HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200507_PC_Staff ReportCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
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@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(Attachment 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
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2
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:
3
Amortization of Nonconforming Signs
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 3
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.
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
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 20.42.140(A) and 21.30.065(E) of the NBMC. Staff
is recommending a five-year extension to the amortization period. The proposed
amendments are 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 fifteen (15) 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.
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, 2020 October 27, 2025, with the
exception of signs designated as heritage signs.
5
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 Consistency
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
6
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: Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS
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
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE8
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft resolution recommending the City Council approve Zoning
Code Amendment No. CA2019-007
9
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE10
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(A) (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.
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 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.
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 an extension of time
11
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-015
Page 2 of 4
to amortize non-conforming signs 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 extending 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 extension 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.
1. This Zoning Code amendment is consistent with the City of Newport Beach
General Plan (“General Plan”). This Zoning Code amendment will extend an
existing Amortization Period on nonconforming signs. 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.” While there is already a program to remove nonconforming
signs (NBMC Sections 20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs) and 21.30.065 (Signs)),
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. This Zoning 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. This 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.
2. This Zoning Code amendment is consistent with Title 20, as it will not alter any
other development standard or regulation. The proposal will extend an existing
Amortization Period, but does not authorize any new signs. New signs and signs
that are altered will remain to be required to comply with the requirements set forth
in Title 20.
12
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-015
Page 3 of 4
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, to amend Section
20.42.140(A) (Abatement of Nonconforming Signs) 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.
13
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-015
Page 4 of 4
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 7th DAY OF MAY 2020.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:_________________________
Peter Koetting, Chair
BY:_________________________
Lee Lowrey, Secretary
14
Attachment No. 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
15
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE16
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
AMEND 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).
17
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-016
Page 2 of 4
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 an extension of time to amortize non-
conforming signs 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 extending 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 extension 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 City of Newport Beach General Plan
(“General Plan”). This LCP Amendment will extend an existing Amortization Period
on nonconforming signs. 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.” While there is
already a program to remove nonconforming signs (NBMC Sections 20.42.140
(Nonconforming Signs) and 21.30.065 (Signs)), 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. This
LCP 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. This
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.
18
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-016
Page 3 of 4
2. This LCP Amendment is consistent with Title 21 as it will not alter any other
development standard or regulation. The LCP Amendment will extend an existing
Amortization Period but does not authorize any new signs. New signs and signs
that are altered will remain to be required to comply 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:
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 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 amend Section
21.30.065(E) (Signs) 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.
19
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-016
Page 4 of 4
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 7th DAY OF MAY 2020.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:_________________________
Peter Koetting, Chair
BY:_________________________
Lee Lowrey, Secretary
20
Attachment No. PC 3
Correspondence Received
21
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE22
MAR 2 3 2020
048 115 07
CITY Of · Dino Clarizio ' ',, 0'<' 1412 Orlando [~lE=wPoRr e~~-
Arcadia, CA 91006-2107
Subject: Request for comment on proposed extension of
nonconforming signs
Dear Dino Clarizio:
CITY OF NEWP ORT BEACH
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach , California 92660
949 644-3200
newportbeach"c'a~gov/communitydevelopm ent ...
March 12, 2020 .
C(o-1' r0oAe/
,-Nl_ I 11 .,,,u ,.,-<-
3 J '1 LI I
5,t~~v~ · Jf AAJ ·
deadline to remove
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. Si•gns that exceed seventy-five (75) square feet in total sign ar-ea.
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.
• • ~ , \ < , ,: t , '
Communit;y Development Department
~ ~ , I -•
23
David Jalali
P. 0. Box 8412
Newport Beach, CA. 92658
Phone: (949)433-5626
Email: dave@jalali.com
Date: March 14, 2020
David Blumenthal, AICP
Planning Consultant
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive.
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Dear David Blumenthal, AICP:
MAR 2 3 2020
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.
Sinc~ely, // . / J o ~~v:
David Jalali
24
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.
Community Development Department 25
Please submit your written comments prior to April 2, 2020. Comments may be emailed
to dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov 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
26
•.j
NATCAT
Fo und ed in 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 r~.
City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department
Attn: David Blumenthal, AICP
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
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• Adopt ions• Ret i rement Center
No cats ever sold for vivisection
Page 1 o f 2
27
NATCAT
Founded in 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
NatCat strongly supports a code amendment that would grant additional time to remove non-
conforming signs and seeks consideration regarding a Heritage Sign designation.
Sr. Operations Director
National Cat Protection Society
6904 W. Coast Highway
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(949) 650-1232
www.natcat.org
Shelters• Adoptions• Retirement Center
No cats ever sold for vivisection
Page 2 of 2
28
M.AR !! 0 2020
City of Newport Beach -Community Development Department
Attn: David Blumenthal, AICP
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
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 swvey 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,
0
Ali son Ryffel
Club Secretary .
29
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 Departmerit~c;;::~~r~!'
Att: David Blumenthal, AICP uEvELOPMEN·1
100 Civic Center Drive MAR 8 1 2020
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Mr, Blumenthal
CITY O~
Re: Request for comment on propos~0 0RT a,=-~ci
extension of deadline to remove
nonconforming signs
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.
Regards
J ck~
30
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
February 8, 2002
· Mr. Jeff Reuter
Planning Director
(949) 644-3209
NOTICE OF FINAL APPROVAL
Modification Permit No. 2001-113
. c::,.r·· L '<_ __
Please be advised tha.t 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: 30 l O Lafayette Avenue
Description: Appeal of the approval of Modification Permit No. 200 l-113. The applicant requests
relief from one condition of approval.
Should you have any questions, please contact our office.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
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 \Plan Comm \ntcefftpc .doc
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
31
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
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 ·n 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 Ions 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. 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 applicatio
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 var nces on these
lots that are reconfigured from the original subdivision pattern. sically what
you see are two interpretations on what the setback would be · the rear
property. Discussion then followed on the need for independent judg ent and
discretion per lot and not just a strict application of the Zoning Law.
The Planning Commission took a five-minute break.
