Union Bank Superior
The pole sign at this location is essential as we have very limited signage due to the architecture of the building itself.
We feel that this sign helps not only our customers know where we are located, but the community at large as we are
a national bank with ties to the community for over many years. The intersection of Superior and Placentia Ave have
virtually no other signage visibility but for this pole sign.
In addition, these aforementioned signs were approved and permitted by the City. Should the City require the signs to
be removed, we would request that such removal be at the sole cost and expense of the City. Our signage is critical
to our business. We respectfully request that the City amend the code to provide businesses like our selves an
extension to remove the signage.
Should you need any further information or wish to discuss this further, please contact me at
Olivia.Fu@unionbank.com.
Sincerely,
MUFG Union Bank, N.A.
6 via 7u
Olivia Fu
Vice President
Corporate Real Estate, Project Management
23-126
� I /
loop
Bright Horizons.
Re: Bright Horizons Property on 2500 West Coast Hwy Newport Beach, CA 92663
Mr. Blumenthal
I am glad to learn that on May 7, 2020, the commission will be considering a multi-year extension to the
deadline for sign removal. As you can imagine, we have deferred all spend in our organization due to
COVID-19.
Once we get beyond this crisis, we can budget accordingly for the removal of the existing sign and
appropriate replacement signage. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Jeff Castro
Regional Property Manager
Bright Horizons
303 253 2196
Jeff.Castro@brighthorizons.com
200 TALCOTT AVENUE, WATERTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS 02472 1 P 617.673.8000 F 617.673.8001
AMSTERDAM I BENGALURU 1 BOSTON I DENVER 1 LONDON 1 NEW YORK
www.brighthorizons.com
23-127
From: Terisa Britt <terisa.britt@pazingredients.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 10:09 AM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Cc: Mark M. Paz
Subject: RE: Roof Top Signiture
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Planning Commissioners:
Paz Ingredients, Inc. has been in business in Corona del Mar for three decades. We wanted to
voice our concerns regarding removing the roof signs in Corona del Mar. We strongly object to
the removal. We obtain a significant amount of interest and walk-in clients from this signage. It
is critical for our survival and prosperity. We hope that you will extend the use of the signs. With
the current crises it is more important than ever!
Please let me know if you have any questions. Be well and stay safe!
Thank you,
Terisa Britt
Paz Ingredients, Inc.
AZ
INGREDIENTS
3800 E. Coast Highway, Suite#1
Corona del Mar, CA. 92625
(949) 220.9117 Ph.
(949) 220.9146 Fax
www.i)azingredients.com
23-128
April 1, 2020
To: City of Newport Beach — Community Development Department
David Blumenthal
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs
Mr. Blumenthal:
On behalf of MUFG Union Bank, our businesses located at 1501 Westcliff Dr (Westcliff) and at 396
Superior Ave (Superior) have been identified with a nonconforming sign that is subject to the October
27, 2020 removal deadline.
Union Bank Westcliff
The building top signage at this location is essential for visibility of the branch to existing clients and
the community at large. Union Bank is a regional Bank that needsvisibility afforded to other national
banks. Due to the architecture and design of the building, signage visibility from the street and
adjacent area are only available from the upper portion of the building. Due to this unusual sightline, it
is imperative forthis sign to remain in orderto maintain visibility.
Union Bank Superior
The Pole Sign at our Superior location is essential as we have very limited signage at this location due
to the architecture of the building itself. We feelthat this sign helps not only our customers know
where we are located, but the community at large as we are a regional bank with ties to the
community for over many years. The intersection of Superior and Placentia Ave have virtually no other
signage visibility but for this pole sign.
Please grant additional time to remove nonconforming signs. In addition, these signs were legally
approved and permitted. If the signs need to come down, who should pay for this.
Thanks very much for considering our requestto extend this deadline and answering our question.
Sincerely,
�euc,Gt �a
Alvin Ta
Supporting Corporate Real Estate at MUFG Union Bank, N.A.
Alvin.Ta(@unionbank.com
23-129
From: Valerie Kerr <bradfordaccounting@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 9:47 AM
To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor)
Subject: Fwd: Extension of Amortization Period for Non Conforming Signs
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Good Morning David,
I hope you are doing well.
I received your email and update on the non -conforming signs amendment and the public
hearing set for May 7th. Thank you so much! The owner is trying to submit comments as
indicated in the notice, but the email for the planning commission comments keeps
bouncing. Will you please confirm receipt of the below email? Are you able to submit the
below comments to them on his behalf or can you provide me with an email to submit
comments?
