The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About16 - Elimination of the Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184)Q �EwPpRT CITY OF O � z NEWPORT BEACH <,FORN'P City Council Staff Report February 23, 2021 Agenda Item No. 16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director - 949-644-3232, sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Matt Schneider, Principal Planner mschneider@newportbeachca.gov PHONE: 949-644-3219 TITLE: Ordinance No. 2021-5: Elimination of the Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184) ABSTRACT: Nonconforming signs are signs that were permitted, but due to a change in the Municipal Code sign regulations, they are no longer allowed. The Newport Beach Municipal Code requires certain nonconforming signs to be removed no later than October 27, 2020. This code amendment would allow for the elimination of the deadline. For the City Council's consideration is the adoption of two resolutions for approval to amend the General Plan and submittal of a Local Coastal Program amendment to the California Coastal Commission, and introduction of an ordinance to amend the zoning code. If approved, the item will return to the City Council on March 9, 2021, for the second reading and adoption of the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: a) Conduct a public hearing; b) Find this project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and pursuant to Section 15265(a)(1), which exempts local governments from the requirements of CEQA in connection with the adoption of a Local Coastal Program; c) Adopt Resolution No. 2021-16, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Approving General Plan Amendment No. GP2020-005 to Amend Policy NR. 21.2 (Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs) of the Natural Resources Element to Remove the Amortization Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184); d) Waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only, introduce Ordinance No. 2021-5, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Amending Section 20.42.140 (Non -Conforming Signs) to Remove the Amortization of Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184), and pass to second reading on March 9, 2021; and 16-1 Ordinance No. 2021-5: Elimination of the Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184) February 23, 2021 Page 2 e) Adopt Resolution No. 2021-17, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Authorizing Submittal of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 to the California Coastal Commission to Amend Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and the Coastal Land Use Plan to Remove Amortization of Nonconforming Signs (PA2019- 0184). FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. DISCUSSION: Introduction 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 and 21.30.065 require certain signs that do not conform to the new regulations to be abated within 15 years (amortization period) from the effective date of the sign code update (October 27, 2005 + 15 years = October 27, 2020). There were approximately 400 legal nonconforming signs in 2005, of which approximately 140 have been either brought into conformance or have been removed. Initiation of Initial Code Amendment On October 22, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-92 initiating the necessary Planning and Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan amendments to consider an extension of the amortization period for non -conforming signs (Attachment 1). Initial Outreach Efforts On March 12, 2020, staff sent letters to 327 property and business owners for properties and/or businesses that were previously identified as having a nonconforming sign. The intent of the letter was to inform them of the pending code amendment to extend the amortization period and to elicit feedback. Several business and property owners contacted staff to communicate that they were unaware of the requirements and to express their concerns that the amortization requirements will negatively impact their businesses and tenants. Planning Commission Review On May 7, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing to consider the code amendments. Staff's complete analysis and recommendation is contained in the attached Planning Commission staff report, dated May 7, 2020 (Attachment H). As noted in the Planning Commission staff report, staff's original recommendation was to extend the amortization period for five years. 16-2 Ordinance No. 2021-5: Elimination of the Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184) February 23, 2021 Page 3 In response to the initial outreach efforts and public hearing notice, the Planning Commission received 79 pieces of written correspondence (Attachment No. PC3 of Attachment H) and had seven public speakers. The overwhelming response to the proposal was to extend or eliminate the amortization period. The Planning Commission expressed concerns that maintaining or extending the amortization period would result in additional financial impacts on businesses that are already suffering during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The Planning Commission further noted that the nonconforming signs are likely associated with businesses that have been in the city for a long time, and natural attrition will result in the eventual removal of the nonconforming signs. After considering all written and oral evidence, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Nos. 2019-15 and 2019-16 (Attachments No. PC1 & PC2 of Attachment H) to recommend the City Council amend Section 20.42.140 and delete Section 21.30.065(E) to eliminate the deadline for removal of the nonconforming signs. On June 23, 2020, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider whether to extend or eliminate the Amortization Period. However, eliminating the Amortization Period would be inconsistent with General Plan Policy No. NR 21.2 and Coastal Land Use Plan Policy No. 4.4.4-4. Endorsing the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-66 (Attachment No. PC5 of Attachment D) to initiate a General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment. As part of this action, the City Council also directed staff not to enforce the October 27, 2020, deadline, until such time the City Council has taken final action on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment. Nonconforming Signs A nonconforming sign is a sign that was legally installed, but because of changes to the municipal code, they are no longer allowed. Not only does this include over -sized signs, but also includes the following sign types: 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. i GOLDEN� SPOONT FROZEN YOGURTr_1 16-3 Ordinance No. 2021-5: Elimination of the Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184) February 23, 2021 Page 4 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 [a Previous testimony during the public hearings has indicated that removing or replacing the signs would create a financial hardship for the affected businesses and property owners. This would be particularly damaging as businesses are still challenged with economic impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. By eliminating the Amortization Period, nonconforming signs would be allowed to remain until such time as: 16-4 Ordinance No. 2021-5: Elimination of the Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184) February 23, 2021 Page 5 1. The nonconforming sign is more than 50 percent destroyed. This does not include changes to the facial copy of the sign; 2. The nonconforming sign is remodeled, unless it is remodeled in a manner that complies with the current code; or 3. The nonconforming sign is located on a building that is proposed to be enlarged or expanded. This provision only applies if the sign is affected by the construction, enlargement, remodel or expansion. Local Coastal Plan The proposed amendments would affect both Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Policy No. 4.4.4-4 of the Coastal Land Use Plan will also be amended to reflect the elimination of the amortization period. For properties located in the Coastal Zone, proposed changes would not be effective until certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC). Therefore, should the City Council decide to eliminate the amortization period, staff will submit a corresponding ordinance amending the Coastal Land Use Plan for review and approval by the CCC. The ordinance will become effective immediately upon approval by the CCC; however, should the CCC suggest modifications, staff will return to the City Council with a new ordinance. SB 18 Tribal Consultation Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65352.3 (SB 18), the City is required to consult with California Native American tribes prior to amending the General Plan. Notice was provided to all tribes on the Native American Heritage Commission list on July 28, 2020. This notice established a 90 -day period in which the tribes can request consultation. The 90 -day notice period expired on October 27, 2020, with no tribes requesting consultation. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Code Amendment is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. While this amendment would allow existing legal nonconforming signs to remain in place, it does not authorize new development that would directly result in physical change to the environment. There is no evidence that removal of the Amortization Period would result in any new effects on the environment. Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265(a)(1), local governments are exempt from the requirements of CEQA in connection with the adoption of a Local Coastal Program. 16-5 Ordinance No. 2021-5: Elimination of the Amortization Period for Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184) February 23, 2021 Page 6 NOTICING: Pursuant to Section 13515 of the California Code of Regulations, a review draft of the LCP amendment was made available and a Notice of Availability was distributed on April 22, 2020 and November 6, 2020. Notice of the proposed amendments was published in the Daily Pilot as an eight -page advertisement, consistent with the provisions of the NBMC. The item also appears on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Finally, notice was mailed to all property and business owners for properties and/or businesses that were previously identified as having a nonconforming sign; as well as, emailed to all persons that submitted written correspondence regarding this item. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Resolution No. 2021-16 (GPA) Attachment B — Ordinance No. 2021-5 (Zoning) Attachment C — Resolution No. 2021-17 (LCP) Attachment D — November 19, 2020 Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment E — November 19, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt Attachment F — Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-042 Attachment G — Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-043 Attachment H — May 7, 2020 Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment I — Resolution No. 2019-92 Attachment J — Strikeout/Underline Summary of Proposed Amendments 16-6 Attachment A Resolution No. 2021-16 (GPA) 16-7 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2020-005 TO AMEND POLICY NR 21.2 (ILLEGAL SIGNS AND LEGAL NONCONFORMING SIGNS) OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT TO REMOVE THE AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING SIGNS (PA2019-184) WHEREAS, Section 200 of the City of Newport Beach ("City") Charter vests the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws, rules and regulations with respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained in the Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to exercise, or act pursuant to any and all rights, powers, and privileges, or procedures granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California; WHEREAS, the City comprehensively updated its sign regulations in October 2005, including incorporation of Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Sections 20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs) and 21.30.065 (Signs) which require certain signs that do not conform to the new regulations to be abated within 15 years ("Amortization Period") from the effective date of the sign code update; WHEREAS, the Amortization Period was set to expire on October 27, 2020, at which time all nonconforming signs were to be removed, however on October 22, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-92 to initiate an extension of the Amortization Period; WHEREAS, on March 15, 2020, the City proclaimed a local emergency due to the COVID-19 global pandemic and many businesses have been forced to reduce services or temporarily close; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held telephonically by the Planning Commission due to the Declaration of a State of Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19 on May 7, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing; Resolution No. 2021 - Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Nos. PC2020-015 and PC2020-016 by a majority vote (7 ayes, 0 nays), recommending the City Council eliminate the Amortization Period instead of extending the Amortization Period for an additional five years, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held telephonically by the City Council due to the Declaration of a State of Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19 on June 23, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California to consider the Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NEMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-66 to eliminate the Amortization Period and directed staff not to enforce the October 27, 2020 deadline, until such time the City Council has taken final action on the proposed General Plan Amendment ("GPA") and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held telephonically by the Planning Commission due to the Declaration of a State of Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19 on November 19, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and Chapter 20.62 of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Nos. PC2020-042 and PC2020-043 by a majority vote (7 ayes, 0 nays) recommending the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2020- 005, Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007, and Local Coastal Program No. LC2019-005 to remove the Amortization Period, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held telephonically by the City Council due to the Declaration of a State of Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19 on February 23, 2021, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and Chapter 20.62 of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing; 16-9 Resolution No. 2021 - Page 3 of 4 WHEREAS, City Council Policy A-18 requires that proposed CPAs be reviewed to determine if a vote of the electorate would be required pursuant to Section 423 of the City Charter. If a GPA (separately or cumulatively with other GPAs within the previous ten (10) years) generates more than one hundred (100) peak hour trips (a.m. or p.m.), adds forty thousand (40,000) square feet of nonresidential floor area, or adds more than one hundred (100) dwelling units in a statistical area, a vote of the electorate would be required if the City Council approves the GPA. As none of the thresholds specified by Charter Section 423 are impacted nor exceeded by the amendment, no vote of the electorate is required if the City Council chooses to approve GPA No. GP2020-005; WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65352.3 (SB18), a local government is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission ("NAHC") each time it considers a proposal to adopt or amend the General Plan and, if requested by any tribe, the local government must consult for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to cultural resources; WHEREAS, the City received comments from the NAHC indicating that eight tribal contacts should be provided notice regarding GP2020-005 and the City provided notice to the eight tribal contacts on July 28, 2020; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65352.3 requires notification 90 days prior to Council action to allow tribal contacts to respond to the request to consult and the City was not contacted by any tribal contacts during this 90 day period. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. GP2020-005 to amend Policy No. NR 21.2 (Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs) of the Natural Resources Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan as provided in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2: The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. While this amendment would allow existing legal nonconforming signs to remain in place, it does not authorize new development that would directly result in physical change to the environment. There is no evidence that removal of the Amortization Period would result in any new effects on the environment. 16-10 Resolution No. 2021 - Page 4 of 4 Section 3: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 5: This resolution shall take effect upon the effective date of City Council Ordinance No. 2021- amending Section 20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs) the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. ADOPTED this 23rd day of February, 2021. Brad Avery Mayor ATTEST: Leilani I. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: C7400--N--- TTORNEY'S OFFI 4 �� Aar8n C. Harp City Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A - General Plan Land Use Amendments 16-11 Exhibit "A" General Plan Land Use Amendment Section 1: Policy No. NR 21.2 of the Natural Resources Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan is amended to read as follows: NR 21.2 Illegal Signs Implement programs to remove illegal signs. (Imp 2.1, 26.1) 16-12 Attachment B Ordinance No. 2021-5 (Zoning) 16-13 ORDINANCE NO. 2021- 5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 20.42.140 (NON -CONFORMING SIGNS) TO REMOVE THE AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING SIGNS (PA2019- 184) WHEREAS, Section 200 of the City of Newport Beach ("City") Charter vests the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws, rules and regulations with respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained in the Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to exercise, or act pursuant to any and all rights, powers, and privileges, or procedures granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California; WHEREAS, the City comprehensively updated its sign regulations in October 2005, including incorporation of Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Sections 20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs) and 21.30.065 (Signs), which require certain signs that do not conform to the new regulations to be abated within 15 years ("Amortization Period") from the effective date of the sign code update; WHEREAS, the Amortization Period was set to expire on October 27, 2020, at which time all nonconforming signs were to be removed, however on October 22, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-92 to initiate an extension of the Amortization Period; WHEREAS, on March 15, 2020, the City proclaimed a local emergency due to the COVID-19 global pandemic, and many businesses have been forced to reduce services or temporarily close; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held telephonically by the Planning Commission due to the Declaration of a State of Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19 on May 7, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing, WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Nos. PC2020-015 and PC2020-016 by a majority vote (7 ayes, 0 nays), recommending the City Council eliminate the Amortization Period instead of extending the Amortization Period for an additional five years; 16-14 Ordinance No. 2021 - Page 2 of 6 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held telephonically by the City Council due to the Declaration of a State of Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19 on June 23, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California to consider the Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-66 to eliminate the Amortization Period and directed staff not to enforce the October 27, 2020 deadline, until such time the City Council has taken final action on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment; WHEREAS, General Plan Policy No. LU 1.5 (Economic Health) goal is to, "[e]ncourage a local economy that provides adequate commercial, office, industrial, and marine -oriented opportunities that provide employment and revenue to support high- quality community services"; WHEREAS, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses in the City are facing an economic hardship as a result of being required to reduce services or close temporarily. By eliminating the requirement for nonconforming signs to be removed, the Zoning Code Amendment is consistent with this General Plan policy, as it will reduce the financial burden on businesses during the COVID-19 crisis and assist in the recovery of the local economy; WHEREAS, elimination of the Amortization Period for nonconforming signs is consistent with Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC in that the types of signs that are subject to removal (roof signs, pole signs, internally illuminated signs with translucent faces, and oversized signs) are still prohibited and any alteration to nonconforming signs will be reviewed to ensure compliance with Title 20 (Planning and Zoning); WHEREAS, a public hearing was held telephonically by the Planning Commission due to the Declaration of a State of Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19 on November 19, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and Chapters 20.62 and 21.62 of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing; 16-15 Ordinance No. 2021 - Page 3 of 6 WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Nos. PC2020-042 and PC2020-043 by a majority vote (7 ayes, 0 nays) recommending the City Council approve General Plan Amendment GP2020-005, Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 to remove the Amortization Period; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held telephonically by the City Council due to the Declaration of a State of Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19 on February 23, 2021, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and Chapters 20.62 of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach ordains as follows.. Section 1: Section 20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs.) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC shall be amended to read as follows: 20.42.140 Nonconforming Signs. A. Removal of Nonconforming Signs. Nonconforming signs shall be removed if: 1. The nonconforming sign is more than fifty (50) percent destroyed, and the destruction is other than facial copy replacement. A nonconforming sign shall be deemed to be more than fifty (50) percent destroyed if the estimated cost of reconstruction exceeds fifty (50) percent of the replacement cost as determined by the Building Official, 2. The nonconforming sign is remodeled, unless the sign is remodeled to comply with the provisions of this chapter; 3. The nonconforming sign is located on a building that is enlarged or expanded, if the nonconforming sign is affected by the construction, enlargement, remodel, or expansion. An enlargement, remodel, or expansion of the portion of the building upon which the nonconforming sign is located or that is more than fifty (50) percent of the building area shall be deemed to affect the nonconforming sign; or 4. The nonconforming sign is temporary. 16-16 Ordinance No. 2021 - Page 4 of 6 B. Deactivation of Flashing Features. The owner of a sign that contains flashing features shall permanently deactivate the flashing features. C. Continuance of Nonconforming Signs. Except as provided in subsection (A) of this section, a nonconforming sign may be continued and shall be maintained in good condition as required by these regulations, but it shall not be: 1. Structurally changed to another nonconforming sign, although its copy and pictorial content may be changed. 2. Structurally altered to prolong the life of the sign, except to meet safety requirements. 3. Expanded or altered in any manner that increases the degree of nonconformity. D. Repairing and Repainting. Nonconforming signs shall only be painted and repaired in place and shall not be removed from their existing location, except for building remodeling, unless removal of the sign for painting or repair is part of the sign's customary maintenance and repair. E. Change of Business Ownership. Upon a change of ownership, the new owner of a nonconforming sign may change the name or names on the sign so long as there is no change in the structure or configuration of the sign. Section 2: The recitals provided in this ordinance are true and correct and are incorporated into the substantive portion of this ordinance. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 16-17 Ordinance No. 2021 - Page 5 of 6 Section 4: The City Council finds the introduction and adoption of this ordinance is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. While this amendment would allow existing legal nonconforming signs to remain in place, it does not authorize new development that would directly result in physical change to the environment. There is no evidence that removal of the Amortization Period would result in any new effects on the environment. Section 5: Except as expressly modified in this ordinance, all other sections, subsections, terms, clauses and phrases set forth in the NBMC shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect. Section 6: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be published pursuant to City Charter Section 414. This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 23rd day of February, 2021, and adopted on the 9th day of March, 2021, by the following vote, to -wit: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: BRAD AVERY, MAYOR ATTEST: LEILANI 1. BROWN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY TTORNEY'S OFFICE C. AAR N C. HARP, CITY ATTORNEY 16-18 Attachment C Resolution No. 2021-17 (LCP) 16-19 RESOLUTION NO. 2021- 17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. LC2019-005 TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION TO AMEND TITLE 21 (LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN) OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE COASTAL LAND USE PLAN TO REMOVE THE AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING SIGNS (PA2019- 0184) WHEREAS, Section 200 of the City of Newport Beach ("City") Charter vests the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws, rules and regulations with respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained in the Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to exercise, or act pursuant to any and all rights, powers, and privileges, or procedures granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California; WHEREAS, Section 30500 of the California Public Resources Code requires each county and city to prepare a local coastal program ("LCP") for the portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction; WHEREAS, in 2005, the City of Newport Beach ("City") adopted the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan as amended from time to time including most recently on February 12, 2019, via Resolution No. 2019-16; WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission effectively certified the City's Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan on January 13, 2017, and the City added Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) ("Title 21 ") to the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") whereby the City assumed coastal development permit -issuing authority as of January 30, 2017; WHEREAS, the City comprehensively updated its sign regulations in October 2005, including incorporation of Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Sections 20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs) and 21.30.065 (Signs) which require certain signs that do not conform to the new regulations to be abated within 15 years ("Amortization Period") from the effective date of the sign code update; WHEREAS, the Amortization Period was set to expire on October 27, 2020, at which time all nonconforming signs were to be removed, however, on October 22, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-92 initiating an extension of the Amortization Period; 16-20 Resolution No. 2021 - Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, on March 15, 2020, the City proclaimed a local emergency due to the COVID-19 global pandemic and many businesses have been forced to reduce services or temporarily close; WHEREAS, 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 LCP Amendment No. 2019-005 was made available and a Notice of the Availability was distributed on April 21, 2020, which is a minimum of six weeks prior to the final action date; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held telephonically by the Planning Commission due to the Declaration of a State of Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19 on May 7, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter 21.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Nos. PC2020-015 and PC2020-016 by a majority vote (7 ayes, 0 nays), recommending the City Council eliminate the Amortization Period instead of extending the Amortization Period for an additional five years; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held telephonically by the City Council due to the Declaration of a State of Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19 on June 23, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA to consider Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and Chapter 21.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-66 to eliminate the Amortization Period and directed staff not to enforce the October 27, 2020 deadline, until such time the City Council has taken final action on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment; 16-21 Resolution No. 2021 - Page 3 of 5 WHEREAS, 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 LCP Amendment No. 2019-005 was made available and a Notice of the Availability was distributed on November 6, 2020, which is a minimum of six weeks prior to the final action date; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held was held telephonically by the Planning Commission due to the Declaration of a State of Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19 on November 19, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and Chapter 21.62 of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2020-043 by a majority vote (7 ayes, 0 nays) recommending the City Council approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 to eliminate the Amortization Period; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held telephonically by the City Council due to the Declaration of a State of Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19 on February 23, 2021, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, Chapter 21.62 of the NBMC and Section 13515 of the California Code of Regulations. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council does hereby authorize submittal to the California Coastal Commission of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 to amend Section 21.30.065(E) (Signs) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Policy No. 4.4.4-4 of the Chapter 4 (Coastal Resources Protection) of the City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan as set forth in Exhibit 'A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 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. 16-22 Resolution No. 2021 - Page 4 of 5 Section 3: The Local Coastal Program and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan), including Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005, will be carried out fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act. Section 4: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 6: The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because of the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. While this amendment would allow existing legal nonconforming signs to remain in place, it does not authorize new development that would directly result in physical change to the environment. There is no evidence that removal of the Amortization Period would result in any new effects on the environment. Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265(a)(1), local governments are exempt from the requirements of CEQA in connection with the adoption of a Local Coastal Program. None of the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines are applicable. 16-23 Resolution No. 2021 - Page 5 of 5 Section 7: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. ADOPTED this 23rd day of February, 2021. Brad Avery Mayor ATTEST: Leilani I. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE _ c t� , Aarn C. Harp City Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A - Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 Related to Amortization of Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-070) 16-24 EXHIBIT "A" Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 Related to Amortization of Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-070) Section 1: Section 21.30.065(E) (Signs) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC shall be deleted in its entirety. Section 2: Policy No. 4.4.4-4 of the Chapter 4 (Coastal Resources Protection) of the City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan is amended to read as follows: 4.4.4-4 Implement programs to remove illegal signs. 16-25 Attachment D November 19, 2020 Planning Commission Staff Report 16-26 PQR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH F n PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT r« �_ November 19, 2020 CCIFQR�P Agenda Item No. 4 SUBJECT: Amortization of Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184) ■ General Plan Amendment No. GP2020-005 ■ Coastal Land Use Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 ■ Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 SITE LOCATION: Citywide APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach PLANNER: Matt Schneider, Principal Planner 949-644-3219, mschneider(a)newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY This proposal is an amendment to General Plan Policy NR 21.2, Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.4.4-4, and Sections 20.42.140 of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and 21.30.065 of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) to eliminate the existing amortization period for certain nonconforming signs, which currently requires to be removed by October 27, 2020. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15265(a)(1) due to the fact it relates to an amendment to the Local Coastal Program; 3) Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-042, recommending the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. GP2020-005 and Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019- 007 to remove an amortization period for nonconforming signs (Attachment No. PC 1); and 4) Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-043, recommending the City Council adopt Coastal Land Use Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 and authorize staff to submit the amendment to the California Coastal Commission (Attachment No. PC 2). 16-27 DISCUSSION Background 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). A survey of signs conducted in 2005 revealed that there were approximately 400 legal nonconforming, of which approximately 140 have either been brought into conformance or have been removed in the last 15 years. Due to the removal deadline, and concerns related to providing sufficient notice to the impacted sign owners, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 7, 2020 to consider an extension of the Amortization Period until 2025 (Attachments No. PC 2 and PC 3). As part of the public hearing, the Planning Commission received written and oral comments supporting the elimination of the Amortization Period, rather than an extension. At the conclusion of the public hearing and after deliberation, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Nos. PC2020-015 and PC2020-016 recommending the City Council eliminate the Amortization Period. On June 23, 2020, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider whether to extend or eliminate the Amortization Period. However, eliminating the Amortization Period would be inconsistent with General Plan Policy No. NR 21.2 and Coastal Land Use Plan Policy No. 4.4.4-4, both of which are discussed below. Endorsing the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-66 (Attachment No. PC 4) to initiate a General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment. As part of this action, the City Council also directed staff not to enforce the October 27, 2020, deadline, until such time the City Council has taken final action on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment. Elimination of the Amortization Period A nonconforming sign is a sign that was legally installed, but as a result of changes to the Municipal Code, is no longer allowed. This includes pole signs, roof signs, signs with a translucent background, and signs that exceed the maximum allowed area. Previous testimony during the public hearings has indicated that removing or replacing the signs would create a financial hardship to the affected business and property owners. This would be particularly damaging as businesses are still challenged with economic impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. By eliminating the Amortization Period, nonconforming signs would be allowed to remain until such time as: 1. The nonconforming sign is more than 50 percent destroyed. This does not include changes to the facial copy of the sign; 16-28 2. The nonconforming sign is remodeled, unless it is remodeled in a manner that complies with the current code; or 3. The nonconforming sign is located on a building that is proposed to be enlarged or expanded. This provision only applies if the sign is affected by the construction, enlargement, remodel, or expansion. Proposed Changes In order to amend the Municipal Code to remove the Amortization Period, the Planning Commission, and ultimately the City Council, need to amend the policies of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan to ensure consistency among the City's planning documents. General Plan Amendment General Plan Policy No. NR 21.2 (Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs), which is within the Natural Resource Element, would be amended as follows: Implement programs to remove illegal signs and amertizelegal Renr„nf g Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment Coastal Land Use Plan Policy No. 4.4.4-4, which is in Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection) of the Coastal Land Use Plan would be amended as such: Policy 4.4.4-4 Implement programs to remove illegal signsand amertize legal ReRGGnfGFMiRg SigRS Zoning Code Amendment Section 20.42.140(A) of the NBMC would be amended to delete the requirement that nonconforming signs be removed by October 27, 2020. The proposed amendments are as follows: 16-29 Removal of Nonconforming Signs. Nonconforming signs shall be removed if: The nonconforming sign is more than fifty (50) percent destroyed, and the destruction is other than facial copy replacement. A nonconforming sign shall be deemed to be more than fifty (50) percent destroyed if the estimated cost of reconstruction exceeds fifty (50) percent of the replacement cost as determined by the Building Official; 2. The nonconforming sign is remodeled, unless the sign is remodeled to comply with the provisions of this chapter; 3. The nonconforming sign is located on a building that is enlarged or expanded, if the nonconforming sign is affected by the construction, enlargement, remodel, or expansion. An enlargement, remodel, or expansion of the portion of the building upon which the nonconforming sign is located or that is more than fifty (50) percent of the building area shall be deemed to affect the nonconforming sign; or 4. The nonconforming sign is temporary. . Deactivation of Flashing Features. The owner of a sign that contains flashing features shall permanently deactivate the flashing features. . Continuance of Nonconforming Signs. Except as provided in subsections (A) and (B) of this section, a nonconforming sign may be continued and shall be maintained in good condition as required by these regulations, but it shall not be: Structurally changed to another nonconforming sign, although its copy and pictorial content may be changed. 2. Structurally altered to prolong the life of the sign, except to meet safety requirements. 3. Expanded or altered in any manner that increases the degree of nonconformity. 16-30 . Repairing and Repainting. Nonconforming signs shall only be painted and repaired in place and shall not be removed from their existing location, except for building remodeling, unless removal of the sign for painting or repair is part of the sign's customary maintenance and repair. . Change of Business Ownership. Upon a change of ownership, the new owner of a nonconforming sign may change the name or names on the sign so long as there is no change in the structure or configuration of the sign. Local Coastal Program Amendment Section 21.30.065 of the NBMC would be amended to delete subsection E, thereby removing the October 27, 2020, deadline in the Coastal Zone. The proposed amendments are as follows. General Plan Consistency Elimination of the Amortization Period for nonconforming signs is 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. Eliminating the requirement for nonconforming signs to be removed or replaced will reduce the financial burden on businesses during the COVID-19 crisis and assist in the recovery of the local economy. Furthermore, the Vision Statement of the City's General Plan states, in order to provide a responsive government, "Elected officials and City staff listen and respond to the interests of residents and the business community." The testimony and correspondence provided by the business community during the public hearings has shown that the proposed amendments are responsive to the business community's concerns and will assist the community in achieving and maintaining its economic vitality. Local Coastal Program (LCP) This proposal includes amendments to the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC. Amendments to the CLUP and 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 California Coastal Commission. Coastal Commission review and approval 16-31 is required for any proposed amendment to the certified CLUP and/or the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan. 