SUBJECT:
* * *
The Cannery Restaurant
3010 Lafayette Avenue
• Modification Permit No. MD2001-113 (PA2001-204)
INDEX
Item No. 3
PA2001-204
Request to permit the installation of a 52 square foot wall sign over an entry Appeal Upheld
27
32
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 same fa<;ade 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
33
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
34
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 30 th 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
35
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:
Noes:
McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Kranzley Selich
Gifford
***
Beacon Bay Auto Wash, Newport Place
4200 Birch Street
• PA2001-200
Request for a Us ermit (UP2001-035) to reconfigure and improve an existing
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 canop . e proposed project also includes the partial
conversion of an existing landscape bu ·nto additional tandem parking spaces.
Commissioner Kiser asked if there were any conce
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
INDEX
Item No. 4
PA2001-200
Approved
36
I
/
/
'
J
!
37
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 mor e 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
bjdcpa@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.
38
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 (COVID19) 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.
39
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
40
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
jcampbell@newportbeachca.gov
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) ,
I have received, via email, the attached notice.
I 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.
I 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 n uisance.
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
41
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 whi ch is attached, and your request to remove the 30 years old PERMITTED street
sign for my Property at 6000 W. Coas t HWY. Newport Beach, CA. 92663, the building consists of 5
stores, conducting various trades, which significantly depend on the exposure , whic h this sign
provides to financially survive. Removal of this sign will not only cause the existing five business es
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 tha t it will
cause. Not only the survival of the small businesses in the str ip depends on this sign but also it is
very expensive to have this sign removed. During the se 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 creat e 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. P lease 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
42
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
43
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 co mmunication, 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.
44
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 façade 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
45
From: Bencharat Morarit <bencharat@mindprossage.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 eve n 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 mul tiple 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
bencharat@mindprossage.com
(949) 630-5559
46
From: Art <cdmpease@sbcglobal.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
I 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 chan ges 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,
47
Arthur Pease
408 32nd Street
Newport Beach
48
From: Colin Berger <colinberger@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2020 2:41 PM
To: Blumenthal, David(Contractor)
Subject: Extension non confirming sigs
[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
49
From: CLASSOF47 <classof47lounge@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.
50
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 Bea ch 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, indefini tely 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
51
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
52
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 | Project Management
Contractor
Supporting Corporate Real Estate at MUFG Union Bank, N.A.
M +1 626.543.3211
Alvin.Ta@unionbank.com |www.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
53
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.
54
From: Meussner, John <John.Meussner@am.jll.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2020 4:58 PM
To: Blumenthal, David(Contractor)
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 +1 714 454 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@newportbeachca.gov
949-644-3204
From: Meussner, John <John.Meussner@am.jll.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 10:40 AM
To: Blumenthal, David(Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: coxtim1947@gmail.com; Meussner, John <John.Meussner@am.jll.com>
Subject: Request for Extension to Remove Nonconforming Signs.
Importance: High
55
[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 +1 714 454 4034
www.jll.com
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.
56
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,
57
Jamie Duarte
Duarte & Associates
245 Fischer Ave., Ste. A-1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (714) 545-4800
E-mail: jduarte@duarte-law.com
58
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 | email: hollyb@loungegroup.com | web: www.loungegroup.com
59
From: Grace Dove <doveperch@sbcglobal.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 iPhone
60
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,
61
Bob Carson
Eric Carson
Hugh Carson Family, LLC
29 Chapital
San Clemente, CA 92672
Owners of 3050 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar
62
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 +1 714 454 4034
www.jll.com
One of the 2020 World’s Most Ethical Companies®
Jones Lang LaSalle
63
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.
64
From: zu-hsiung hsiao <outpost1@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 cr isis 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 bankrupt cy.
I 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
65
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
66
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
dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov
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
67
2430 W PCH
NEWPORT BEACH
Sent from my iPhone
68
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
69
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,Inc, 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 t he sign originally, but I will need
to do research in the Hospitals archives.
70
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
949-650-9750 W
949-887-1859 Cell
71
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
72
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.
DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP
Community Development Department
Planning Consultant
dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov
949-644-3204
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?
73
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
74
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
75
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 t he city for 42 years regarding the
signs.
Thank you for your consideration.
With Regards,
Joe Vallejo
Cell 949-677-5713
76
-----Forwarded Message-----
>From: Joe Vallejo <vallejogallery@earthlink.net>
>Sent: Mar 20, 2020 5:04 PM
>To: Vallejo Gallery <vallejogallery@earthlink.net>
>Subject: Signage
>
>
>
Sent from my iPhone
77
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.
I 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
78
Phone 949-759-1275
Fax 949-759-1288
Mobile 949-874-1725
Email ALRON7099@AOL.COM
79
From: Kathy Humphries <kjh1rules@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' <kjh1rules@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
Planning Consultant
dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov
949-644-3204
From: Kathy Humphries <kjh1rules@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 <kjh1rules@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
80
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.
I 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 a bsolutely 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
81
From: Kathy Humphries <kjh1rules@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 <kjh1rules@aol.com>
To: dblumenthal <dblumenthal@newportbeach.gov>; propertyanalyst
<propertyanalyst@brighthorizons.com>
Sent: W ed, 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.
I 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,
82
Kathy Humphries
949 887-2232
83
From: davidvoss@cox.net
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 12:21 PM
To: Blumenthal, David(Contractor)
Subject: RE: No-Conforming Signs
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Hi:
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@IrisCPG.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@newportbeachca.gov
84
949-644-3204
From: Dave Voss <dvoss@IrisCPG.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.
Hi:
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@IrisCPG.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
dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov
949-644-3204
85
From: Dave Voss <dvoss@IrisCPG.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
86
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,
I 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.
I 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,
87
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
I 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
88
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)
89
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 o n
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
90
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.
I 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.
I 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..
91
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 iPhone
On Mar 16, 2020, at 2:09 PM, Blumenthal, David(Contractor)
<dblumenthal@newportbeachca.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?
DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP
Community Development Department
Planning Consultant
dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov
949-644-3204
92
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 s ince
1979 on our conditional use permit.
We would like to have everything remain as is.
Very truly yours,
Pete J. Duca P.E.
93
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 iPhone
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
dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov
949-644-3204
<image003.gif>
94
From: Dave Voss <dvoss@IrisCPG.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.
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
95
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
96
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
97
From: Bill Cote <estates@fea.net>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 10:58 AM
To: Blumenthal, David(Contractor)
Subject: 3748 E Coast HIghway 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. Coté
98
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
99
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.
100
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) ,
I have received, via email, the attached notice.