Thank you,
Valerie Kerr
c/o, 39 Beach View LK100, LLC
c/o, Pacific Riviera Collection, LLC
Phone (949) 547-9167
Forwarded Message
Subject:Extension of Amortization Period for Non Conforming Signs (Revised)
Date:Tue, 28 Apr 2020 09:36:02 -0700
From:bradford kuish <kuishb(ibyahoo.com>
To: dblumenthalknewportbeachc a. gov
CC:Valerie Kerr<bradfordaccounting(a,gmail.com>
PLEASE FORWARD TO STAFF
23-130
Dear Planning Commission:
As a property owner in the Village of Corona Del Mar, it is my position that the small businesses
and entrepreneurs in our community need every advantage they can to survive in a changing
retail world. The monument signs provide value to the small businesses in Corona Del Mar and
perhaps even hope; an opportunity to garner recognition, identity and even economic sustenance.
It gives each one of them some minor chance to eke out clients in a world dominated by mega -
retailers such as Amazon, Walmart, Walgreens and Home Depot.
Also, it seems THE LAST THING GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DOING IN THIS TIME OF
UNPRECEDENTED ECONOMIC STRESS (COVIDI9) IS REMOVING ANY SOURCE OF
SUSTENANCE OR INCOME. Eliminating the tenant signs will clearly reduce their identity,
visibility and to some degree, their clients. Why make their businesses more difficult, reduce
their patronage, reduce their potential clients and reduce their revenue at a time like this. It
makes no sense. Businesses are already stressed. Does the City of Newport Beach think it
prudent to make it worse???
I do not support removing the monument signs, certainly not in the short run and probably not in
the long.
Let's help the mom and pop entrepreneurs rather than harm them. Keep the signs.
On another note, I would also suggest delaying the hearing until you can have a true public
hearing. Having one by e-mail or write in does not constitute a true public forum or allow the
voice of the people to be heard.
A seminal moment for the revolution and the founding of our country was based on an objection
to taxation without representation.
Well, ruling or making laws or decisions on public matters without the full participation of the
public is similar and certainly lacks full representation. It's well down the slippery slope to be
functioning from the bog or shade.
23-131
Best,
Bradford Kuish
Principal
3800 East Coast Hwy
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
phone 949.723.2050
23-132
Attachment I
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-015
23-133
RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-015
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF ZONING
CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2019-007 TO AMEND
SECTION 20.42.140 (NONCONFORMING SIGNS) OF
TITLE 20 (PLANNING AND ZONING) OF THE NEWPORT
BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE (PA2019-184)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
In October 2005, the City of Newport Beach ("City") comprehensively updated its
sign regulations. Sign standards changed and certain previously allowed signs
were prohibited. Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Sections 20.42.140
(Nonconforming Signs) and 21.30.065 (Signs) require certain signs that do not
conform to the new regulations to be abated within 15 years ("Amortization Period")
from the effective date of the sign code update.
2. The Amortization Period is set to expire on October 27, 2020, at which time all
nonconforming signs must be removed. On October 22, 2019, the City Council of
the City of Newport Beach adopted Resolution 2019-92 initiating an amendment
to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) ("Title 20") related to signs including extending
the Amortization Period ("Zoning Code Amendment").
3. On March 15, 2020, the City proclaimed a local emergency due to the COVID-19
global pandemic. Due to the extreme peril upon personal safety that is based on
the existence or threatened existence of COVID-19 within and/or around the City,
many businesses have been forced to reduce services or temporarily close.
4. A public hearing was held on May 7, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100
Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose
of the public hearing was given in accordance with Government Code Section
54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and NBMC Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings).
Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning
Commission at this public hearing.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
This Zoning Code amendment is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5
(Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because elimination of the
23-134
Amortization Period has no potential to have a significant effect on the
environment.
2. The Class 5 exemption applies to minor changes in land use limitations, provided
the Property has an average slope that does not exceed 20 percent and the changes
does not result in change to the permitted land use or density. The Amortization
Period is considered a limitation on a land use. This Zoning Code amendment will
provide for a minor change by eliminating the Amortization Period. No new signs are
authorized and there is no alteration to the conforming status to any sign.
3. The exceptions to this categorical exemption under Section 15300.2 of the CEQA
Guidelines are not applicable. The elimination of the Amortization Period does not
impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern, does not result
in cumulative impacts, does not have a significant effect on the environment due
to unusual circumstances, does not damage scenic resources within a state scenic
highway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is not identified as a historical
resource.