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 allows for the elimination of the deadline for abatement while maintaining requirements for legal nonconforming signs to be brought into conformance or removed through natural attrition. SB 18 Tribal Consultation Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65352.3 (SB 18), the City is required to consult with California Native American tribes prior to amending the General Plan. Notice was provided to all tribes on the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) list on July 28, 2020. This notice established a 90 -day period in which the tribes can request consultation. The 90 -day notice period expired on October 27, 2020, with no tribes requesting consultation. Environmental Review The proposed action is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. While this amendment would allow existing legal nonconforming signs to remain in place, it does not authorize new development that would directly result in physical change to the environment. There is no evidence that removal of the Amortization Period would result in any new effects on the environment. Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265(a)(1), local governments are exempt from the requirements of CEQA in connection with the adoption of a Local Coastal Program. 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. 16-32 Prepared by: 'AacklimA [Matt p6hneider Print pal Planner ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: Jim Campbell Deputy Community Development Director PC 1 Draft Resolution No. PC2020-042 (General Plan and Zoning Code Amendments) PC 2 Draft Resolution No. PC2020-043 (LCP Amendment) PC 3 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 7, 2020 PC 4 Planning Commission Minute excerpts, dated May 7, 2020 PC 5 Council Resolution No. 2020-66 PC 6 Council Minute excepts, dated June 23, 2020 16-33 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft resolution recommending the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 and General Plan Amendment No.2020-005 16-34 RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-042 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2020-005 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2019-007 TO REMOVE AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR NONCONFORMING SIGNS (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 was 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. On May 7, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005, a request to extend the Amortization Period for five (5) years. At the conclusion of the public hearing and after deliberations, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Nos. PC2020-015 and PC2020-016; thereby recommending the City Council eliminate the Amortization Period. 5. On June 23, 2020, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Zoning Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment. Endorsing the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-66 to initiate the General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment. As part of this action, the City Council also directed staff 16-35 not to enforce the October 27, 2020 deadline, until such time the City Council has taken final action on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment. 6. A telephonic public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 19, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, due to the Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19. 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. The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. While this amendment would allow existing legal nonconforming signs to remain in place, it does not authorize new development that would directly result in physical change to the environment. There is no evidence that removal of the Amortization Period would result in any new effects on the environment. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. General Plan Amendment The General Plan amendment is a request to amend General Plan Policy No. NR 21.2 (Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs), which states, "Implement programs to remove illegal signs and amortize legal nonconforming signs." While this change will eliminate the reference to amortize legal nonconforming signs, the goal of removing illegal signs will remain. Elimination of the Amortization Period for nonconforming signs is 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. Eliminating the requirement for nonconforming signs to be removed or replaced will reduce the financial burden on businesses during the COVID-19 crisis and assist in the recovery of the local economy. 16-36 2. The Vision Statement of the City's General Plan states, in order to provide a responsive government, "Elected officials and City staff listen and respond to the interests of residents and the business community." The testimony and correspondence provided by the business community during the public hearings has shown that the proposed amendments are responsive to the business communities concerns and will assist the community in achieving and maintaining its economic vitality. 3. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65352.3 (SB 18), a local government is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission ("NAHC") each time it considers a proposal to adopt or amend the General Plan. If requested by any tribe, the local government must consult for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to cultural resources. California Government Code Section 65352.3 further requires notification at least 90 days prior to Council action to allow tribal contacts to respond to the request to consult. Notice was provided to all contacts on the NAHC list on July 28, 2020. The 90 -day notice period expired on October 27, 2020, with no tribes requesting consultation. Zoning Code Amendment 1. Elimination of the Amortization Period for nonconforming signs is consistent with the 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 Zoning Code Amendment is consistent with this 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. Elimination of the Amortization Period for nonconforming signs is consistent with the amended General Plan Policy No. NR 21.2 (Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs), which upon approval of the City Council of this project will state, "Implement programs to remove illegal signs." This amendment will allow the City to focus on abating illegal signs instead of nonconforming signs that were consistent with the Code at the time of their erection. The Vision Statement of the City's General Plan states, in order to provide a responsive government, "Elected officials and City staff listen and respond to the interests of residents and the business community." The testimony and correspondence provided by the business community during the public hearings has shown that the Zoning Code Amendments are responsive to the business communities concerns and will assist the community in achieving and maintaining its economic vitality. 16-37 3. The Zoning Code Amendment to eliminate the Amortization Period for removal of nonconforming signs is consistent with Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC. The types of signs that will no longer be subject to removal (roof signs, pole signs, internally illuminated signs with translucent faces, and oversized signs) will continue to be prohibited by the Code. All nonconforming signs that are proposed to be altered will continued to be reviewed to ensure the changes are compliant with the requirements set forth in Title 20. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. There is no evidence that removal of the Amortization Period would result in any new effects on the environment. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2020-005 and Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007, as set forth in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Erik Weigand, Chair Lauren Kleiman, Secretary 16-38 EXHIBIT "A" GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2020-005 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2019-007 Section 1: Policy No. NR 21.2 of the Natural Resources Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan is amended to read as follows: NR 21.2 Illegal Signs Implement programs to remove illegal signs. (Imp 2.1, 26.1) Section 2: Section 20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety to read as follows: 20.42.140 Nonconforming Signs. A. Removal of Nonconforming Signs. Nonconforming signs shall be removed if: 1. The nonconforming sign is more than fifty (50) percent destroyed, and the destruction is other than facial copy replacement. A nonconforming sign shall be deemed to be more than fifty (50) percent destroyed if the estimated cost of reconstruction exceeds fifty (50) percent of the replacement cost as determined by the Building Official; 2. The nonconforming sign is remodeled, unless the sign is remodeled to comply with the provisions of this chapter; 3. The nonconforming sign is located on a building that is enlarged or expanded, if the nonconforming sign is affected by the construction, enlargement, remodel, or expansion. An enlargement, remodel, or expansion of the portion of the building upon which the nonconforming sign is located or that is more than fifty (50) percent of the building area shall be deemed to affect the nonconforming sign; or 4. The nonconforming sign is temporary. B. Deactivation of Flashing Features. The owner of a sign that contains flashing features shall permanently deactivate the flashing features. C. Continuance of Nonconforming Signs. Except as provided in subsection (A) of this section, a nonconforming sign may be continued and shall be maintained in good condition as required by these regulations, but it shall not be: 16-39 1. Structurally changed to another nonconforming sign, although its copy and pictorial content may be changed. 2. Structurally altered to prolong the life of the sign, except to meet safety requirements. 3. Expanded or altered in any manner that increases the degree of nonconformity. D. Repairing and Repainting. Nonconforming signs shall only be painted and repaired in place and shall not be removed from their existing location, except for building remodeling, unless removal of the sign for painting or repair is part of the sign's customary maintenance and repair. E. Change of Business Ownership. Upon a change of ownership, the new owner of a nonconforming sign may change the name or names on the sign so long as there is no change in the structure or configuration of the sign. 16-40 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 16-41 RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-043 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 COASTAL LAND USE PLAN POLICY NO. 4.4.4-4 AND 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 30500 of the California Public Resources Code requires each County and City to prepare a Local Coastal Program ("LCP") for that portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction. 2. In 2005, the City of Newport Beach ("City") adopted the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan ("Local Coastal Program") as amended from time to time including most recently on January 22, 2019, via Resolution No. 2019-8. 3. The California Coastal Commission effectively certified the City's Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan on January 13, 2017, and the City added Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) ("Title 21") to the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") whereby the City assumed coastal development permit - issuing authority as of January 30, 2017. 4. An amendment to Title 21 and the Local Coastal Program does not authorize new development or additional signs, but rather allows for the elimination of the deadline for abatement while maintaining requirements for legal nonconforming signs to be brought into conformance or removed through natural attrition, and is necessary to reduce the financial burden on businesses during the COVID-19 crisis and assist in the recovery of the local economy ("LCP Amendment"). 5. A telephonic public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 19, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, due to the Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19. 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 16-42 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 exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. While this amendment would allow existing legal nonconforming signs to remain in place, it does not authorize new development that would directly result in physical change to the environment. There is no evidence that removal of the Amortization Period would result in any new effects on the environment. Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265(a)(1), local governments are exempt from the requirements of CEQA in connection with the adoption of a Local Coastal Program. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment 1. The Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) amendment is a request to amend Coastal Land Use Plan Policy No. 4.4.4-4, which states, "Implement programs to remove illegal signs and amortize legal nonconforming signs." While this change will eliminate the reference to amortize legal nonconforming signs, the goal of removing illegal signs will remain. 2. The types of signs that are subject to removal (roof signs, pole signs, internally illuminated signs with translucent faces, and oversized signs) will continue to be prohibited by the code. Allowing these signs to remain will not have an impact to public access or views to coastal resources. The amendment does not authorize new development or additional signs, but rather allows for the elimination of the deadline for abatement while maintaining requirements for legal nonconforming signs to be brought into conformance or removed through natural attrition, as set forth in Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC. 3. This CLUP 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 CLUP Amendment, will be carried out fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act. 16-43 Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan Amendment - Title 21 1. The Implementation Plan (IP) Amendment is 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. By eliminating the requirement for nonconforming signs to be removed, the IP 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. The IP Amendment is further consistent with the amended Coastal Land Use Plan Policy No. 4.4.4-4, which upon approval of the City Council of this project will state, "Implement programs to remove illegal signs." This amendment will allow the City to focus on abating illegal signs instead of nonconforming signs that were consistent with the Code at the time of their erection. 3. This IP 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 IP 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. The Planning Commission finds the proposed LCP Amendment is exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), and Section 15265(a)(1), because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment and local governments are exempt from the requirements of CEQA in connection with the adoption of a Local Coastal Program. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends the City Council approve LCP Amendment No. LC2019-005, to amend Chapter 4 (Coastal Resources Protection) of the City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan Policy No. 4.4.4-4, and to amend Section 21.30.065(E) (Signs) as set forth in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 16-44 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Erik Weigand, Chair Lauren Kleiman, Secretary 16-45 EXHIBIT "A" LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. LC2019-005 Section 1: Policy No. 4.4.4-4 of the Chapter 4 (Coastal Resources Protection) of the City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan is amended to read as follows: 4.4.4-4 Implement programs to remove illegal signs Section 2: Section 21.30.065(E) (Signs) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be deleted. 16-46 Attachment No. PC 3 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 7, 2020 16-47 P° A 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT r May 7, 2020 C44,FpR[A�P Agenda Item No. 3 SUBJECT: Amortization of Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184) ■ Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 ■ Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 SITE LOCATION: Citywide APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach PLANNER: David Blumenthal, AICP, Planning Consultant 949-644-3200, dblumenthal(a)newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY Amendments to Section 20.42.140(A) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Section 21.30.065(E) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) to extend an amortization period for nonconforming signs. NBMC currently requires nonconforming signs to be removed by October 27, 2020. These amendments would extend the deadline for removal to October 27, 2025. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Find this project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3; 3) Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-015 (Attachment No. PC 1) recommending the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 to amend Section 20.42.140(A) (Nonconforming Signs) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and 4) Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-016(Attach ment No. PC 2) recommending the City Council approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 and authorize staff to submit the amendment to the California Coastal Commission to amend Section 21.30.065(E) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 16-49 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: 16-50 Pole sign: A sign that is supported by a single pole or similar support structure so that the bottom edge of the sign is one foot or more above grade. Roof sign: A sign that is erected upon or above a roof of a building Internally illuminated signs with a translucent face: A sign that is illuminated from an interior light source and more than the actual lettering and/or a registered trademark or logo is illuminated. Amortization of Nonconforming Signs Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 3 Itffdi..L k 1 I 1 Pill' I II I ��! !! Iks rop CRON OF S.E WISCONSIN 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. 16-51 Amortization of Nonconforming Signs Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 4 To accomplish this, the use of an amortization period is a common planning tool. The theory behind the amortization period is a nonconforming sign is allowed to remain for a specific period of time, thus allowing the owner to recoup their investment before the sign must be abated. In this case, a 15 -year amortization period was set in 2005. Over the past 15 years, approximately 35 percent of the nonconforming signs have been remedied through natural attrition. The initial intent of this code amendment was to grant additional time for signs to be brought into compliance with the code or be removed. Notwithstanding this, with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, an additional financial burden has been placed on many local businesses, as they have been required to reduce services or temporarily close. Since replacing a sign is a capital expense that the business or property owner would be required to undertake, extending the amortization period would provide some financial relief. Additionally, enforcing the deadline and working with business owners would require significant amount of staff, including code enforcement, planners, and attorneys, dedicated to the efforts. Extending the deadline would allow staff to focus on COVID-19 management and recovery efforts, as well as implementation of higher priority projects. This proposed would amend Sections 20.42 is recommending a five-year extension amendments are as follows: 20.42.140 NONCONFORMING SIGNS 140(A) and 21.30.065(E) of the NBMC. Staff the amortization period. The proposed A. Abatement of Nonconforming Signs. The following nonconforming signs shall be removed or altered to be conforming within f;fte 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 Q Gteber 27, 2020 October 27, 2025, with the exception of signs designated as heritage signs. 