I wish to submit my comments for your kind review and consideration :
Grace And Goodwill Enterprises LLC acquire d the property at 1495 Superior Avenue on March 30th
2015, without the knowledge of this long-pending matter in regard to signs.
I 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
101
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.
Olivia Fu
Olivia Fu
Vice President
Corporate Real Estate, Project Management
102
200 TALCOTT AVENUE, WATERTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS 02472 P 617.673.8000 F 617.673.8001
AMSTERDAM BENGALURU BOSTON DENVER LONDON NEW YORK
www.brighthorizons.com
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
103
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.
3800 E. Coast Highway, Suite#1
Corona del Mar, CA. 92625
(949) 220.9117 Ph.
(949) 220.9146 Fax
www.pazingredients.com
104
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. Blu menthal:
On be half 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
Alvin Ta
Supporting Corporate Real Estate at MUFG Union Bank, N.A.
M +1 626.543.3211
Alvin.Ta@unionbank.com
105
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@yahoo.com>
To: dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov
CC: Valerie Kerr <bradfordaccounting@gmail.com>
PLEASE FORWARD TO STAFF
106
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 (COVID19) 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.
107
Best,
Bradford Kuish
Principal
3800 East Coast Hwy
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
phone 949.723.2050
108
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
April 30, 2020
City of Newport Beach
Planning Division, 100 Civic Center Dr
P O Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
RE: Project File # PA2019-184 / Activity No. CA2019-007 and LC2019-005
Dear City of Newport Beach,
I am the owner of both 2823 East Coast Hwy and (apparently) one of your "non-conforming"
signs.
I received a note in the mail at my home at 328 Poppy indicating that the city was going to hold
a meeting to discuss the signage issue. I appreciate it if you considered my points in this email
at your meeting.
1. Visability.
a. My building is a single story structure sandwiched
between two taller buildings. Both buildings have
architectural features and outcrops that make my
building all but disappear.
b. The sign we have has been the same size and
shape for nearly 50 years. It makes my building easier to find
(especially for visually impaired, like my sister) and aids in
community awareness of what we do. We also believe that it is
aesthetically and architecturally consistent with a building of our
style.
2. Hardship:
a. It is no secret that the economy is suffering and it is very likely that the current
economic downturn will exist for some time. Forcing us to remove the sign will
have a significant adverse effect on our business and at a time when we are
already struggling just to make payroll and to keep the lights (in our
non-conforming sign ) on.
3. Alternatives:
a. I would encourage the Planning Commission and the City to postpone
enforcement of the newer sign ordinances on existing businesses. Instead,
require conformity from new construction, exterior remodeling or in cases where
the signage is truly excessive (e.g signs exceeding 10% of the building frontage).
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rodecker Properties , Inc
2823 East Coast Hwy
Corona Del Mar , Ca 92625
DRE 2092662 714-932-3016
Los Caballeros Real Estate
17272 Newhope Street #J
Fountain Valley , CA 92708
DRE 1519288
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received After Printing
Amortization of Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
As a courtesy and for your reference, I have attached larger versions of the above photos.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration on this matter.
Sincerely,
Rodecker Properties, Inc
Rodecker Properties , Inc
2823 East Coast Hwy
Corona Del Mar, Ca 92625
DRE 2092662 714-932-3016
Los Caballeros Real Estate
17272 Newhope Street #J
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
DRE 1519288
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received After Printing
Amortization of Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
From:Niall Saunders
To:Planning Commissioners; Blumenthal, David(Contractor)
Cc:"Ned McCune"
Subject:Project File No.: PA2019-184
Date:Friday, May 01, 2020 11:24:07 AM
[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 Mr. Blumenthal and City of Newport Beach Planning Commission,
I write regarding the upcoming May 7, Planning Commission 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 longer.
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 RIBASaunders + Wiant Architects2700 West Coast Highway, Suite 200,Newport Beach, CA. 92663
Tel: (949) 721 0730Fax: (949) 721 0767
www.architectsoc.com
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
From:Phil Berry
To:Planning Commissioners; Dept - City Council
Subject:eliminate the sign removal proposal
Date:Friday, May 01, 2020 11:33:09 AM
Attachments:image001.png
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
All – Not sure where this is coming from or quite frankly, why ? The existing Golden Spoon sign you
are requesting to have removed from my property has been in place for over 30 years.
The last thing you want to do is take away tenants visibility and exposure to the public. Please
reconsider and allow the existing signs that have been in place and approved by the City to stay in
place.
Thank you,
Phil Berry
Phil Berry
License# 00978646
t 949 723 7300
f 949 723 7301
View our properties | Listings Page See what we’re up to | Instagram
2443 East Coast Hwy
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
pberry@commercialwest.com
www.commercialwest.com
commercial west brokerage
A Real Estate Company
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Russ Fluter
2025 W. Balboa Blvd.
Newport Beach 92663
TO: Planning Commissioners April 30, 2020
Via email: dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov
Re: Support for Time Extension relating to “Non-Conforming” Signs
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing this letter to you on another day that our State remains shut down due to a
pandemic crisis. That crisis is having big impacts on our City of Newport Beach.
Based upon what has been sent out by the City staff on this sign removal extension, my
understanding is that staff is proposing a 5-year extension of removal of legal signs that have
long been used by property owners and business owners. Many property owners and business
owners that I have talked to or heard from were blindsided by the non-conforming sign removal
rule.
Now that we are aware of it, we support the City’s call for extension of the sign removal
period. As stakeholders in the City, we think the extension should be for at least l5 years. The
removal of these signs does not make sense during or coming out of a pandemic crisis.
These signs also relate to buildings that were built in the mid-century era and have a mid-
century feel and flavor. Mid-century design elements are resurgently very popular. I have
looked back at the 2005 information when the City rule was considered. Back in 2005, the
mindset of the Planning Commission and City Council was to cause a lot of elimination of mid-
century constructed buildings. There should be no rush to demolish the rest as they are in
demand or in use. There are nearby communities that seek a cookie-cutter look. Especially in
our beach area, we should not.
As I recently reviewed the 2005 hearing packets, the thought back then was that as
businesses change and uses change, the signs would “take care of themselves.” That did not
happen because market demand remains for mid-century buildings with their signage. Some of
that market demand for these properties includes sales of very expensive and exotic vehicles.
Those land uses generate good sales tax revenue for the City.