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
This Zoning Code amendment is consistent with the following Land Use and
Natural Resources policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan ("General
Plan"). This Zoning Code amendment will eliminate an existing Amortization Period
on nonconforming signs. General Plan Policy No. LU 1.5 (Economic Health),
states, "Encourage a local economy that provides adequate commercial, office,
industrial, and marine -oriented opportunities that provide employment and
revenue to support high-quality community services." Due to the COVID-19
pandemic, many businesses in the City are facing an economic hardship as a
result of being required to reduce services or close temporarily. By eliminating the
requirement for nonconforming signs to be removed, the Zoning Code amendment
is consistent with this General Plan policy, as it will reduce the financial burden on
businesses during the COVID-19 crisis and assist in the recovery of the local
economy.
General Plan Policy No. NR21.2 (Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs)
states the policy goal of, "Implement[ing] programs to remove illegal signs and
amortize legal nonconforming signs." Nevertheless, as part of the Vision Statement
of the General Plan, in order to provide a responsive government, "Elected officials
and City staff listen and respond to the interests of residents and the business
community." The overwhelming testimony provided by the business community
during the public hearing has shown that these signs are a critical component to
achieving and maintaining economic vitality. Eliminating the amortization period
will meet the needs of the businesses and community by providing a consistent
means to communicate which businesses are operating at specific sites to the
community. Furthermore, the natural attrition of nonconforming signs will ultimately
achieve the goal of General Plan Policy No. NR21.2.
23-135
However, staff is recommending an amendment to the General Plan in order to
ensure full conformity with the General Plan.
2. The Zoning Code amendment to eliminate the Amortization Period for removal of
nonconforming signs is consistent with Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the
NBMC. The types of signs that are subject to removal (roof signs, pole signs,
internally illuminated signs with translucent faces, and oversized signs) will
continue to be prohibited by the code. All nonconforming signs that are proposed
to be altered will continued to be reviewed to ensure the changes are compliant
with the requirements set forth in Title 20.
3. An amendment to Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the
NBMC is also underway. For properties within the Coastal Zone, this Zoning Code
amendment shall not become valid until approval of the Local Coastal Program
amendment by the California Coastal Commission ("CCC"), including adoption of
an ordinance by the City Council that incorporated any changes required by the
CCC.
4. The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated
into the operative part of this resolution.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. This Zoning Code amendment is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5
(Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to
have a significant effect on the environment.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends the
City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007, thereby deleting
and replacing in its entirety Section 20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs.) of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code to read as follows:
20.42.140 Nonconforming Signs.
A. Removal of Nonconforming Signs. Nonconforming signs shall be removed
if:
1. The nonconforming sign is more than fifty (50) percent destroyed,
and the destruction is other than facial copy replacement. A nonconforming
sign shall be deemed to be more than fifty (50) percent destroyed if the
estimated cost of reconstruction exceeds fifty (50) percent of the replacement
cost as determined by the Building Official;
23-136
2. The nonconforming sign is remodeled, unless the sign is remodeled
to comply with the provisions of this chapter;
3. The nonconforming sign is located on a building that is enlarged or
expanded, if the nonconforming sign is affected by the construction,
enlargement, remodel, or expansion. An enlargement, remodel, or expansion
of the portion of the building upon which the nonconforming sign is located or
that is more than fifty (50) percent of the building area shall be deemed to
affect the nonconforming sign; or
4. The nonconforming sign is temporary.
B. Deactivation of Flashing Features. The owner of a sign that contains
flashing features shall permanently deactivate the flashing features.
C. Continuance of Nonconforming Signs. Except as provided in subsection (A)
of this section, a nonconforming sign may be continued and shall be maintained in
good condition as required by these regulations, but it shall not be:
1. Structurally changed to another nonconforming sign, although its
copy and pictorial content may be changed.
2. Structurally altered to prolong the life of the sign, except to meet
safety requirements.
3. Expanded or altered in any manner that increases the degree of
nonconformity.
D. Repairing and Repainting. Nonconforming signs shall only be painted and
repaired in place and shall not be removed from their existing location, except for
building remodeling, unless removal of the sign for painting or repair is part of the
sign's customary maintenance and repair.
E. Change of Business Ownership. Upon a change of ownership, the new
owner of a nonconforming sign may change the name or names on the sign so
long as there is no change in the structure or configuration of the sign.
23-137
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-015
Paae 5 of 5
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 7th DAY OF MAY 2020.
AYES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Koetting, Lowrey, and Weigand
NOES-
OES:
ABSTAIN-
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT-
ABSENT: Rosene
23-138
Attachment J
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-016
23-139
RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-016
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. LC2019-005 TO
DELETE SECTION 21.30.065(E) OF TITLE 21 (LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN) OF THE
NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE AND AUTHORIZE
STAFF TO SUBMIT THE AMENDMENT TO THE
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION (PA2019-184)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. In October 2005, the City of Newport Beach ("City") comprehensively updated its
sign regulations. Sign standards changed and certain previously allowed signs
were prohibited. Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Sections 20.42.140
(Nonconforming Signs) and 21.30.065 (Signs) require certain signs that do not
conform to the new regulations to be abated within 15 years ("Amortization Period")
from the effective date of the sign code update.
