Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0_Amortization of Nonconforming Signs_PA2019-184CITY 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)