Let us make it a win-win, please. We are supportive of the deferral of the sign removal
sought by the City; however, the deferral should be at least 15 years. Thanks very much.
Sincerely,
Russ
Russell Fluter
949.466.2037
russfluter@gmail.com
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
From:Craig Batley
To:Planning Commissioners; Campbell, Jim; Jurjis, Seimone
Cc:Steve Rosansky; Will O"Neill; DIANEBDIXON; Diane Dixon; Avery, Brad; Duffield, Duffy; Brenner, Joy; Herdman,
Jeff
Subject:May 7th meeting Request for Extension of Time-Nonconforming Signs
Date:Saturday, May 2, 2020 11:43:39 AM
Attachments:City Notice.pdf
Meeting Notice.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Hello All:
If I read the notice of public hearing for May 7,2020 correctly, I support the 5 year extension of the
pole sign removal , however, as stated below, I urge the commission to lengthen the extension to 15
years, IF a consensus cannot be reached to abandon the idea of eliminating pole signs altogether.
I am asking the planning commission to consider a lengthy extension the time (15 years – year 2035)
or outright abandonment of the 2005 ordinance requiring removal of legal, but nonconforming
signs. Pole signs were a minor element of the sign study and subsequent ordinance dealt with the
pole sign issue by delaying implementation of abandonment of these signs for 15 years. There was
no public outcry then or is there any public demand for pole sign removal now. During the past 15
years the existence of pole signs has continued to be a non-issue.
A consulting firm and a few city staff decided Newport Beach should look more like Irvine, thus
removal of pole signs was determined to be “necessary”. Some of these signs have been in place for
more than 50 years (1501(1505) Balboa Blvd (initially Piles TV) & BW (2883)2901 Newport Blvd).
Burr White Realty’s sign has been in place for 53 years, and the past 20 years since acquiring BW, I
have not received a single sign complaint. Nearly all of these signs are located in older areas of the
city and have become part of the landscape and character of the cityscape. I can’t recall anyone
complaining about any sign (pole) on the peninsula or Mariners Mile. Ask yourself why now? Why
ever remove these otherwise legal non conforming signs. Quite frankly, I can’t think of one sign in
Newport Beach I find offensive. Incidentally, the BW sign may qualify for historic status, something I
intend to investigate.
I have attached a picture of the 53-year-old BW sign located at 2883 (2901) Newport Blvd and a
newly installed (city approved & permitted) Channel Inn sign.
The Channel Inn Sign is huge but is not a pole sign, therefore the city approved its installation. Why
is the Channel Inn sign (it is beautiful) acceptable but a an existing pole sign not? Somehow the
“aesthetics” of a POLE sign does not meet an arbitrary design criterion and therefore is now NOT an
acceptable sign design. Pole signs have been a part of the Newport Beach landscape for decades.
However, in 2005 a city paid consultant decided in concert with city staff most who no longer work
for the city decided pole signs were unbecoming. Why? Ok, I accept that pole signs henceforth, no
longer meet city guidelines, but to retroactively remove all pole signs is wrong.
I submit to you the city should rethink the justification of pole sign removal and drop the forced
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
removal of these signs (most business owners were unaware and certainly the city did not reach out
to the individual owners of these signs for their input when unilaterally invoking the 15 year 2005
amortization plan to eliminate such signs). Additionally, during the pandemic crises why burden
building owners and businesses with the substantial expense of replacing “non-conforming” signs
(with possibly similar signs to the GIGANTIC but beautiful Channel Inn sign)?
Please indefinitely delay the phase out of “Pole” signs or just abandon the idea altogether, since the
decision was NOT based on public outcry to remove these signs and in some cases, historic pole
signs. Most business owners who are now subject to this forced abandonment were not consulted
nor individually invited to comment in 2005 when the city decided to phase out pole signs. Lastly,
during these pandemic times, phoning in to the May 7th meeting to voice an opinion regarding pole
signs is not an ideal format for inclusive public input.
Thank you in advance for delaying the pole sign abandonment.
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
From:Irving M Chase
To:Dept - City Council; Planning Commissioners
Cc:Irving Chase; Connie Fayner; Susan Walters; Russ Flutter
Subject:FW: NEWPORT BEACH SIGN ORDJNANCE TO REMOVE LEGAL, NON-CONFORMING SIGNAGE
Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 9:29:44 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
To City Council Members and Planning Commissioners:
Please see my email to you originally sent on Friday, May 1, 2020, but
undelivered due to incorrect email addresses.
Irving Chase
Irving M. Chase
S & A Management, LLC
129 West Wilson Street, Suite 100
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
(949)722-7400 Voice
(949)722-8855 FAX
irvingmchase@gmail.com
The contents of this message, together with any attachments, contain
confidential information that is legally privileged and is intended solely for the
use of the individual(s) or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the
intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, then any dissemination, distribution, disclosure, copying or use of
any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by
reply email and delete this message, along with any attachments, without
reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you.
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
From: Irving M Chase <irvingmchase@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 3:05 PM
To: citycouncil@newportbeach.ca.gov; planningcommission@newportbeach.ca.gov
Cc: Ryan Chase <ryanlylechase@gmail.com>; Russ Flutter <russfluter@gmail.com>
Subject: NEWPORT BEACH SIGN ORDJNANCE TO REMOVE LEGAL, NON-CONFORMING SIGNAGE
Honorable Newport Beach City Council and Newport Beach Planning
Commission:
We are the owner of a number of commercial properties located in the City.
Members of our family have resided in the City since 1971 and have enjoyed
the City’s amenities since 1919. Yes. Since 1919.
It is our understanding that at the May 7, 2020, City’s Planning Commission
meeting, the Planning Commissioners will review a 2005 sign ordinance that
required the removal of legal, non-conforming signs by no later than October
27, 2020. We would like to add our objection to those who have asked for this
ordinance to be repealed or, in the alterative, to have the October 27, 2020,
deadline for sign removal extended long into the future.
Generally, for a number of years, retail tenants have been suffering trying to
adjust to the changes in retail. Traditional “brick and mortar” retailers have
been particularly harmed by on-line giants like amazon.com, chain store
competitors like CVS Drug Stores and “big box” discounters like Costco. This is
not the time to mandate the removal of signage that is so critical in helping the
customer find the store or business he or she is hoping to locate. And, even
more troublesome for the independent “mom and pop” retailer or small
business operators is the financial burden they will suffer having to pay for the
removal of the legal, non-conforming sign and the manufacturer and
installation of a new sign to replace the sign that is removed (Most commercial
leases put the financial burden of signage on the tenant).