16-52 Amortization of Nonconforming Signs Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 5 Outreach Efforts On March 12, 2020, staff sent letters to 327 property and business owners for properties and/or businesses that were previously identified as having a nonconforming sign. The intent of the letter was to inform them of the pending code amendment and to elicit feedback. Staff has spoken to and/or received comments from approximately 70 respondents, the consensus of which is the City should extend or eliminate the amortization period. Comment letters are included in Attachment No. PC 3 General Plan Consiste General Policy No. NR21.2 (Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs) states, "Implement programs to remove illegal signs and amortize legal nonconforming signs." While there is already a program to remove nonconforming signs (NBMC Sections 20.42.140 and 21.30.065), the action is consistent with this General Plan Policy since it does not eliminate the amortization of legal nonconforming signs, but rather just extends the deadline for their removal. The Code Amendment is also consistent with General Plan Policy No. LU 1.5 (Economic Health), which states, "Encourage a local economy that provides adequate commercial, office, industrial, and marine -oriented opportunities that provide employment and revenue to support high-quality community services." Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses in the City are facing an economic hardship as a result of being required to reduce services or close temporarily. The Code Amendment would reduce the financial burden on businesses during the COVID-19 crisis and assist in the recovery of the local economy. Local Coastal Plan This proposal includes amendments to Title 21(Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC. Amendments to the LCP must also be reviewed and approved by the City Council, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission, prior to submitting the amendment request to the Coastal Commission. Coastal Commission review and approval is required for any proposed amendment to the certified LCP. It is staff's opinion that this amendment would not have an impact to public access or views to coastal resources. The proposal does not authorize new development or additional signs, but rather extends an amortization period for existing legal nonconforming signs. Alternatives The Planning Commission may recommend a longer or shorter timeframe for the amortization period. The Commission may also recommend denial of the suggested code 16-53 Amortization of Nonconforming Signs Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 6 amendment. Should the code amendment be denied by the City Council, all legal nonconforming signs would need to be removed by October 27, 2020. Environmental Review The Code Amendment is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3. Class 5 exemption applies to minor changes in land use limitations, provided the Property has an average slope that does not exceed 20 percent and the changes does not result in change to the permitted land use or density. The Amortization Period is considered a limitation on a land use. The Code Amendment would provide for a minor change by extending the Amortization Period. No new signs would be authorized and no change to existing sign standards would occur. Lastly, there would be no alteration to the conforming status to any sign. Public Notice Notice of this amendment was published in the Daily Pilot as an eighth page advertisement, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. The item also appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Notice was also mailed to all property and business owners for properties and/or businesses that were previously identified as having a nonconforming sign. Additionally, notice was sent to all persons and agencies on the Notice of the Availability mailing list for amendments to the LCP. Prepared by: David Blumenthal, AICP Planning Consultant ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: Jim Campbell Deputy Community Development Director PC 1 Draft resolution recommending the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 PC 2 Draft resolution recommending the City Council approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 and authorize staff to submit the amendment to the California Coastal Commission PC 3 Correspondence Received 16-54 16-55 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft resolution recommending the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 16-56 16-57 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. In October 2005, the City of Newport Beach ("City") comprehensively updated its sign regulations. Sign standards changed and certain previously allowed signs were prohibited. Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Sections 20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs) and 21.30.065 (Signs) require certain signs that do not conform to the new regulations to be abated within 15 years ("Amortization Period") from the effective date of the sign code update. 2. The Amortization Period is set to expire on October 27, 2020, at which time all nonconforming signs must be removed. On October 22, 2019, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach adopted Resolution 2019-92 initiating an amendment to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) ("Title 20") related to signs including extending the Amortization Period ("Zoning Code Amendment"). 3. On March 15, 2020, the City proclaimed a local emergency due to the COVID-19 global pandemic. Due to the extreme peril upon personal safety that is based on the existence or threatened existence of COVID-19 within and/or around the City, many businesses have been forced to reduce services or temporarily close. 4. A public hearing was held on May 7, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and NBMC Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. This Zoning Code amendment is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because an extension of time 16-58 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-015 Paae 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. 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. 16-59 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-015 Paae 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. 16-60 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-015 Paae 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 7th DAY OF MAY 2020. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: ly Peter Koetting, Chair Lee Lowrey, Secretary 16-61 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 16-62 16-63 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). 16-64 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-016 Paae 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. 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. 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. 16-65 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-016 Paae 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. 16-66 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-016 Paae 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 7th DAY OF MAY 2020. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: ly Peter Koetting, Chair Lee Lowrey, Secretary 16-67 Attachment No. PC 3 Correspondence Received 16-69 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Cilc'.W : po / 100 Civic Center Drive T li" Newport Beach, California 92660 949 644-3200 V newportbeachca:gov/communitydevelopment V ` s?,OM�U�li' ',C,q</PORN P,� :iF11�'s�t"1raP�E;�.i� �✓� MAR 2 3 048 115 07 March 12, 2020 Dino Clarizio `'`�' `� "a � � �'� (C�� , 1412 Orlando D ,., �� / L>� Arcadia, CA 91006-2107 `1/�'� ( 'U -t 5 Subject: Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs Dear Dino Clarizio: Chapter 20.42 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NEMC) regulates the type, size, and location of signs within the City of Newport Beach. This includes provisions on the removal of legally built signs that do not comply with the current code (nonconforming signs). NBMC Sections 20.42.140.A and 21.30.065.E require the following types of signs to be removed from all properties in the City no later than October 27, 2020: 1. Roof signs; 2. Pole signs; 3. Internally illuminated signs with a translucent face; 4. Signs with letters, text, logos, or symbols tallerthan permitted by the Zoning Code; and 5. Signs that exceed seventy-five (75) square feet in total sign area. In a citywide survey, your property located at 500 E Balboa Blvd has been identified as having a nonconforming sign that is subject to the October 27, 2020 removal deadline. The City of Newport Beach is now considering a proposal to extend this deadline. The City seeks public comment from impacted property owners and businesses on a proposed Code Amendment that would modify NBMC Sections 20.42.140.A and 21.30.065.E to grant additional time to remove nonconforming signs. 16-70 David Jalali P. O. Box 8412 Newport Beach, CA. 92658 Phone: (949)433-5626 Email: dave@jalali.com Date: March 14, 2020 Ake. 9 3 ?_0� David Blumenthal, AICP Planning Consultant s? t City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive. Newport Beach, CA. 92660 Dear David Blumenthal, AICP: I am a long time resident and business owner in the City of Newport Beach. Referenced to your letter, a copy of which is attached, and your request to remove the 30 years old PERMITTED street sign for my Property at 6000 W. Coast HWY. Newport Beach, CA. 92663, the building consists of 5 stores, conducting various trades, which significantly depend on the exposure, which this sign provides to financially survive. Removal of this sign will not only cause the existing five businesses hardship but also significant financial damages to the building value and desirability. This sign was installed almost three decades ago and should be grandfathers due to the hardship that it will cause. Not only the survival of the small businesses in the strip depends on this sign but also it is very expensive to have this sign removed. During these tough economic times, it is unfair to expect the building owner and or the existing businesses to cover the removal cost due to survival hardship. Removal of this monumental sign, which not only adds to the beauty of the city but also helps a few small businesses to survive to create employment and city tax revenues, will create unbearable financial burden to cause hardship. Are these tradeoffs that we really want to make? Having said: 1. Please consider an exception due to the existence of this sign for years before the adaption of the new city codes (grandfather). As it has been for many other existing structures in the City. I am looking forward to your help. Sincerely, David Jalah 16-71 ql F0 BUSINESS BUSINESS OWNER 6000 COAST HWY W NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949 644-3200 newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment March 12, 2020 Subject: Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs Dear Sir or Madam: Chapter 20.42 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) regulates the type, size, and location of signs within the City of Newport Beach. This includes provisions on the removal of legally built signs that do not comply with the current code (nonconforming signs). NBMC Sections 20.42.140.A and 21.30.065.E require the following types of signs to be removed from all properties in the City no later than October 27, 2020: 1. Roof signs; 2. Pole signs; 3. Internally illuminated signs with a translucent face; 4. Signs with letters, text, logos, or symbols taller than permitted by the Zoning Code; and 5. Signs that exceed seventy-five (75) square feet in total sign area. In a citywide survey, your business located at 6000 COAST HWY W has been identified has being located on a property with a nonconforming sign that is subject to the October 27, 2020 removal deadline. The City of Newport Beach is now considering a proposal to extend this deadline. The City seeks public comment from impacted property owners and businesses on a proposed Code Amendment that would modify NBMC Sections 20.42.140.A and 21.30.065.E to grant additional time to remove nonconforming signs. Please submit your written comments prior to April 2, 2020. Comments may be emailed to dblumenthala-newportbeachca.pov or mailed to: City of Newport Beach - Community Development Department Attn: David Blumenthal, AICP 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at the above listed email address, or call me at (949) 644-3204. Sincerely, David Blumenthal, AICP Planning Consultant 16-73 e NATCAT Foundedin 1968 The National Cat Protection Society Non -Profit Cat Shelter 6904 W. Coast Highway • Newport Beach, CA 92663 • Tel: (949) 650-1232 • FAX (949) 650-7367 email: newport@natcat.org • www.natcat.org March 20, 2020 City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Attn: David Blumenthal, AICP 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 s Re: Proposed Extension of Deadline to Remove Non -Conforming Signs Dear Mr. Blumenthal, The National Cat Protection Society (NatCat) has been a staple of the Newport Beach community since 1994. Throughout those 26 years, NatCat has prided itself on compassion, consistency, and community involvement. We receive calls and letters from all over the county but our core supporters are located here, in Newport Beach. Over the years, our building and sign have become iconic, much like our neighbors at The Frog House, Cucina Alessa, and NBC Cafe. Enforcing this code would have a severely negative impact on our organization for several reasons: (1) The NatCat sign bears historical significance, uniqueness, and charm that remain a classic example of craftsmanship style from decades ago. The old marquee aesthetic, welcoming invitation to volunteers and a call for people to "Be Kind to [their] Pets" have all become essential components of the Newport Beach experience. A drive up Pacific Coast Highway would not be the same without picturesque beaches, Ruby's Diner, and the NatCat sign. For all intents and purposes, the NatCat sign should be designated a Heritage Sign and be allowed to remain despite its status as non -conforming. (2) As an independent non-profit, we rely exclusively on donations to continue operating. Individuals who have been casually passing by have noticed our sign, seen our facility, and decided - then and there — to adopt a cat, make a donation or even add us to their last will and testament. Removing our sign may have an abrupt and decidedly negative impact on the number of individuals who discover our facility, which is already strained due to the current economic climate. (3) The COVID-19 virus has altered nearly every aspect of our business. Requiring us to remove the sign at this time is commercially unreasonable and would impose undue hardships on our organization. Shelters • Adoptions • Retirement Center No cats ever sold for vivisection Page 1 of 2 16-74 The National Cat Protection Society Non -Profit Cat Shelter 6904 W. Coast Highway • Newport Beach, CA 92663 • Tel: (949) 650-1232 • FAX (949) 650-7367 email: newport@natcat.org • www.natcat.org NATCAT Foundedin1968 NatCat strongly supports a code amendment that would grant additional time to remove non- conforming signs and seeks consideration regarding a Heritage Sign designation. Kindest Re ards, Wade Golden, J.D. Sr. Operations Director National Cat Protection Society 6904 W. Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 650-1232 www.natcat.org Page 2 of 2 Shelters • Adoptions • Retirement Center No cats ever sold for vivisection 16-75 MAS' 3 0 202.0 �,I V OZ. City of Newport Beach - Community Development Department Attn: David Blumenthal, AICP 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 r ALBOA NGLINGCLU15ORGANIZED 1828 March 26, 2020 Subject: Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs Dear Mr. Blumenthal, Thank you for notifying us that our business was sited in a survey pertaining to nonconforming signs. Our building and two signs have been @ 200 A Street since 1948 and have never had an issue with building codes. We work with the city on many levels and always follow a strict city compliance. I find it hard to believe that our signs are nonconforming since the signs in adjacent businesses are larger and taller. Our signs are on our single level roof, are not on a pole, do not have internal illumination, and I believe meet all R2 zoning regulations. We look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter. Sincerely, .J Alison Ryffel Club Secretary 16-76 THE CANNERY, LLC, 1901 Bayadere Terrace, Corona del Mar, CA 92625, phone 714-814-8142, jack@croul.com March 28, 2020 City of Newport Beach - Community Development Departmen�`o'E„, �v,NITD 'R1 Att: David Blumenthal, AICP `,EVELOPPOEN-I 100 Civic Center Drive MAR 3 l 2020 Newport Beach, CA 92660 UITY OF Re: Request for comment on propos,-t,,,,, extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs Dear Mr, Blumenthal I request that the proposed Code Amendment grant additional time to remove nonconforming signs. Further, I request that we can continue to have the signage in place that was approved by the Planning Commission Modification Permit No.2001-113 at its meeting on January 3,2002. Attached are seven documents regarding that 2002 meeting. G !11 16-77 �t SEW PORT ° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 cy�� Fa R��P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (949)644-3209 NOTICE OF FINAL APPROVAL i �^ DATE: February 8, 2002 TO: Mr. Jeff Reuter FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: Modification Permit No. 2001-113 Please be advised that Modification Permit No. 2001-113 (PA2001-204) was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of January 3, 2002. Any deviation from the applications and plans on file in the Planning Department may require an amendment to the application(s) mentioned above for the project. Applicant: Steve Herbert Location: 3010 Lafayette Avenue Description: Appeal of the approval of Modification Permit No. 2001-113. The applicant requests relief from one condition of approval. Should you have any questions, please contact our office. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Patricia . Temple, Director By Gin r Varin Executive Secretary Planning Commission Enclosure: ❑ Approved Resolution with Findings and Conditions of Approval Approved Planning Commission minutes with Final Findings and Conditions of Approval cc: Property Owner (if not applicant) Gvarin\PlanComm\ntcefftpc.doc 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 16-78 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 C mmissioner Agajanian noted he would not be in support of the project, as he see o special circumstances that warrant the approval of a variance. Commi ioner Kiser noted he would be in support of the project due to the changes at have been made by the applicant with the understanding that the neighb ing property owner is here and has seen these plans as far as they go and belie s that she will be given the reciprocal easement that is needed. I want to mak sure that Ms. Hirsch understands that no matter how much deliberative effo we put into this tonight, she is giving a very significant property right here in the reciprocal easement and should feel no hesitation whatsoever to make re the project exactly meets her needs before agreeing to give that reciproca right. It is not something that needs to be acted on hastily and she should el no compunction whatsoever to make sure the project exactly meets her eds. I am comfortable with what we have in front of us tonight in the way of p ns and information in the way of approving this project, I no longer feel wit the revised project that it is giving special preference to this property. I a somewhat uncomfortable that we only have two sheets out of the four of the lans in front of us tonight, we don't have elevations. With the amount of time ave spent at looking at the property, the plans and reviewing it at the last eeting, I am marginally comfortable approving it without those two sheets. I uld like to see a site plan on what this final revised project is, but in the interest f not having this back again and because I don't think that with all the cons' erations given we have to have those things I will be voting for it. The following vote was recorded on the applica Ayes: Kiser, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: McDaniel, Agajanian Commissioner Selich noted his concern of the setback for e property at 407 Dahlia. He then submitted a sketch of the two parcels that as prepared by staff. He stated that this points out the reasons why we need va\be' these lots that are reconfigured from the original subdivision patternwhat you see are two interpretations on what the setback woulde rear property. Discussion then followed on the need for independent and discretion per lot and not just a strict application of the Zoning L The Planning Commission took a five-minute break. SUBJECT: The Cannery Restaurant 3010 Lafayette Avenue • Modification Permit No. MD2001-113 (PA2001-204) Request to permit the installation of a 52 square foot wall sign over an entry 27 INDEX Item No. 3 PA2001-204 Appeal Upheld 16-79 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 portico. This will be the fifth wall sign on the building where the Zoning Code limits the site to a maximum of three wall signs. Existing wall signs are located on four separate faces of the building. The proposed sign