2. The Amortization Period is set to expire on October 27, 2020, at which time all
nonconforming signs must be removed. On October 22, 2019, the City Council of
the City of Newport Beach adopted Resolution 2019-92 initiating an amendment
to Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) ("Title 21") related to
signs including extending the Amortization Period ("LCP Amendment").
3. On March 15, 2020, the City proclaimed a local emergency due to the COVID-19
global pandemic. Due to the extreme peril upon personal safety that is based on
the existence or threatened existence of COVID-19 within and/or around the City,
many businesses have been forced to reduce services or temporarily close.
4. Pursuant to Section 13515 (Public Participation and Agency Coordination
Procedures) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 5.5, Chapter
8, review of the draft LCP Amendment was made available and a Notice of the
Availability was distributed a minimum of six weeks prior to the anticipated final
action date.
5. A public hearing was held on May 7, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100
Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose
of the public hearing was given in accordance with Government Code Section
54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and NBMC Chapter 21.62 (Public Hearings).
23-140
Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning
Commission at this public hearing.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. This LCP Amendment is categorically exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations
in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because elimination of the Amortization Period has
no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.
2. The Class 5 exemption applies to minor changes in land use limitations, provided
the Property has an average slope that does not exceed 20 percent and the changes
does not result in change to the permitted land use or density. The Amortization
Period is considered a limitation on a land use. This LCP Amendment will provide for
a minor change by eliminating the Amortization Period. No new signs are authorized
and there is no alteration to the conforming status to any sign.
3. The exceptions to this categorical exemption under Section 15300.2 of the CEQA
Guidelines are not applicable. The elimination of the Amortization Period does not
impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern, does not result
in cumulative impacts, does not have a significant effect on the environment due
to unusual circumstances, does not damage scenic resources within a state scenic
highway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is not identified as a historical
resource.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS.
1. This LCP Amendment is consistent with the following Land Use and Natural
Resources policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan ("General Plan").
General Plan Policy No. LU 1.5 (Economic Health), states, "Encourage a local
economy that provides adequate commercial, office, industrial, and marine -
oriented opportunities that provide employment and revenue to support high-
quality community services." Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses in
the City are facing an economic hardship as a result of being required to reduce
services or close temporarily. By eliminating the requirement for nonconforming
signs to be removed, the LCP Amendment is consistent with this General Plan
policy, as it will reduce the financial burden on businesses during the COVID-19
crisis and assist in the recovery of the local economy.
General Plan Policy No. NR21.2 (Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs)
states the policy goal of, "Implement[ing] programs to remove illegal signs and
amortize legal nonconforming signs." Nevertheless, as part of the Vision Statement
of the General Plan, in order to provide a responsive government, "Elected officials
and City staff listen and respond to the interests of residents and the business
community." The overwhelming testimony provided by the business community
23-141
during the public hearing has shown that these signs are a critical component to
achieving and maintaining economic vitality. Eliminating the amortization period
will meet the needs of the businesses and community by providing a consistent
means to communicate which businesses are operating at specific sites to the
community. Furthermore, the natural attrition of nonconforming signs will ultimately
achieve the goal of General Plan Policy No. NR21.2.
However, staff is recommending to the City Council amendments to the General
Plan in order to ensure full conformity with the General Plan.
2. The LCP Amendment to eliminate the Amortization Period for removal of
nonconforming signs is consistent with Title 21 (Local Coastal Program
Implementation Plan) of the NBMC. The types of signs that are subject to removal
(roof signs and pole signs) will continue to be prohibited by the NBMC. All
nonconforming signs that are proposed to be altered will continued to be reviewed
to ensure the changes are compliant with the requirements set forth in Title 21.
3. This LCP Amendment shall not become effective until approval by the California
Coastal Commission and adoption, including any modifications suggested by the
California Coastal Commission, by resolution and/or ordinance of the City Council
of the City of Newport Beach.
4. The LCP, including this LCP Amendment, will be carried out fully in conformity with
the California Coastal Act.
5. The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated
into the operative part of this resolution.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
This LCP Amendment is categorically exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations
in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant
effect on the environment.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends the
City Council approve LCP Amendment No.LC2019-005, to delete Section
21.30.065(E) (Signs). of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
23-142
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-016
Page 4 of 4
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 7th DAY OF MAY 2020.
AYES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Koetting, Lowrey, and Weigand
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
23-143