As I am sure you know, many retail tenants and small business owners are
struggling to remain in business due to the burdens placed upon on them by
the changing retail environment as set-out above but are also facing all the
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
emotional, financial and operational challenges of running a business in this
corona virus world. Now, is not the time to do anything that work make the
operation of a small business more costly and difficult! Thank you.
Irving M. Chase
S & A Management, LLC
129 West Wilson Street, Suite 100
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
(949)722-7400 Voice
(949)722-8855 FAX
irvingmchase@gmail.com
The contents of this message, together with any attachments, contain
confidential information that is legally privileged and is intended solely for the
use of the individual(s) or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the
intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, then any dissemination, distribution, disclosure, copying or use of
any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by
reply email and delete this message, along with any attachments, without
reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you.
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
From:dave
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Sign 6000 w. Coast HWY. Newport Beach
Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 10:41:05 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Hi.
The subject street sign was permitted & built over 25 years ago and is essential to the
survival of the operating businesses.
Removal of this sign will cause financial hardship to these businesses, in terms of
cost & future income.
Please grandfather this monumental sign.
Thank you.
David Jalali;P.E.
owner-manager
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
From:Abdul Mozayeni
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:sign extension
Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 11:14:00 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Planning commission,
The signs on our building in 2865 East PCH CDM has been there for over 10 years . No
body has ever complained about the signs . The signs actually helps the community to find the
DRUG store and the BANK faster .
We appreciate if you allow the signs on the building stay the same .
Thanks
Abdul Mozayeni
Building owner
--
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
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
From:Sonia Frey
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Visages signage
Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 11:27:57 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
To whom it may concern,
with covid 19 worries and it’s effects that will follow with everyone’s businesses I
think removing or changing the signages on our Mariners Mile building is a bad idea.
The sign facing coast hwy. gives my business and many other tenants the only
visible exposure to the public it looks clean and tidy and has been there for decades.
Newport Beach has a lot of personality which makes it charming , not like planned
and boring Irvine!
Thank you,
Visages By Sonia
2700 west coast hwy#270
Newport Beach, Ca. 92663
Sent from my iPad
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
From:Keith Karlsen
To:Planning Commissioners
Cc:Keith Karlsen
Subject:Newport Beach Non-conforming signage
Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 11:30:33 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Hello,
I would like to request that the planning commission of Newport Beach reconsider and remove
the restriction for non-conforming signage specifically the marque sign on 2700 W. Coast
Hwy.
We are a number of small business owners within the Mariner’s mile and have had the signage
on the building for many years for much needed visibility from those traveling on PCH. The
marque sign is tasteful and supports a number of our businesses and shows a certain vitality
for businesses in the area.
We have all be through a lot with this pandemic and now more than ever the small businesses
in the Newport Beach community need the support of local government when things start to
open back up, what we do not need are further restrictions on businesses in order for the local
economy to get going again.
Thanks for your consideration!
Respectfully yours,
Keith
Keith Karlsen
Owner and Managing Director | 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.visitingangels.com/nb
CA License: #304700183
Please Leave Us a Review! |
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 e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying,
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
From:beaconservice@aol.com
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:NON CONFORMING SIGNS
Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 12:11:35 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Planning Commissioners,
We would hope that you understand the importance of signage for a Hospital that has
been in place for 26 years. It is important for ambulance and families to find us at
night, and our entrance is partly blocked by the overgrowth of bushes and trees
already at the Nature Center next door to us. We would appreciate it if our sign could
stay, or at least extend this ordinance to 2025.
Thank you,
Phyllis Parkhurst, Sr. Vice President
Newport Bay Hospital
1501 E. 16th Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
From:Craig Batley
To:Planning Commissioners; Jurjis, Seimone; Will O"Neill
Cc:Steve Rosansky
Subject:Planning Commission May 7 Public Meeting
Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 12:18:12 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Hello All:
I am asking for a complete list of the business signs that the city identified 15 years ago deemed
“unsightly” or non-conforming . I have attached a few of the single pole signs apparently on the
chopping block (a few signs have been modified with rectangular tin “boxes”). Please send me the
complete list.
Again, why are these signs being singled out?
I am in favor of extending the amortization period for nonconforming signs AT LEAST to October 27,
2025. However, I am advocating the commission extend the deadline for the removal to October 27,
2035 (15 more years) at a minimum BUT would argue the removal of pole signs & all other such
signs identified as amortizable should be scraped, with drawn, abandoned.
Especially, since business owners are occupied with the Coronavirus Pandemic and public input is at
best extremely impacted by the ban of in person commentary. The expense imposed on businesses
to remove these signs is substantial.
Additionally, I would argue, 15 years ago individual business owners were not asked ( I was not
asked) to weigh in on the pros and cons of such a sweeping elimination of certain categories of
business signs. Therefore, IF all business & building owners were asked today whether they agree
their signs should be removed, I would venture to say they would overwhelmingly say NO, “my sign
should not be removed.”
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
From:Blumenthal, David(Contractor)
To:Rodriguez, Clarivel; Lee, Amanda
Subject:FW: Non-Conforming Signs - Staff Report
Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 3:47:15 PM
From: MMY <mmymanagement@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2020 2:43 PM
To: Blumenthal, David(Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Re: Non-Conforming Signs - Staff Report
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
we still would like that they allow the signs as it is hard enough as is to run a business on the
peninsula so it helps to keep it and the business rely on this
thanks for your help
Sent from my iPhone
On May 4, 2020, at 10:31 AM, Blumenthal, David(Contractor)
<dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> wrote:
Good Morning.
As a reminder the Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider the
extension of the nonconforming sign amortization period on Thursday, May 7, 2020 at
6:30 p.m. The agenda and staff report are now available for view at the following links:
Agenda: https://newportbeach.legistar.com/View.ashx?
M=A&ID=783434&GUID=B3AEFE0D-C125-4729-897F-8575FD636969
Staff Report: http://newportbeach.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=bf59b76f-
71b0-4fdc-ae88-3b7f6d4060f1.pdf
Please be advised, if you submitted comments after the staff report was printed, your
comments will be still be distributed to the Planning Commission as supplemental
information. If you have any questions on the staff report, please do not hesitate to
email me.