will be the second wall sign facing the on site parking lot. Ms. Temple distributed a picture of the front of the restaurant as provided by the applicant. She noted that the sign in question is the one on the left, which says 'The Cannery Restaurant' in block lettering. Continuing, she gave a brief summary of the staff report adding that the applicant is asking for a new wall sign. The existing sign program for the restaurant consists of four wall signs, where the new Balboa Peninsula Sign Regulations allow no more than three. In making their action, the Modifications Committee thought that in approving a new sign over the main entrance, That the total number of wall signs should not be increased. Therefore, the other wall sign on the some fagade is the new wall sign was required to be removed by condition. What is being proposed by the applicant is a different sign over the entry, which is depicted on page 15 of the staff report. Commissioner Agajanian, referring to page 16 of the staff report, asked for and received clarification of the siting of the signs. Chairperson Tucker clarified that the applicant previously had four painted on wall signs, a painted on sign above the entry as well as another sign above the entry for a total of 6 signs while the restaurant was opened? Ms. Temple answered that there was a total of 4 signs and they have a right to add a monument sign for the property in the front. Mr. Campbell stated that the last page of the Sign Program has the colored renderings, there is a schematic of the building locating the positions and types of each of the existing signs. Mr. Jack Croul, 1901 Bayadera Terrace stated that he bought the Cannery property two years ago because the owner of the property was planning on tearing it down and building residential units. I thought it would be a tragedy for the City to have the Cannery disappear. It is a symbol and icon of the old days of Newport Beach. Newport was at one-time an active fishing village with four canneries. There are very few reminders of the old days in our City today. I don't want the Cannery to disappear from the City and I am planning on placing it in a foundation so that it will remain for future generations to enjoy. For the past year, we have been remodeling the Cannery. It will be a beautiful restaurant and outside we are trying to change it as little as possible to keep its existing character. We have been required to make a few changes to the outside to meet current building codes. For example, for seismic protection the outside stairway on the side facing the Bay is now a structural member to support the building along with a large steel framework that had to be installed inside the building. The photo I gave to you is the way the Cannery has looked for almost thirty years and up to the time we started the remodel. Regarding the signage, historically there has been a sign on each of three sides of the building and the fourth side, which is the 28 INDEX 16-80 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 16-81 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 all existing wall signage to stay and it certainly receives my support. I hope that you allow them to keep the signage to represent the historic significance of the building. Kevin Weeda, 429 30th Street spoke as the majority property owner surrounding the restaurant. He urged the Commission to approve this sign as it is a nice landmark for the community and the owner has made a commitment to the property. Jeff Rooter, representing Corporate Designs clarified that there were six signs on the walls originally. The size of the red sign is immense and they are significantly reducing the overall square footage of signage by taking both those signs down and putting up a smaller one over the entrance. Russ Fluter, 2025 West Balboa Blvd. spoke in support of the application and asked that the signage be allowed. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kiser clarified with staff that the Balboa Peninsula Sign Regulations includes this property. If this signage is approved, will it be in conformance with the Sign Ordinance? Ms. Temple answered that an approval of this application is for a modification for an increased number of wall signs pursuant to the Code. Commissioner Gifford noted that she does not support this application. She applauds the owner for his concern about the community and obviously putting his money on the line to support that, however, he has clearly recognized that there have to be changes. The interior is being remodeled, the Western Canners Co. sign although it may not count as a sign under our Sign Ordinance, has been removed and if there is anything in my mind that creates historical significance it would be the reference to the Western Canners. There was a great deal of effort to establish a Sign Ordinance to bring Balboa Peninsula into a place where we would not be 'over -signed,' and have well designed signs and sufficient signage for buildings. I don't think that there is a need for an exception to be made here. There was a mis-statement about signs that don't have to be removed for fifteen years. If they are taken down, then you start from ground zero. Malarky's has its signs in place. This sign would now be an exception to the Sign Ordinance and I just don't think there is anything particularly special about the nature of that signage. The restaurant is very visible, nobody is going to miss it because there is a smaller illuminated sign and not this wall sign. I am in support of implementing the provisions of the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Selich noted his support of the application as he doesn't consider these wall signs, as signs in the typical way we consider them. This is a very unusual building and they are as much a part of the architectural style of the building as they are a sign. The one that fronts on the Bay that has Western Canners, even though it makes reference to the restaurant, may not be considered a sign. I think 30 INDEX 16-82 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 a significant investment is being made in preserving a significant part of the City's heritage. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to uphold the appeal of the approval of Modification Permit No. 2001-113 by eliminating Condition No. 5. He stated he is very sensitive to signage, however he looks at this as a historical part of Newport Beach. The signs fit the building so well. Commissioner Kranzley stated that these are signs. We will probably be hearing something from another merchant in the near future and whether that is a sign or not. If we sit here tonight and talk about Western Canners on a side of a building not being a sign, I don't think we are serving our purpose very well. I am supportive of the appeal, somewhat reluctantly because a lot of time has been spent on the Peninsula and on the signs. This isn't technically a historical building, because I think the building was only built in 1972. Commissioner McDaniel noted he was going to support the motion. He noted however in the testimony tonight that it was going to be kept the same but we are going to change it by making it smaller and a different sign. I am confused on some of that but this is the Cannery and I would like to support it for all the reasons. There are concerns here, but I will support the motion. Chairperson Tucker noted that there are too many signs on the front of it and I would have done it the opposite way. I don't think the illuminated sign that is going up should have been approved. I like the sign that is on the exterior of the building that's not illuminated other than by a spotlight. However, that is not the issue before us. I am supporting the motion. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Kranzley Selich Noes: Gifford INDEX Beacon Bay Auto Wash, Newport Place Item No. 4 4200 Birch Street PA2001-200 • PA2001-200 Request for a Us ermit (UP2001-035) to reconfigure and improve an existing Approved service station and wash. The improvements include demolition and reconstruction of the detail ding as well as redesign and replacement of the gas dispensing islands and canoe - e proposed project also includes the partial conversion of an existing landscape bu into additional tandem parking spaces. Commissioner Kiser asked if there were any conce about the reflectivity of the roofing materials. Mr. Weber noted that this was mentioned to the architect and w * it had not finalized, a condition has been included regarding reflectivity , that the e no bare exposed metal and is subject to the Planning Director's review and appro 31 16-83 AN' &N Am L' s. 16-84 From: Barbara Dove <bjdcpa@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 10:39 AM To: Planning Commissioners; Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Rooftop signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners: Barbara J. Dove, CPA has been in business in Corona del Mar for four years. I would like to voice my concerns regarding removing the roof signs in Corona del Mar. I strongly object to the removal. I have received several new clients from locals due to the signage. It is value to my business and critical for many others. I hope that you will extend the use of the signs. With the current crises it is more important than ever. Please let me know if you have any questions. Be well and stay safe! Thank you, Barbara J. Dove, CPA Wertz & Company, LLP Mailing address: 5450 Trabuco Rd. Irvine, CA 92620-5704 949-756-5000 Irvine office 949-756-1618 bdove wertzco.com Secondary address: 3810 E Coast Hwy, Ste 5 Corona del Mar, CA 92625-2543 949-673-1040 telephone 949-673-1041 fax 714-321-1117 cell bidcpa(a)-msn.com The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 16-85 From: bradford kuish <kuishb@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 9:36 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Cc: Valerie Kerr Subject: Extension of Amortization Period for Non Conforming Signs (Revised) [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. PLEASE FORWARD TO STAFF Dear Planning Commission: As a property owner in the Village of Corona Del Mar, it is my position that the small businesses and entrepreneurs in our community need every advantage they can to survive in a changing retail world. The monument signs provide value to the small businesses in Corona Del Mar and perhaps even hope; an opportunity to garner recognition, identity and even economic sustenance. It gives each one of them some minor chance to eke out clients in a world dominated by mega - retailers such as Amazon, Walmart, Walgreens and Home Depot. Also, it seems THE LAST THING GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DOING IN THIS TIME OF UNPRECEDENTED ECONOMIC STRESS (COVIDI9) IS REMOVING ANY SOURCE OF SUSTENANCE OR INCOME. Eliminating the tenant signs will clearly reduce their identity, visibility and to some degree, their clients. Why make their businesses more difficult, reduce their patronage, reduce their potential clients and reduce their revenue at a time like this. It makes no sense. Businesses are already stressed. Does the City of Newport Beach think it prudent to make it worse??? I do not support removing the monument signs, certainly not in the short run and probably not in the long. 16-86 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 16-87 From: Campbell, Jim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 8:33 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: FW: non -conforming signs : 1495 Superior Avenue. Newport Beach CA Email correspondence. JIM CAMPBELL Community Development Department Deputy Community Development Director icamobe11(aa)ne woortbeachca. aov 949-644-3210 From: mirala@aol.com <mirala@aol.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 4:51 PM To: Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Kimberly.Parenzan@7-11.com Subject: non -conforming signs : 1495 Superior Avenue. Newport Beach CA [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Respected Madam(s) / Sir(s) , have received, via email, the attached notice. wish to submit my comments for your kind review and consideration Grace And Goodwill Enterprises LLC acquired the property at 1495 Superior Avenue on March 30th 2015, without the knowledge of this long -pending matter in regard to signs. am of the strong opinion that my tenant, 7 -Eleven, needs to maintain appropriate and adequate signage which displays their presence at this location. As you may be aware, 7 -Eleven has been at this property since approximately 35 years. The signs at this location are standard 7 -Eleven signs, which are present at all 7 -Eleven locations. These signs are not overly big, and neither are they causing any nuisance. Therefore, I am requesting that this municipal code be rescinded in its entirety, or that the location at 1495 Superior Ave be granted a permanent exemption from this municipal code. Respectfully Sunil Lalwani Grace And Goodwill Enterprises LLC 1349 South Broadway Los Angeles CA 90015 tel 213 746 4853 16-88 David Jalali P. O. Box 8412 Newport Beach, CA. 92658 Phone: (949)433-5626 Email: dave@jalali.com Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 David Blumenthal, AICP Planning Consultant City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive. Newport Beach, CA. 92660 Dear David Blumenthal, AICP: I am a long time resident and business owner in the City of Newport Beach. Referenced to your letter, a copy of which is attached, and your request to remove the 30 years old PERMITTED street sign for my Property at 6000 W. Coast HWY. Newport Beach, CA. 92663, the building consists of 5 stores, conducting various trades, which significantly depend on the exposure, which this sign provides to financially survive. Removal of this sign will not only cause the existing five businesses hardship but also significant financial damages to the building value and desirability. This sign was installed almost three decades ago and should be grandfathers due to the hardship that it will cause. Not only the survival of the small businesses in the strip depends on this sign but also it is very expensive to have this sign removed. During these tough economic times, it is unfair to expect the building owner and or the existing businesses to cover the removal cost due to survival hardship. Removal of this monumental sign, which not only adds to the beauty of the city but also helps a few small businesses to survive to create employment and city tax revenues, will create unbearable financial burden to cause hardship. Are these tradeoffs that we really want to make? Having said: 1. Please consider an exception due to the existence of this sign for years before the adaption of the new city codes (grandfather). As it has been for many other existing structures in the City. I am looking forward to your help. Sincerely, David Jalali 16-89 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 16-90 From: Edson, Kirk <Kirk.Edson @cit.com> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 4:34 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Cc: Dinna Lugiman (DLugiman@idsrealestate.com) Subject: Nonconforming sign extension requested - City of New Port Beach [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. David — It has been brought to my attention that there is a sign ordinance issue at the OneWest Bank branch located at 3700 E Coast Hwy, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625. Please understand I just received this notice and I require some time to address the matter. Also, due to the short notice and with the uncertainties of Covid-19 and not knowing how long restrictions may be imposed, I'm not sure when we can get to this project. Please grant us a sufficient extension period to get us well beyond the uncertain Covid-19 period, as well as enough time to complete the project. Thank you. Kirk E. Edson Vice President Corporate Services OneWest Bank, A division of CIT Bank NA. C: (626) 255-5387 75 N Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, California, 91103 www.cit.com This email message and any accompanying materials may contain proprietary, privileged and confidential information of CIT Group Inc. or its subsidiaries or affiliates (collectively, "CIT"), and are intended solely for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, any use, disclosure, printing, copying or distribution, or reliance on the contents, of this communication is strictly prohibited. CIT disclaims any liability for the review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon, this communication by persons other than the intended recipient(s). If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender advising of the error in transmission, and immediately delete and destroy the communication and any accompanying materials. To the extent permitted by applicable law, CIT and others may inspect, review, monitor, analyze, copy, record and retain any communications sent from or received at this email address. 16-91 From: cynthia <cynthiacdm@cox.net> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2020 4:44 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: FW: signage 2900 Newport Blvd [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. April 6, 2020 Dear Mr. Blumenthal, I received your letter regarding the signs on the property located at 2900 Newport Blvd Newport Beach. The illuminated signs which are currently on the roof and in the planter were existing when the property was purchased in 1998 and I believed that there were permits on filed at the City, Over time the various tenants changed the acrylic fagade per restaurant businesses but since I thought the signs were conforming I did not require that they change the encasement. The property has now been vacant for the past two years. It is a financial hardship for me to pay the taxes, insurance, flood insurance, utilities, maintenance and repairs, in addition to the in lieu parking fees which I pay the City $2,700.00 annually. It would be a relief to not be required to incur more coasts to make the changes I have a tenant and cash flow. Additionally I am the full time caregiver in my home for my 90 year old mother and it is difficult to leave her and take on a new project. That being said I do go to the property daily (with mom waiting in the car) and verify everything looks presentable for potential tenants and just planted new flowers, bulbs and new soil to add to the curb appeal. Unfortunately due to the corona virus I am concerned that I may not find a tenant for sometime until the restaurants are able to reopen. I would appreciate your consideration in extending the deadline and forgive me for this late response. I called the city a few weeks ago but was unable to speak with you directly and the planner told me to email you directly. Please let me know which signs are non- conforming and what the signs should look like going forward. Thank you. Best regards, Cynthia Klanian (949) 610-6568 16-92 From: Bencharat Morarit <bencharat@mind prossage.com> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2020 3:39 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Business Sign [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Blumenthal, my name is Bencharat Morarit and I am the business owner of Mind Prossage, a business located at 3617 Coast HWY E Suite B in Corona del Mar. We have received your letter about non conforming signs. Apologies for writing late but the last 3 weeks have been really chaotic with the business closure, social distancing and uncertainty on when it will be possible to re -open again. I am writing you to inquiry about the reasons our sign is considered non conforming. We went through the full approval of the city for every minimal detail when we opened the business back in 2012 (including site visits to check out everything) and we had no issues with that. Actually even the business previously located at our location address had exactly the same sign (we just re -made it identical with our business name) for several years. This is going to be a tough time for small businesses due to the inability to be open, running multiple costs with no revenues at all and we would like to get a better understanding before incurring in further costs. Thank you in advance and looking forward to your reply. Bencharat Morarit bencharatkmindprossa eg com (949)630-5559 16-93 From: Art <cdmpease@sbcgloba1.net> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2020 3:13 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Fw: Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove non -conforming signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forwarded Message From: Arthur Pease <arthurpease58@gmail.com> To: "cdmpease@sbcglobal. net" <cdmpease@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020, 3:03:00 PM PDT Subject: Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove non -conforming signs am opposed to enforcing the city sign ordinance at 408 32nd Street Newport Beach requiring non- conforming sign removal. The cost of new signs is exorbitant and unaffordable for most small businesses of one or two employees. In my case the existing business impacted by your request for change could not be afforded. Going forward we do not know what the economic impact will be on such a small scale business. I therefore request you eliminate the demand for change on the existing non -conforming signs and allow the signs to continue into use as built. The existing non -conforming signs have not created any negative impact on the neighborhood or community. Any changes should be left to the discretion of the property owner and business owner at such time as they request a sign change. At that time consideration of the guidelines from the sign ordinance would be implemented. I feel this is a proper and adequate solution the city council should consider and implement. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 16-94 Arthur Pease 408 32nd Street Newport Beach 16-95 From: Colin Berger <colinberger@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2020 2:41 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Extension non confirming rigs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear David I just received your letter today as it was sent to Golden Mardikian LLC the property owners address We at the CAR SPA at 1200 West Coast Hwy have been closed for the past 16 days due to the rainy weather and the Coronavirus stay at home order WE seeks businesses on a proposed Code Amendment that would modify NBMC Sections 20.42.140.A and 21.30.065 to grant additional time to remove nonconforming signs or consider our sign as confirming as the sign cost us in excess of $25000 and the cost to remove it would be very costly and further more with our business being closed due to the Corana virus stay at home order We hope you will consider our comments Thanking you Colin Berger Director THE CAR SPA Colin Berger 16-96 From: CLASSOF47 <classof471ounge@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2020 12:12 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Comment re: extension of deadline to remove allegedly nonconforming signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Blumenthal: On March 12, 2020 you sent a letter addressed to the Building Owner of the business located at 209 Palm St, Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 requesting comment on a proposed extension of the deadline to remove nonconforming signs pursuant to some alleged NBMC Sections 20.42.140A and 21.30.065.E. The business located at that address is Class of 47. I am the owner of Class of 47. I am sending you this email in response to your letter dated March 12, 2020. Class of 47 believes that it would be a wise move on behalf of the City of Newport Beach to grant additional time for the removal of any allegedly nonconforming signs. Class of 47 believes that, at a minimum, the deadline should be extended from October 27, 2020 to "indefinitely". Indeed, Class f 47 is of the position that any such NBMC should be revoked and/or otherwise be eliminated in their entirety. There should be no such law on the books. Nor, should the City make any effort or attempt to try to enforce any such NBMC. Class of 47 has been located at 209 Palm St., Newport Beach, CA since March 1, 1977. The business has operated in that location continuously since its grand opening almost 43 years ago. Class of 47 is a historic and iconic part of the history of Newport Beach. Due to its location in the heart of Balboa Village at the entrance and exit of the Balboa Ferry. Class of 47 is also a very significant part of the history of Newport Harbor. The sign was originally installed in the mid 1960's, Kelly's Steak House. 16-97 Class of 47 has had prominent signage in place throughout its long history. That signage is as much a part of the history of Newport Beach and Newport Harbor as is the Tavern named Class of 47, itself. Any attempt to "scrub" or rewrite the history of Newport Beach or the history of Newport Harbor by attempting to force Class of 47 to remove or modify its historic signs is a disgrace. We also believe that it is unconstitutional. We believe that it would be most unwise for the City of Newport Beach to have such a rule on its books. We also believe that it would be even more unwise for the City of Newport Beach to attempt to enforce such an unconstitutional and disgraceful statute. So, yes, the City of Newport Beach should, at a minimum, indefinitely delay enforcement of any such alleged code section. But, more importantly, the City of Newport Beach should eliminate any such code sections. Such code sections, if they do exist, never should have been enacted in the first place. Thanks, Patrick Conners 3345 Newport Blvd., Suite 204 Newport Beach CA 92663 (949) 566-9375 Office (949) 554-5725 Cell (866) 784-7341 Fax http://www.farmersagent.com/pconners Pat Conners CLASS OF 47 209 Palm St. Newport Beach, CA 92661 Ph: (949)554-5725 Fx: (866)784-7341 16-98 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 16-99 From: Alvin Ta <Alvin.Ta@unionbank.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2020 5:00 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Union Bank Newport Beach - Extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Blumenthal: On behalf of MUFG Union Bank, our businesses located at 1501 Westcliff Dr (Westcliff) and at 396 Superior Ave (Superior) have been identified with a nonconforming sign that is subject to the October 27, 2020 removal deadline. Union Bank Westcliff The building top signage at this location is essential for visibility of the branch to existing clients and the community at large. Union Bank is a regional Bank that needs visibility afforded to other national banks. Due to the architecture and design of the building, signage visibility from the street and adjacent area are only available from the upper portion of the building. Due to this unusual sightline, it is imperative for this sign to remain in order to maintain visibility. Union Bank Superior The Pole Sign at our Superior location is essential as we have very limited signage at this location due to the architecture of the building itself. We feel that this sign helps not only our customers know where we are located, but the community at large as we are a regional bank with ties to the community for over many years. The intersection of Superior and Placentia Ave have virtually no other signage visibility but for this pole sign. Please grant additional time to remove nonconforming signs. In addition, these signs were legally approved and permitted. If the signs need to come down, who should pay for this. Thanks very much for considering our request to extend this deadline and answering our question. Sincerely, Alvin Ta JLL I Project Management Contractor Supporting Corporate Real Estate at MUFG Union Bank, N.A. M +1 626.543.3211 Alvin.Ta(a)_unionbank.com lwww.JLL.com Please note the MUFG logo and name is a service mark of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. ("MUFG") and may be used by it or other Group companies for marketing purposes, including 16-100 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. 16-101 From: Meussner, John <John.Meussner@am.jll.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2020 4:58 PM y To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) 19t,x4R*xr Cc: coxtim1947@gmail.com; Meussner, John Subject: RE: Request for Extension to Remove Nonconforming Signs. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I'm happy an extension, however long, will be put in place. I'll be sure to update the BofA branding team after I speak to a planner. Thank you and have a great day! John Meussner M +1714 454 4034 From: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 4:49 PM To: Meussner, John <John.Meussner@am.jll.com> Cc: coxtim1947@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Request for Extension to Remove Nonconforming Signs. John, We are moving forward with a code amendment to extend the deadline for removal of the nonconforming signs. Until this amendment moves through the public hearing process, we cannot guarantee how long it will be extended for. Having said this, please call the planning counter at (949) 644-3204 to discuss the sign refresh with a planner. DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP Community Development Department Planning Consultant dblumenthal(c_newportbeaehca.gov 949-644-3204 F Please consider the environment before printing this email From: Meussner, John <John.Meussner@am.Ill.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 10:40 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: coxtim1947@gmail.com; Meussner, John <John.Meussner@a m.ill.com> Subject: Request for Extension to Remove Nonconforming Signs. Importance: High 16-102 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello David — I hope all is well in these interesting times we are all going through. I received the attached letter regarding a nonconforming sign at the BofA mentioned within it reached out to the banks branding team and this was their response; Bank of America in 2019 began a multi-year program to rebrand its financial centers with its new branded signage in a refreshed and updated design. The bank would respectfully request an extension of up to five years of the deadline for conforming to the new sign regulations. It is anticipated that permit requests to update the Corona Del Mar site would be submitted to the City well in advance of an extended deadline for conforming the updated signage regulations, but given the bank's over 4300 financial centers and over 3000 remote ATMs this will give the bank time to respond to these new regulations. In the near term the bank would like to proceed with refreshing the existing signs (primarily via repainting) to improve the look of those signs pending the rebranding effort. Please advise if we can move forward with this game plan Thank you and have a great day!! John Meussner Facility Manager JLL Bank of America 275 Valencia Ave Brea CA 92823 M +1714 454 4034 www.all.com (0) 1 LL lq"441� One of the 2020 World's Most Ethical Companies® Jones Lang LaSalle For more information about how JLL processes your personal data, please click here. This email is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this email without the author's prior permission. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. The information contained in this communication may be confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege. If you are the intended recipient and you do not wish to receive similar electronic messages from us in the future then please respond to the sender to this effect. 16-103 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, 16-104 Jamie Duarte Duarte & Associates 245 Fischer Ave., Ste. A-1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (714) 545-4800 E-mail: iduarte(@duarte-law.com 16-105 From: Holly Broxterman <hollyb@loungegroup.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2020 12:40 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Cc: Mario Marovic Subject: Request to Extend: Non -conforming Sign October Deadline [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi David, We are in receipt of the attached notice for signage changes requested at 106 22nd St. Although this sign hasn't changed for years, we appreciate your associate Chelsea's explanation that the amortization for sign code changes from 10 years ago will be ending in October and enforced soon. Due to recent business closures and public health changes since the date of this notice, we kindly request to postpone or extend the October 27th deadline for removal. Thank you for your understanding. Your guidance in proceeding as we approach the deadline would be greatly appreciated. Holly Broxterman Real Estate Lounge Group 3334 E Coast Highway #418 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 tel: 949.675.1913 1 email: hollyb@loungegroup.com web: www.loungegroup.com ��; 4 F f C y4 `Pi�$ - P1140 - LOUNGE Mcia BE LM.ff NiNi ny r u eoo.r• C 0OtSULT fNG 16-106 From: Grace Dove <doveperch @sbcgloba1.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 1:52 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Cc: Campbell, Jim Subject: Extension of Time -Nonconforming Signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Blumenthal, following are my comments, as requested, on the proposed extension of time of deadline to remove non conforming signs: I support an extension of time. This deadline was included with a study of all signs more than 10 years ago. Pole signs were a minor consideration and punted. The requirement has long been forgotten by most business/property owners along with the opportunity for a sign to be considered for historic status. Time is needed for sign owners to do any research necessary to achieve historic status and for the City to review and consider applications. Should someone decide to remove a sign, time is needed to contract for removal and to design and permit a replacement. Pole signs are found in the older parts of the City and outside of areas controlled by CC&Rs with design requirements. The buildings were placed, often on small lots, in consideration of locating a ubiquitous pole sign and will not be easily replaced. This deadline for removal comes at an especially bad time for burdening owners of small properties and of small businesses. Compliance will be expensive at a time when businesses are closed or experiencing reduced revenues. Once they are able to operate, time will be necessary to recover or for the property to find a replacement tenant. They also will need the identity provided by a familiar sign. Likewise the City staff and decision makers will be occupied with the unexpected tasks of planning for an anticipated and substantial reduction in revenues. This is a time to encourage and facilitate recovery not to burden it. Please consider a substantial extension of time to comply with or reconsider this obscure requirement. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for Whone 16-107 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, 16-108 Bob Carson Eric Carson Hugh Carson Family, LLC 29 Chapital San Clemente, CA 92672 Owners of 3050 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar 16-109 From: Meussner, John <John.Meussner@am.jll.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 10:40 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Cc: coxtim1947@gmail.com; Meussner, John Subject: Request for Extension to Remove Nonconforming Signs. Importance: High [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello David — I hope all is well in these interesting times we are all going through. I received the attached letter regarding a nonconforming sign at the BofA mentioned within it. I reached out to the banks branding team and this was their response; Bank of America in 2019 began a multi-year program to rebrand its financial centers with its new branded signage in a refreshed and updated design. The bank would respectfully request an extension of up to five years of the deadline for conforming to the new sign regulations. It is anticipated that permit requests to update the Corona Del Mar site would be submitted to the City well in advance of an extended deadline for conforming the updated signage regulations, but given the bank's over 4300 financial centers and over 3000 remote ATMs this will give the bank time to respond to these new regulations. In the near term the bank would like to proceed with refreshing the existing signs (primarily via repainting) to improve the look of those signs pending the rebranding effort. Please advise if we can move forward with this game plan. Thank you and have a great day!! John Meussner Facility Manager JLL Bank of America 275 Valencia Ave Brea CA 92823 M +1714 454 4034 www.all.com i LL AdA.ZAI& One of the 2020 World's Most Ethical Companies® Jones Lang LaSalle 16-110 For more information about how JILL processes your personal data, please click here. This email is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this email without the author's prior permission. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. The information contained in this communication may be confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege. If you are the intended recipient and you do not wish to receive similar electronic messages from us in the future then please respond to the sender to this effect. 16-111 From: zu-hsiung hsiao <outpostl@att.net> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 11:34 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Sign [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Blumenthal: My name is Zu-Hsiung Hsiao (Tony), and I am the owner of the property located at 6110 W. Coast Hwy and The Outpost Liquor store which sits on the property. I am writing in response to your letter dated March 12, 2020 regarding Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs. In this unprecedented time, the COVID-19 situation is affecting the communities in which you and I live and work. Unfortunately, my business is not immune to the financial crisis brought on the COVID-19 and the Safe At Home Order. Although as an essential business we are able to operate, our business is expected to suffer severe financial loss. The time and expenditure required to remove the sign before October 27,2020 world be an impossible mission. Not only I am uncertain when and if the sign vendor world be able to open for business, the extra cost of removal would impose an undue financial burden. The foreseeable result world be to layoff employees or filing bankruptcy. have served the Newport Beach communities since 1985, and it has been an honor and pleasure to serve the Newport Beach communities. The Outpost Liquor store is not just a convenience store: it is also an indispensable 16-112 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 16-113 From: Erin Alonso <erinalonso5@icloud.com> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 2:12 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Re: Nonconforming signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I have a building in Orange, a while ago they were offering grants to help make the city look better. Many people took advantage of this. It was a win win. Erin Sent from my iPhone On Mar 27, 2020, at 12:26 PM, Blumenthal, David(Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> wrote: Erin, Thank you for your comment. The proposal will be to grant a multi-year extension. What do you mean when asking about a "beauty allowance"? <image002.jpg> DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP Community Development Department Planning Consultant dblumenthalanewnortbeachca. eov 949-644-3204 <image003. gif> -----Original Message ----- From: Erin Alonso <erinalonso5@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 10:09 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Nonconforming signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. This deadline needs to be moved since it's very hard to do business now as it is. This won't be a trivial expense either. Does the city offer beauty allowances? This should be reconsidered next year. Erin Alonso 310-863-5961 16-114 2430 W PCH NEWPORT BEACH Sent from my iPhone 16-115 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 16-116 From: beaconservice@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 5:45 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: PROPOSAL FOR REMOVAL OF NONCONFORMING SIGNS [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City of Newport Beach - Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: David Blumenthal, AICP Dear Mr Blumenthal, I am in receipt of your letter to Donna Adele Gallant Trust, the owners of the property at 1501 E. 16th Street, Newport Beach. Beacon Healthcare Services,lnc, d.b.a. Newport Bay Hospital has leased this property for the last 26 plus years. Newport Bay Hospital is the only Freestanding Acute Psychiatric Hospital in Orange County that is licensed by the State of California. Because of the uniqueness of the Hospital's Mental Health Programs, the catchment area for patients extends to San Louis Obispo, Fresno, Barstow, San Diego, as well as Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The subject sign has been in place for more than 20 years and is important for ambulance drivers, patients families and others who come from out of the area to be able to find the Hospitals location. The Hospital sits adjacent to the Environmental Nature Center which fortunately has a lot of foliage on 16th Street, but unfortunately blocks the view of the Hospitals entrance until a driver is past it. I believe that a permit was issued by the City to install the sign originally, but I will need to do research in the Hospitals archives. 