SPECIAL NOTICE REGARDING COVID-19
On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency in California as
a result of the threat of COVID-19. On March 12, 2020, Governor Newsom issued
Executive Order N-25-20, which allows Planning Commissioners to attend City meetings
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
telephonically. Please be advised that to minimize the spread of COVID-19, some, or all,
of the Newport Beach City Planning Commissioners may attend this meeting
telephonically.
Also, please be advised that on March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive
Order N-29-20, which allows for the public to participate in any meeting of the City
Council telephonically or by other electronic means. Given the health risks associated
with COVID-19, the City of Newport Beach has decided to not have City Council
Chambers open to the public for this meeting. As a member of the public, if you would
like to participate in this meeting, you can participate via the following options:
1. You can submit your questions and comments in writing for Planning
Commission consideration by sending them to the Planning Commissioners at
planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov. To give the Planning
Commission adequate time to review your questions and comments, please
submit your written comments by Wednesday, May 6, 2020, at 5:00 p.m.
2. In addition, members of the public can participate in this meeting
telephonically. Specifically, the meeting will be viewable on NBTV and live
streamed on the City’s website. If you are watching the meeting on NBTV or via
the live stream, during the meeting, phone numbers for the public to call and
to comment on specific agenda items will be posted on the screen. When you
call, you will be placed on hold until it is your turn to speak. Please note that
only twenty (20) people can remain on hold at a time. If you call in to speak on
an item and the line is busy, please call back after a few moments. The City will
ensure that it allows enough time per item for everyone to call in to comment.
Please know that it is important for the City to allow public participation at this
meeting. If you are unable to participate in the meeting via the process set forth above,
please contact the Community Development Department at (949-644-3200 or
CDD@newportbeachca.gov) and we will attempt to accommodate you.
<image004.jpg>
DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP
Community Development Department
Planning Consultant
dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov
949-644-3204
<image003.gif>
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
From:Kathy Humphries
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Fwd: Sign Removal 2500 W. Coast Hwy, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 4:05:19 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy Humphries <kjh1rules@aol.com>
To: planningcommissioners@newportbeach.ca.gov citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov
<planningcommissioners@newportbeach.ca.govcitycouncil>
Sent: Sat, May 2, 2020 3:29 pm
Subject: Sign Removal 2500 W. Coast Hwy, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Commissioners & City Council of Newport Beach, CA
My sister's and I are the proud owners of Bright Horizon's preschool at 2500 W. Coast Hwy, Newport
Beach, CA 92663. Our tenant's put over a million dollars to upgrade and open this wonderful school.
They have a beautiful brand new sign that is perfect in every way and was approved by the city.
I think it is absolutely wrong to ask any of the business's to remove their own unique signs. Our area is
not Irvine and most people enjoy the uniqueness of our very special beach area.
In light of the current business situation due to the COVID pandemic, most of the business's have been
closed and getting no income. This is the worst possible thing you could do to these small owners.
I hope you will consider revisiting this sign removal in the far off future if at all.
Thank you,
Kathy Humphries
Robin Humphries
Julie Kalyvas
949 887-2232
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3b Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
From:ALRON7099@aol.com
To:Dept - City Council; Planning Commissioners
Cc:Dixon, Diane; Avery, Brad; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin; Herdman, Jeff; Brenner, Joy; O"Neill, William;
jordan@arestaurantnb.com; garen@korkerliquor.com
Subject:notice
Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 5:50:16 PM
Attachments:image001.png
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Council and Commissioners:
We have owned the property at 2229 East Coast Highway; Corona Del Mar since 1979
We have owned the property at 2325 East Coast Highway; Corona Del Mar since 1999
We never received any notification of an action by the city to put a removal date in our signage, nor were
we given the opportunity to address this issue, until now.
The pole signage for CdM restaurant has been in place since the mid-1940's
The exact same signage for Korker was put in place in the 1950's, and we can personally swear to, has
remained unchanged since 1979, to this day.
Please repeal this regressive action for our signage, or at the very least make the path to being a heritage
(grandfathered sign) easy.
Please do not make us like Laguna, with small, unreadable wooden signs that do not help promote
"shopping or dining" locally.
Laguna has driven its down town businesses and vibrancy away, do not let that happen to Corona Del
Mar.
Please HELP our tenants keep their business and survive this economic devastation. Tenants need
visibility for people to see them, and become customers.
Please help us.
Thank you for your consideration,
Ron & Allyson Presta
-----Original Message-----
From: Blumenthal, David(Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov>
To: 'ALRON7099@aol.com' <alron7099@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 27, 2020 11:13 am
Subject: RE: notice
Allyson,
Yes, this proposed amendment would pertain to the roof sign. Heritage Signs are controlled
though Municipal Code Section 20.42.180, however, the sign would need to meet both of
the following standards:
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3c Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
1. Historically Significant. A sign is historically significant if the sign was erected or
created at least thirty-five (35) years ago and is either representative of a significant
sign-making technique or style of a historic era or represents entities or
establishments that are an important part of Newport Beach history.
2. Visually Significant. The sign is visually significant in at least two of the following
regards:
a. The sign possesses a uniqueness and charm because it has aged
gracefully;
b. The sign remains a classic example of craftsmanship or style of the period
when it was constructed and uses materials in an exemplary way;
c. The sign complements its architectural surroundings or is particularly well
integrated into the structure; or
d. The sign is an inventive representation of the use, name, or logo of the
building or business.
DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP
Community Development Department
Planning Consultant
dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov
949-644-3204
From: ALRON7099@aol.com <alron7099@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 3:53 PM
To: Blumenthal, David(Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: notice
[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 at 2229 East Coast Highway and 2325 East Coast Highway in Corona Del Mar.
does this extension pertain to my property, or aren't we grandfathered in as heritage?
thank you
allyson presta
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3c Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
From:Korker Y
To:Planning Commissioners; Blumenthal, David(Contractor)
Cc:ALRON7099@aol.com
Subject:Korker Liquor Heritage Sign
Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 7:28:46 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
To Whom It May Concern,
I would like to bring up an issue regarding Municipal Code Section 20.42.180, and
20.42.140.A.
My family have been the business owners of Korker Liquor since 2004.
We are vehemently opposed to the removal of the roof sign. It has been erected and
unchanged for over 50 years. Removal of the sign will hinder visibility. We have been
repeatedly told by new customers that the distinctive sign was what first drew their attention
that led them inside. It is part of the building's craftsmanship and heritage. It represents the
overall look and feel towards the entire building which it is part of.
Please do not hurt my business in these uncertain economic times.
Thank you for your consideration.
Garen Yegenian
Korker Liquor
2229 East Coast HWY
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3c Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
From:Britta Pulliam
To:Dept - City Council; Planning Commissioners
Subject:May 7, 2020 Meeting / Sign Proposal
Date:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 1:41:06 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Newport Beach City Council and Planning Commission:
I have lived in Newport Beach for over 30 years. I had a restaurant business in Newport Beach for 14 year
(26 total years in Orange County).
I was notified that the City of Newport Beach is considering an amendment to a 2005 ordinance that
requires the removal of legally and historical signs by October 2020.
The mid-century modern designed signs that are scatterer around Newport Beach provides the wonderful
character and uniqueness to our beautiful city. I do not want to live in a planned homogenized city. Plus -
we need to support our local businesses during this difficult time and not require any added expense or
stress to them. This ordinance to remove the signs is a terrible idea and I would like to see it eliminated -
not extended to October 2025!
Please completely eliminate the 2005 ordinance to remove legal non-conforming signs at May 7,2020
meeting.
Thank you!
Britta
Britta Kvinge Pulliam
1315 Santanella Terrace
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
714-501-0970
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3c Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
From:Jordan Otterbein
To:Blumenthal, David(Contractor)
Cc:Dept - City Council; Planning Commissioners; Dixon, Diane; Avery, Brad; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin;
Herdman, Jeff; Brenner, Joy; O"Neill, William; garen@korkerliquor.com
Subject:Non conforming sign notice
Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 9:48:34 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Mr. Blumenthal and NB Council members, I am so appreciative of your consideration
and time regarding this issue. Although I was not the tenant at the time the letter from 10 years
ago was mailed to the landlords regarding bringing signs up to code, I know that you have
heard from my two landlords, one the owner of the building at 2325 E. Coast Hwy (CDM
Restaurant ) and from 3334 W. Coast Hwy ( A Restaurant & A Market ) and their plea to
consider our unique signs as historical, important and locally iconic. I feel extremely grateful
to own and operate the oldest restaurant in town ( the Arches opened in 1926 and we even
have a table named after John Wayne :) ...and Matteo’s since the 40’s is also about as local as
you can be, so again, I appreciate the opportunity to work with you on an amenable solution to
not only our two signs but all the great, old school signs in town that render us unique. As the
immediate past President of the NB Restaurant Association, I just wanted to thank you on
behalf of all the restaurants in our great city, we have partnered on so many terrific projects
and events together, I hope you can understand the importance of these signs to all our
establishments. Thanks so much,
Best to you and your families, Jordan
Jordan Otterbein
Managing Partner
River Jetty Restaurant Group
A Restaurant
CDM Restaurant
Jordan@arestaurantnb.com
Sent from my iPad
On May 4, 2020, at 5:50 PM, ALRON7099@aol.com <alron7099@aol.com>
wrote:
Dear Council and Commissioners:
We have owned the property at 2229 East Coast Highway; Corona Del Mar since 1979
We have owned the property at 2325 East Coast Highway; Corona Del Mar since 1999
We never received any notification of an action by the city to put a removal date in our
signage, nor were we given the opportunity to address this issue, until now.
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3d Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
The pole signage for CdM restaurant has been in place since the mid-1940's
The exact same signage for Korker was put in place in the 1950's, and we can personally
swear to, has remained unchanged since 1979, to this day.
Please repeal this regressive action for our signage, or at the very least make the path to
being a heritage (grandfathered sign) easy.
Please do not make us like Laguna, with small, unreadable wooden signs that do not help
promote "shopping or dining" locally.
Laguna has driven its down town businesses and vibrancy away, do not let that happen to
Corona Del Mar.
Please HELP our tenants keep their business and survive this economic devastation.
Tenants need visibility for people to see them, and become customers.
Please help us.
Thank you for your consideration,
Ron & Allyson Presta
-----Original Message-----
From: Blumenthal, David(Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov>
To: 'ALRON7099@aol.com' <alron7099@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 27, 2020 11:13 am
Subject: RE: notice
Allyson,
Yes, this proposed amendment would pertain to the roof sign. Heritage Signs
are controlled though Municipal Code Section 20.42.180, however, the sign
would need to meet both of the following standards:
1. Historically Significant. A sign is historically significant if the sign was
erected or created at least thirty-five (35) years ago and is either
representative of a significant sign-making technique or style of a historic
era or represents entities or establishments that are an important part of
Newport Beach history.
2. Visually Significant. The sign is visually significant in at least two of
the following regards:
a. The sign possesses a uniqueness and charm because it has
aged gracefully;
b. The sign remains a classic example of craftsmanship or style of
the period when it was constructed and uses materials in an
exemplary way;
c. The sign complements its architectural surroundings or is
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3d Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
particularly well integrated into the structure; or
d. The sign is an inventive representation of the use, name, or logo
of the building or business.
<image004.jpg>
DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP
Community Development Department
Planning Consultant
dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov
949-644-3204
<image003.gif>
From: ALRON7099@aol.com <alron7099@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 3:53 PM
To: Blumenthal, David(Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: notice
[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 at 2229 East Coast Highway and 2325 East Coast Highway in Corona Del
Mar.
does this extension pertain to my property, or aren't we grandfathered in as heritage?
thank you
allyson presta
<image001.png>
<image003.gif>
<image004.jpg>
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3d Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3d Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
From:Joyce Hoskinson
To:City Clerk"s Office; Dept - City Council; Nichols, Heather; Planning Commissioners
Subject:Municipal Sign Code item
Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 12:10:32 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear Mayor O’Neill, Honorable City Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,
We are in receipt of your letter regarding changes to the Newport Beach municipal sign code requiring non-
conforming signs to be removed by October 27, 2020.
At the Spaghetti Bender restaurant all of our signs, with the exception of recent coronavirus-related banners, were
erected in the 1970s and obviously predate changes to the municipal code that would necessitate removal of any
signage on our property.
On the overall we believe the timing for any enforcement is bad in this climate and would ask you to shelve it for
the foreseeable future and also ask that you clarify that situations like ours that predate the new rules are
categorically exempt.