16-117 We respectfully request that the City of Newport Beach issue a Conditional or Special Use Permit such that the signage remains in place. Regards, Phyllis Parkhurst, Senior Vice President Newport Bay Hospital 1�6ZPer:T:M :M-ZMII 16-118 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 16-119 From: Valerie Kerr <bradfordaccounting@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 10:31 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Re: 3800 E. Coast Highway- Corona del Mar- Letter received [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. HI David, Thank you for the prompt response. I am a bit confused, those signs have been in place since 1961. What exactly is nonconforming? Thank you, Valerie Kerr c/o, 39 Beach View LK100, LLC c/o, Pacific Riviera Collection, LLC Phone (949) 547-9167 On 3/25/2020 11:52 AM, Blumenthal, David(Contractor) wrote: Valerie, It appears that the nonconforming signs are the roof signs. Be advised, this proposal is to extend the deadline for removal of the signs. We are not asking for the signs to be removed at this time, but rather are working to give the signs additional time. W DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP Community Development Department Planning Consultant dblumenthal(&newportbeachca.g qy{+ * 949-644-3204 +�a F Please consider the environment before printing this email From: Valerie Kerr <bradfordaccounting@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 10:12 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 3800 E. Coast Highway- Corona del Mar- Letter received [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello David, We received a letter in the mail regarding non -conforming signs. Will you please tell which signs you are referring to? 16-120 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 16-121 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 16-122 From: Joe Vallejo <joevallejo22@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 12:29 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Fw: Signage [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Sorry I got your email address wrong have now resent it. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Joe Vallejo <joevallejo22@yahoo.com> To: dblunenthal@newportbeachca.gov <dblunenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020, 12:09:54 PM PDT Subject: Re: Signage On Friday, March 20, 2020, 05:43:14 PM PDT, Joe Vallejo <joevallejo22@yahoo.com> wrote: Hello David, I spoke with Liz in planning regarding the signage on my building at 1610 W. Coast Hwy, across from the Balboa Bay Club apartments. She said I should contact you. I first rented part of the premises in 1972 and moved away in a different location for a few years and moved back in 1978 taking over most of the building till 2015. The signage was already in place,at that time and was sited by the city that it was non- conforming. We presented our case to the City Council in 1978 and they approved the existing signs stating, that the location of the business in relation to the bend of Coast Hwy requires a sign that can be observed in either direction. (see enclosed minutes from the city). With constructed of the walk bridge coming in a few months that will further block our building going south makes the signage needed even more. We have not had any complaints or contact with the city for 42 years regarding the signs. Thank you for your consideration. With Regards, Joe Vallejo Cell 949-677-5713 16-123 -----Forwarded Message ----- >From: Joe Vallejo <valleiogallery(c_earthlink. net> >Sent: Mar 20, 2020 5:04 PM >To: Vallejo Gallery<valleiogallery(aD_earthlink.net> >Subject: Signage Sent from my Phone 16-124 From: ALRON7099@aol.com Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 4:04 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Cc: mhewitt@lawverdict.com; garen@korkerliquor.com; jordan@arestaurantnb.com Subject: Signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Blumenthal: My husband and I are the property owners at 2325 East Coast Highway (Corona Del Mar Restaurant) and the property at 2229 East Coast Highway (Korker Liquor) I have received a notice dated March 12, 2020 concerning the signs at these properties. would request an opportunity to come in and meet with you to discuss why my tenants need these signs for their business, and especially now with the closures and social upheaval our community is experiencing. When may I meet with you? Or what steps do I need to take register our vehement opposition to removal of the signage, and have the signs stay? Thank you for your attention on this matter, Allyson Presta, Partner Blackbird Investments, GP PV 1984, GP 16-125 Phone 949-759-1275 Fax 949-759-1288 Mobile 949-874-1725 Email ALRON7099@AOL.COM 16-126 From: Kathy Humphries <kjhlrules@aol.com> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 2:26 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Re: Nonconforming signs, Newport Beach Code [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you very much, We are trying very hard to remove any unnecessary stress from our tenants. Kathy Humphries 949 887-2232 -----Original Message ----- From: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> To: 'Kathy Humphries' <kjhl rules@aol.com> Sent: Wed, Mar 18, 2020 3:56 pm Subject: RE: Nonconforming signs, Newport Beach Code Kathy, Thank you for comment. The proposal is to amend the code and provide an automatic extension for removal of non -conforming signs. We will send additional notices to you as this request progresses through the public hearing process. DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP Community Development Department t Planning Consultant u dblumenthal(a)newportbeachca.pov 949-644-3204 bA, Please consider the environment before printing this email From: Kathy Humphries <kjhlrules@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 1:58 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Nonconforming signs, Newport Beach Code [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. -----Original Message ----- From: Kathy Humphries <k4h1rules(cDaol.com> To: dblumenthal <dblumenthal(aDnewportbeach.aov>; propertyanalyst <propertyanalyst(cDbrighthorizons.com> Sent: Wed, Mar 18, 2020 1:56 pm Subject: Nonconforming signs, Newport Beach Code 16-127 Dear Mr. Blumenthal, My name is Kathy Humphries and my sister's and I own the property at 2500. W. Coast Hwy, Newport Beach, CA, 92663. am responding to the letter we received regarding our tenant, Bright Horizon's non conforming sign. We are respectively asking for an extension of the proposed deadline for removal of the sign. Our tenant has spent a lot of money in designing a tasteful sign that as far as we can see has absolutely no negative effect on the property or the area. In light of these trying times, it seems ridiculous to put business's under more financial stress that is unnecessary. Please consider our position, right now we are all trying to pull together so I'm hoping this issue can be delayed for further consideration. Thank you, Kathy Humphries 949 887-2232 16-128 From: Kathy Humphries <kjhlrules@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 1:58 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Fwd: Nonconforming signs, Newport Beach Code [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. -----Original Message ----- From: Kathy Humphries <kjhlrules@aol.com> To: dblumenthal <dblumenthal@newportbeach.gov>; propertyanalyst <propertyanalyst@brighthorizons.com> Sent: Wed, Mar 18, 2020 1:56 pm Subject: Nonconforming signs, Newport Beach Code Dear Mr. Blumenthal, My name is Kathy Humphries and my sister's and I own the property at 2500. W. Coast Hwy, Newport Beach, CA, 92663. am responding to the letter we received regarding our tenant, Bright Horizon's non conforming sign. We are respectively asking for an extension of the proposed deadline for removal of the sign. Our tenant has spent a lot of money in designing a tasteful sign that as far as we can see has absolutely no negative effect on the property or the area. In light of these trying times, it seems ridiculous to put business's under more financial stress that is unnecessary. Please consider our position, right now we are all trying to pull together so I'm hoping this issue can be delayed for further consideration. Thank you, 16-129 Kathy Humphries 949 887-2232 16-130 eX- From: davidvoss@cox.net P_ Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 12:21 PM 15 To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) ��kaR'r Subject: RE: No -Conforming Signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. a� So basically the city somewhat snuck this code change in without consenting with property owners first? These signs on older buildings give 'value' to the older buildings. As I understood, old buildings would be grandfathered in until they are remodeled and then up to code. What's next, we need to add more parking per code? Slippery slope here. At considerable expense we went up to code for ADA compliance. Why the push now? The old sign give CDM character. Again, these signs have a value, how does the city plan to reimburse the property owners for that value? Will they pay to have the signs removed? In these unprecedented times, we will be 'lucky' to keep our tenants this year. City needs to focus on helping business stay in business and not give reasons for tenants to want to relocate or get a way to get out of their leases. Our Governor is doing all he can to make business move out of CA (fact). Let's not let Newport follow that example. Lead by example. End of the day the city will dictate. It would be a help if the signs could be removed after leases are up and then city pays for removal (which will be costly) TY Dave From: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 12:08 PM To: Dave Voss <dvoss@lrisCPG.com> Subject: RE: No -Conforming Signs A notice was not sent, which is why the City is one of the reasons the City is considering the extension. DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP Community Development Department Planning Consultant dblumenthal(d)newportbeachca.kov 16-131 949-644-3204 P 15iPlease consider the environment before printing this email From: Dave Voss <dvoss@lrisCPG.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 12:04 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: RE: No -Conforming Signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 0 Yes. Need time. Also need the original notice that was sent to building owners notifying them that the code had changed. I don't remember receiving this, it would not have gone unnoticed. Dave David Voss Director of Sales - West Iris Brands C: 949/494-1124 E: dvoss@irisCPG.com From: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 11:14 AM To: Dave Voss <dvoss@lrisCPG.com> Subject: RE: No -Conforming Signs Hello Dave, Thank you for your comments, and I understand your frustration. The proposal is to extend the deadline to give property owners additional time and proper notification. Based on your comments, is it correct to assume you would prefer the extension be over three years to give you time to work out the lease issues with tenants? DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP Community Development Department Planning Consultant dblumenthalna-,newportbeachca.g 949-644-3204 h Please consider the environment before printing this email 16-132 From: Dave Voss <dvoss@lrisCPG.com> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 3:01 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: No -Conforming Signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi: My family has owned that property at 3641/3643/3645 East Coast Highway, CDM for over 40 years. We have always had these roof signs grandfathered in to the code. In these forty years, we have NEVER had an issue with the city. I learned today from the 'other' David at the NB number on your letter that in 2010 the code changed and we had 10 years to comply? Where is that original letter, need to see it. To get a letter saying we are now not to code is ridiculous. Especially when the letter does not give us 'specific issues' with our signs. Are you asking us to remove them, replace them, modify them? Be specific! If it is just to remove, if that is the case, the next conversation will representation. We have it in our leases to our lessee's these signs that have been legal for as long as we have owned the buildings. This diminishes the value of our property as these signs are an important part of their marketing. We do not want to remove them. IF we are forced to remove them or be faced with fines, then we need time to work them out of our lease agreements. Mine a usually 2-3 year in length depending on the unit. If I just go and take down the sign, I will be open to my tenants taking action on the lessor. I would be glad to meet you at our building so you can specifically point our to me what is not to code. If it is something simple, I can address with my lessee's and we can address. if it is about removal of the signs, we have a much larger issue that may take time to rectify. You can't just decide the change the rules in 2010 because you don't like the signs. That is 100% unfair and unjust without proper notice. TY, Happy to go over this by phone as well. TY Dave David Voss C: 949/494-1124 16-133 From: mirala@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 5:32 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Fwd: Your letter dated March 12th re: SIGNS. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello again Mr. David Blumenthal, received a return phone call back from Miss.Jocelyn, in response to a voice message which I had left earlier. She indicated that there are three signs that were non -conforming at 1495 Superior Avenue... all three are with a translucent face, internally illuminated. She described the locations of the signs, so that I could tell which ones she was talking about. She indicated that 10 years ago, the city council passed a resolution, granting upto October 27th 2020, for removal of the non -conforming signs, and now, before the due date, they wish to seek comment from businesses and property owners. Grace And Goodwill Enterprises LLC acquired the property on 1495 Superior Ave on March 30th, 2015 without the knowledge of this matter in regard to signs. am of the strong opinion that my tenant 7 -Eleven, needs to maintain appropriate and adequate signage which displays their presence at this location. As you may be aware, 7 -Eleven has been at this property since approximately 35 years. Further, these signs are standard signs, which are present at all other 7 - Eleven locations. These signs are not overly big, and neither are they causing any nuisance. Therefore, I am of the opinion that municipal code either be rescinded in its entirety, or that the location at 1495 Superior Ave be granted exemption from this municipal code. Respectfully, 16-134 Sunil Lalwani Grace And Goodwill Enterprises LLC 1349 South Broadway Los Angeles CA 90015 tel 213 746 4853 -----Original Message ----- From: mirala <mirala@aol.com> To: dblumenthal <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Tue, Mar 17, 2020 4:46 pm Subject: Your letter dated March 12th re: SIGNS. Hello Mr. David Blumenthal received your letter dated March 12th ( copy attached ). This is the first letter that I have received regarding the subject of signs. Please, would you let me know which exact sign is the non -conforming sign at 1495 Superior Ave, and what exactly makes it non -conforming ? Based on your reply, i can then take this up with the appropriate tenant, who will then respond to your request for public comment. Thank You Sunil Lalwani 16-135 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) 16-136 From: Shelly@hilbertproperties. net Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 1:57 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: 4667 MacArthur Blvd. Monument sign [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Blumenthal, I received your letter regarding our building signage. Although it was not specifically mentioned, I am assuming that you were referencing the monument sign on the street. We would like the sign to remain if at all possible. On most days the speed of traffic is such that motorists pass our building before they can see the address. The sign for Pacific Premier Bank is the most identifying aspect of the property. We don't necessarily need the sign to be illuminated, however. The Bank closes at 5 pm. Please keep us informed if the Code is amended or extended. Thanks! Shelly Johnson Hilbert Property Management 1300 Bristol Street North Suite 190 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 476-0104 16-137 From: peteduca@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 9:41 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: non conforming sign at 3840 east coast hwy. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. David Blumenthal Thanks for your reply. We would like to keep the existing sign without a deadline. This sign has been existing since 1979. We have provided on site parking and have conformed to all city requirements at that time. We have been a good neighbor with all the local residents for many years. was on the residents board of directors with Phil Sansone the mayor at that time and the main concerns were parking which has evolved into a major problem in Corona del Mar. The city has issued permits to businesses which do not have any parking or less then code requirements, have doubled the density in Corona del Mar in the village without considering the impact on parking. It is evident that the garages are being used for storage instead of parking cars. They were blaming the commercial district for the parking but I would recommend taking a drive at 6 am in the morning on the streets in Corona Del Mar when the commercial area is not open and you will see all streets in the residential area without any parking available due to cars not parked in the garages. am sorry for getting away from the sign subject but that is not the problem that I can see for the city and the timing is very bad. Most of the businesses will be struggling financially in the very near future if they are not already in that situation due to the impact of the virus situation. Hope I didn't bother you but I have been in business for 47 years in Corona del Mar and have seen many good and bad times.. 16-138 From: Pete <dmieng@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 4:21 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Re: nonconforming sign at 3840 east coast hwy. Corona del mar [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. David Thanks for responding We want to keep the sign as it is since 1980 Believe me we are going thru some financial times right now due to this virus especially restaurants Thanks Pete Duca Sent from my 1Phone On Mar 16, 2020, at 2:09 PM, Blumenthal, David(Contractor) <dblumenthalknewportbeachca.gov> wrote: Pete, Yes, it appears the sushi restaurant's wall sign is nonconforming because it is internally illuminated, but does not have an opaque background. Per Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) 20.42.060(H)(2), "Signs may be internally or externally illuminated. Internal illumination is permitted only if the sign background is opaque and the only portion of the sign that appears as illuminated is the actual lettering and/or a registered trademark or logo." The code currently requires that nonconforming signs, such as the wall sign for the sushi restaurant, be brought into compliance no later than 10/27/2020. The proposal is to extend the removal deadline and allow a longer time for these signs to be removed or changed. When you say "We would like to have everything remain as is," I'm I correct in assuming you are not proposing the existing deadline shall remain, but rather you want to keep the sign without a deadline? rrt�'� DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP Community Development Department r Planning Consultant `g ra £ dblumenthalknewportbeachea.gov "t o) 949949-644-3204 F Please consider the environment before printing this email 16-139 From: dmieng@aol.com <dmieng@aol.com> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 8:49 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: nonconforming sign at 3840 east coast hwy. corona del mar [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Blumenthal Received your letter concerning a non -conforming sign at 3840 East Coast Hwy in Corona Del mar of which I am the property owner since 1979. My question is what sign are you referring to since the signs have been in place since 1979 on our conditional use permit. We would like to have everything remain as is. Very truly yours, Pete J. Duca P.E. 16-140 From: MMY <mmymanagement@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 5:27 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Cc: mmymanagement@yahoo.com Subject: 3305 Newport signage [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. hi David . thanks for the call back about the signage the signage post has been there since the building was there the tenants rely on that signage since the location is challenging and many cars just pass by since it's hard to locate since the city took away the street parking in front of the stores when the redevelopment of the lido house hotel and areas surrounding, it has been hard for the businesses we kindly ask that the city consider grandfathering the sign if possible and allow it thanks for your consideration grace Pak Sent from my Whone On Mar 16, 2020, at 1:49 PM, Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> wrote: Grace, Below is my contact information. <image002 Jpg> DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP Community Development Department Planning Consultant dblumenthalna,newvortbeachca. gov 949-644-3204 <image003.gif> 16-141 From: Dave Voss <dvoss@lrisCPG.com> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 3:01 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: No -Conforming Signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My family has owned that property at 3641/3643/3645 East Coast Highway, CDM for over 40 years. We have always had these roof signs grandfathered in to the code. In these forty years, we have NEVER had an issue with the city. I learned today from the 'other' David at the NB number on your letter that in 2010 the code changed and we had 10 years to comply? Where is that original letter, need to see it. To get a letter saying we are now not to code is ridiculous. Especially when the letter does not give us 'specific issues' with our signs. Are you asking us to remove them, replace them, modify them? Be specific! If it is just to remove, if that is the case, the next conversation will representation. We have it in our leases to our lessee's these signs that have been legal for as long as we have owned the buildings. This diminishes the value of our property as these signs are an important part of their marketing. We do not want to remove them. IF we are forced to remove them or be faced with fines, then we need time to work them out of our lease agreements. Mine a usually 2-3 year in length depending on the unit. If I just go and take down the sign, I will be open to my tenants taking action on the lessor. I would be glad to meet you at our building so you can specifically point our to me what is not to code. If it is something simple, I can address with my lessee's and we can address. if it is about removal of the signs, we have a much larger issue that may take time to rectify. You can't just decide the change the rules in 2010 because you don't like the signs. That is 100% unfair and unjust without proper notice. TY, Happy to go over this by phone as well. TY Dave David Voss C:949/494-1124 16-142 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 16-143 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 16-144 From: Bill Cote <estates@fea. net> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 10:58 AM To: Blumenthal, David(Contractor) Subject: 3748 E Coast Hlghway sign [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr Blumenthal and City of Newport Beach management; I am the sole owner of the building note in your letter to me of March 12, 2020. I am nearly 78 years old and a recent widower. The only income I receive is that from a lease I have with the current tenant in the above noted building. If I am required to remove the existing sign on the building, the tenant, pursuant to the existing lease, has the right to void the lease and vacate the premises. In that event, I will have no income from the building which would put me in a devastating financial bind. Please know that an extension of the sign removal deadline is imperative for me to be able to continue to pay my bills. Thank you for the opportunity of submitting this e-mail for your consideration. Respectfully, William F. Cot6 16-145 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 16-146 949-720-9414 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. 