Yours respectfully,
A. Joyce Hoskinson
Owner/Spaghetti Bender
CC: Newport Beach Planning Commission, Newport Beach City Attorney
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3d Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
May 7, 2020, Planning Commission Item 3 Comments
These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229).
Item No. 3. EXTENSION OF AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR
NONCONFORMING SIGNS (PA2019-184)
Page 6: Under “Alternatives,” the staff report fails to mention the possibility of recommending
the General Plan or Municipal Code be amended to eliminate the abatement requirement for
some or all of these signs.
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3d Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
From:JC Clow
To:Planning Commissioners
Cc:Thomas R. Kroesche; Jim McGee; mike.moshayedi@gmail.com
Subject:The Winery Restaurant"s exterior signage 5-6-2020
Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 4:59:25 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Mr. Koetting,
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Planning Commission for the City
of Newport Beach. As you are probably already aware, we (The Winery Team)
worked very closely with Jim Campbell from the Planning Dept. & Greg Ramirez
from the Planning Dept. when we demolished the old Villanova Restaurant and
built The Winery Restaurant back in 2014. Both Jim and Greg were great to
work with and I’m thankful for their guidance and support.
With this being said, The Winery spent a significant amount of capital to build
out our beautiful, waterfront location, which included a twenty thousand
($20,000) outdoor sign on PCH. I personally do not recall being notified by
anyone from the City of Newport Beach, that our sign would need to be taken
down in 2020, after only 6.5 years of being in place? If we would have known,
then we would have constructed the appropriate sign to put into place at that
point and time, during our construction
. I would like the Commission to please consider that for The Winery to have to
remove our existing sign and replace it with another sign, could not have come
at a worse time, as we have not only been closed for almost 2 months, but we
have had to furlough about 200 of our family/staff members, and from a
financial perspective our capital needs to be spent on getting these individuals
back to work so they can feed their families and pay their rent, as opposed to
building/constructing a new sign! We believe that our beautiful sign only
enhances the beauty and uniqueness of Newport Beach. Please consider the
following bullet points.
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3d Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
The Winery Restaurant has been voted “Restaurant of the Year” 7 times
by the Orange County Concierge Association since we opened up.
The Winery has been awarded with several of the highest level of awards
from The Wine Spectator.
The USA Today, awarded us with one of the “Top 10” Stellar Wine list in
the Country.
The Golden Foodies have awarded us with “Best Wine List” in Orange
County 3 times!
The So. Cal. Restaurant Writers have awarded us as “Restaurateurs of the
Year”
The OC Business Journal has awarded us with “Restaurant of the Year”.
The Golden Foodies have awarded us with “Best Service” award in Orange
County.
I’m typing as fast as I can to meet the 5pm deadline so please forgive me being
rushed, or spelling/grammar errors but I’m looking forward to speaking with
the Commission tomorrow night as well.
Sincerely JC Clow
JC Clow
Founder/Managing PartnerLA JOLLA - 4301 La Jolla Village Drive Suite 2040, San Diego CA 92122 Call: 858-230-7404 NEWPORT BEACH - 3131 West Coast Hwy, Newport Beach CA, 92663 Call: 949-999-6622 Fax: 949-999-6629TUSTIN - 2647 Park Ave. Tustin CA 92782 Call: 714-258-7600 Fax: 714-258-7676www.thewineryrestaurants.comwww.facebook.com/TheWineryRestaurant
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3d Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3d Additional Materials Received
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
From:Blumenthal, David(Contractor)
To:Lee, Amanda; Rodriguez, Clarivel
Subject:FW: Questions for Planning Commission Re: Sign Ordinance
Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 5:13:07 PM
DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP
Community Development Department
Planning Consultant
dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov
949-644-3204
-----Original Message-----
From: russfluter@gmail.com <russfluter@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2020 9:17 AM
To: Blumenthal, David(Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Questions for Planning Commission Re: Sign Ordinance
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
1. Given that signage is an important component of property value, why weren’t the property owners notified in
2005 when the ordinance was passed?
Thank you,
Russ Fluter
Sent from my iPhone
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3e Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Code and LCP Amendment
(PA2019-184)
Non-Conforming Signs
Planning
Commission
May 7, 2020
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Background
October 2005 –City Council Amends
Sign Regulations
Signs no longer allowed:
Roof signs
Pole signs
Some internally illuminated signs
Large signs
15 year amortization period
October 2020 –City Council initiated
code amendment
Extend amortization 3 –5 years
Community Development Department -Planning Division 2
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Sign Samples
Roof Signs
Community Development Department -Planning Division 3
Roof signs not permitted
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Translucent Face
Not Permitted
Opaque Face
Permitted
Community Development Department -Planning Division 4
Sign Samples
Internal Illumination
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Pole Sign
Not Permitted
Pylon Sign
Permitted
Community Development Department -Planning Division 5
Sign Samples
Freestanding Signs
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 6
Proposal
5-Year Extension
20.42.140 NONCONFORMING SIGNS
A.Abatement of Nonconforming Signs. The following
nonconforming signs shall be removed or altered to be
conforming within fifteen (15)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.
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, 2020 October 27, 2025, with the exception of signs
designated as heritage signs.
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
March 12, 2020 –Request for comment letter sent
168 Property Owners
159 Business Owners
Public Notice
Published in Daily Pilot (April 25, 2020)
Posted on City website
Direct Mailed to 256 property and business owners
Emailed 64 people that emailed questions or
comments
Received written comments from 76 individuals
Overwhelming support to extend
Suggestions include
Additional 15-year extension
Removal of amortization requirement
Community Development Department -Planning Division 7
Public
Outreach
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
For more
information
Contact Questions?
David Blumenthal, AICP
949-644-3204
dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov
www.newportbeachca.gov
Community Development Department -Planning Division 8
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 9
900 W Coast Hwy
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 10
1501 E 16th Street
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 11
2025 W Balboa
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 12
2325 E Coast Hwy
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 13
2443 E Coast Hwy
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 14
2700 W Coast Hwy
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 15
3334 W Coast Hwy
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 16
6204 W Coast Hwy 6110 W Coast Hwy
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 17
2229 E Coast Hwy
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 18
3131 W Coast Hwy
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 19
3800-3810 E Coast Hwy
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 20
6000 W Coast Hwy
2865 E. Coast Hwy
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item 3f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Extension of Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)