16-147 From: Lee, Amanda Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 4:53 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Cc: Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject: FW: non -conforming signs : 1495 Superior Avenue. Newport Beach CA From: mirala@aol.com <mirala@aol.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 4:51 PM To: Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Kimberly.Parenzan@7-11.com Subject: non -conforming signs : 1495 Superior Avenue. Newport Beach CA [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Respected Madam(s) / Sir(s) , have received, via email, the attached notice. wish to submit my comments for your kind review and consideration Grace And Goodwill Enterprises LLC acquired the property at 1495 Superior Avenue on March 30th 2015, without the knowledge of this long -pending matter in regard to signs. am of the strong opinion that my tenant, 7 -Eleven, needs to maintain appropriate and adequate signage which displays their presence at this location. As you may be aware, 7 -Eleven has been at this property since approximately 35 years. The signs at this location are standard 7 -Eleven signs, which are present at all 7 -Eleven locations. These signs are not overly big, and neither are they causing any nuisance. Therefore, I am requesting that this municipal code be rescinded in its entirety, or that the location at 1495 Superior Ave be granted a permanent exemption from this municipal code. Respectfully Sunil Lalwani Grace And Goodwill Enterprises LLC 1349 South Broadway Los Angeles CA 90015 tel 213 746 4853 16-148 April 1, 2020 SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY TO DBLUMENTHAL@NEWPORTBEACHCA.GOV City of Newport Beach — Community Development Department Attn: David Blumenthal 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: MUFG Union Bank, N.A.'s request for proposed extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs at 1501 Westcliff Dr. ( "Union Bank Westcliff") and 396 Superior Ave ("Union Bank Superior") Dear Mr. Blumenthal: MUFG Union Bank, N.A. ("Union Bank") received letters from the City of Newport Beach (the "City") dated as of March 12, 2020 notifying us that our signage at the above -referenced locations have been identified as nonconforming and subject to removal. It is also our understanding that the City is seeking comment from impacted businesses on a proposed Code Amendment to grant additional time to remove nonconforming signs. We hereby submit the following comments to the City for consideration: Union Bank Westcliff The building top signage at this location is essential for visibility of the branch to existing clients and the community at large. Union Bank is a national bank that requires the same visibility afforded to other national banks. Due to the architecture and design of the building, signage visibility from the street and adjacent area are only available from the upper portion of the building. Due to this unusual sightline, it is imperative for this sign to remain in order to maintain visibility. Union Bank Superior The pole sign at this location is essential as we have very limited signage due to the architecture of the building itself. We feel that this sign helps not only our customers know where we are located, but the community at large as we are a national bank with ties to the community for over many years. The intersection of Superior and Placentia Ave have virtually no other signage visibility but for this pole sign. In addition, these aforementioned signs were approved and permitted by the City. Should the City require the signs to be removed, we would request that such removal be at the sole cost and expense of the City. Our signage is critical to our business. We respectfully request that the City amend the code to provide businesses like our selves an extension to remove the signage. Should you need any further information or wish to discuss this further, please contact me at Olivia.Fu@unionbank.com. Sincerely, MUFG Union Bank, N.A. 6 via 7u Olivia Fu Vice President Corporate Real Estate, Project Management 16-149 � I / loop Bright Horizons. Re: Bright Horizons Property on 2500 West Coast Hwy Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. Blumenthal I am glad to learn that on May 7, 2020, the commission will be considering a multi-year extension to the deadline for sign removal. As you can imagine, we have deferred all spend in our organization due to COVID-19. Once we get beyond this crisis, we can budget accordingly for the removal of the existing sign and appropriate replacement signage. Please let me know if you have any questions. Jeff Castro Regional Property Manager Bright Horizons 303 253 2196 Jeff.Castro@brighthorizons.com 200 TALCOTT AVENUE, WATERTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS 02472 1 P 617.673.8000 F 617.673.8001 AMSTERDAM I BENGALURU 1 BOSTON I DENVER 1 LONDON 1 NEW YORK www.brighthorizons.com 16-150 From: Terisa Britt <terisa.britt@pazingredients.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 10:09 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Cc: Mark M. Paz Subject: RE: Roof Top Signiture [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners: Paz Ingredients, Inc. has been in business in Corona del Mar for three decades. We wanted to voice our concerns regarding removing the roof signs in Corona del Mar. We strongly object to the removal. We obtain a significant amount of interest and walk-in clients from this signage. It is critical for our survival and prosperity. We hope that you will extend the use of the signs. With the current crises it is more important than ever! Please let me know if you have any questions. Be well and stay safe! Thank you, Terisa Britt Paz Ingredients, Inc. AZ INGREDIENTS 3800 E. Coast Highway, Suite#1 Corona del Mar, CA. 92625 (949) 220.9117 Ph. (949) 220.9146 Fax www.i)azingredients.com 16-151 April 1, 2020 To: City of Newport Beach — Community Development Department David Blumenthal 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs Mr. Blumenthal: On behalf of MUFG Union Bank, our businesses located at 1501 Westcliff Dr (Westcliff) and at 396 Superior Ave (Superior) have been identified with a nonconforming sign that is subject to the October 27, 2020 removal deadline. Union Bank Westcliff The building top signage at this location is essential for visibility of the branch to existing clients and the community at large. Union Bank is a regional Bank that needsvisibility afforded to other national banks. Due to the architecture and design of the building, signage visibility from the street and adjacent area are only available from the upper portion of the building. Due to this unusual sightline, it is imperative forthis sign to remain in orderto maintain visibility. Union Bank Superior The Pole Sign at our Superior location is essential as we have very limited signage at this location due to the architecture of the building itself. We feelthat this sign helps not only our customers know where we are located, but the community at large as we are a regional bank with ties to the community for over many years. The intersection of Superior and Placentia Ave have virtually no other signage visibility but for this pole sign. Please grant additional time to remove nonconforming signs. In addition, these signs were legally approved and permitted. If the signs need to come down, who should pay for this. Thanks very much for considering our requestto extend this deadline and answering our question. Sincerely, �euc,Gt �a Alvin Ta Supporting Corporate Real Estate at MUFG Union Bank, N.A. Alvin.Ta(@unionbank.com 16-152 From: Valerie Kerr <bradfordaccounting@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 9:47 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Fwd: Extension of Amortization Period for Non Conforming Signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Morning David, I hope you are doing well. I received your email and update on the non -conforming signs amendment and the public hearing set for May 7th. Thank you so much! The owner is trying to submit comments as indicated in the notice, but the email for the planning commission comments keeps bouncing. Will you please confirm receipt of the below email? Are you able to submit the below comments to them on his behalf or can you provide me with an email to submit comments? Thank you, Valerie Kerr c/o, 39 Beach View LK100, LLC c/o, Pacific Riviera Collection, LLC Phone (949) 547-9167 Forwarded Message Subject:Extension of Amortization Period for Non Conforming Signs (Revised) Date:Tue, 28 Apr 2020 09:36:02 -0700 From:bradford kuish <kuishb(ibyahoo.com> To: dblumenthalknewportbeachc a. gov CC:Valerie Kerr<bradfordaccounting(a,gmail.com> PLEASE FORWARD TO STAFF 16-153 Dear Planning Commission: As a property owner in the Village of Corona Del Mar, it is my position that the small businesses and entrepreneurs in our community need every advantage they can to survive in a changing retail world. The monument signs provide value to the small businesses in Corona Del Mar and perhaps even hope; an opportunity to garner recognition, identity and even economic sustenance. It gives each one of them some minor chance to eke out clients in a world dominated by mega - retailers such as Amazon, Walmart, Walgreens and Home Depot. Also, it seems THE LAST THING GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DOING IN THIS TIME OF UNPRECEDENTED ECONOMIC STRESS (COVIDI9) IS REMOVING ANY SOURCE OF SUSTENANCE OR INCOME. Eliminating the tenant signs will clearly reduce their identity, visibility and to some degree, their clients. Why make their businesses more difficult, reduce their patronage, reduce their potential clients and reduce their revenue at a time like this. It makes no sense. Businesses are already stressed. Does the City of Newport Beach think it prudent to make it worse??? I do not support removing the monument signs, certainly not in the short run and probably not in the long. Let's help the mom and pop entrepreneurs rather than harm them. Keep the signs. On another note, I would also suggest delaying the hearing until you can have a true public hearing. Having one by e-mail or write in does not constitute a true public forum or allow the voice of the people to be heard. A seminal moment for the revolution and the founding of our country was based on an objection to taxation without representation. Well, ruling or making laws or decisions on public matters without the full participation of the public is similar and certainly lacks full representation. It's well down the slippery slope to be functioning from the bog or shade. 16-154 Best, Bradford Kuish Principal 3800 East Coast Hwy Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 phone 949.723.2050 16-155 Attachment No. PC 4 Planning Commission Minute excerpts, dated May 7, 2020 16-156 Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2020 Secretary Lowrey agreed with continuing the item and forming an ad hoc committee. He had some concern about property rights and the potential for litigation. Commissioner Klaustermeier expressed some concern that the State would not accept the proposed amendments because of SB 330 provisions. Staff did a good job of addressing loopholes. She wanted to move forward with a recommendation given the amount of public outreach staff conducted. Chair Koetting expressed concern about the proposed amendments complying with SB 330 and agreed with continuing the item. In reply to Chair Koetting's inquiry, Community Development Director Jurjis advised that staff sent questions to the legislative counsel approximately a month prior but has not received a response. He did not know if staff would receive any direction from either legislative counsel or the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Vice Chair Weigand felt staff probably would not receive a response from the State legislative counsel's office. Motion made by Chair Koetting and seconded by Secretary Lowrey to continue the item to a future date with staff to attempt to obtain feedback from the State and to consider comments from Commissioners. Commissioner Kleiman noted SB 330 imposes a penalty for violation. Her main concern is the ability to enact an amendment that may conflict with State law. In answer to Commissioner Klaustermeier's query, Community Development Director Jurjis understood the item would return to the Planning Commission in 30-45 days. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Kleiman NOES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Rosene The Planning Commission recessed for a short break ITEM NO. 3 EXTENSION OF AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR NONCONFORMING SIGNS (PA2019- 184) Site Location: Citywide Summary: Amendments to Section 20.42.140(A) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Section 21.30.065(E) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) to extend an amortization period for nonconforming signs. NBMC currently requires nonconforming signs to be removed by October 27, 2020. These amendments would extend the deadline for the removal to October 27, 2025. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3; 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-015 recommending the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 to amend Section 20.42.140(A) (Nonconforming Signs) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and 4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-016 recommending the City Council approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 and authorize staff to submit the amendment to the California Coastal Commission to amend Section 21.30.065(E) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6of10 16-157 Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2020 Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell reported in October 2005, the City comprehensively updated the Sign Code and adopted a 15 -year amortization period for certain nonconforming signs. In October, the Council initiated a Code amendment and suggested extending the amortization period by 3-5 years. The proposed amendment would extend the 15 -year amortization period five years to October 27, 2025. Public outreach consisted of requests for comments sent to every property owner and business on whose property a nonconforming sign subject to amortization is located; notices published in the Daily Pilot and on the City website; direct mail notices sent to property and business owners; and emails sent to individuals having expressed interest in the topic. Staff has received written comments from 76 individuals who overwhelmingly support extending the amortization period. The Zoning Code contains a process for declaring a sign a heritage sign, which if approved, the nonconforming sign would become conforming and not subject to removal. The 2005 Municipal Code amendment was subject to a public hearing process, but the process did not include written notice to business and property owners. With the pandemic, businesses are struggling, and requiring them to invest in new signage may not be an appropriate course of action. In response to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that notice was sent to 327 property and business owners, and written comments continue to be received. Since 2005, sign permits have been issued in accordance with the Municipal Code requirements. When a business or property owner applies to change or modify a sign, staff discusses the status of the sign with the business or property owner. The face of a pole sign can be modified during the amortization period if it complies. The City Council did not instruct staff to eliminate the amortization period or to amend the Sign Code through its initiation of the amendment process; although, the Planning Commission may recommend such an action to the Council. In reply to Commissioner Kleiman's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the Municipal Code contains comprehensive regulations for signage, some of which provide flexibility in design. Since 2005, approximately 25% of nonconforming signs have been removed or corrected. Staff has tools to address illegal signage. The Crab Cooker's roof sign that was nonconforming would not be allowed to continue and through the Heritage Sign Program process recently considered by the Planning Commission, the sign was allowed. In answer to Commissioner Ellmore's queries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained that staff felt a five-year extension is a reasonable time period as some owners became aware of the amortization period in 2020. In addition, the Council suggested three and five years when the amendment was initiated. The Planning Commission could recommend a different timeframe. A longer extension could be valuable because as businesses come and go, nonconforming signs will be removed. However, roof and pole signs probably will not be removed unless their physical condition requires it. In response to Vice Chair Weigand's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that the Planning Commission may discuss and recommend eliminating the amortization process or increasing the extension. Vice Chair Weigand noted the financial impacts of the pandemic on businesses and proposed eliminating the amortization period. Nonconforming signs are likely associated with businesses that have been in the community for a long time. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. Craig Batley commented that many of the nonconforming signs are 40 and 50 years old and were conforming when they were installed. The Planning Commission should eliminate the amortization period or extend it 10-15 years. Bob Carson indicated the pole sign at 3050-3040 Pacific Coast Highway was legal when it was installed and hoped the Planning Commission would grandfather it. Jim Mosher supported elimination of the amortization program and did not understand the rationale for eliminating signs that are part of the City's heritage. Patricia Langsam, Balboa Peninsula, opposed the construction of very large homes because they are not compatible with Newport Beach's charm. 7of10 16-158 Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2020 Wallace Rodecker, 2823 East Coast Highway, concurred with comments regarding the financial impacts of the pandemic on businesses. He would not have known about the amortization meeting or the hearing if he had not received the notice. He supported eliminating the amortization period. J.C. Clow, The Winery, remarked regarding the inopportune timing of staffs proposal and supported elimination of the amortization schedule. Art Pease, 410 32nd Street, agreed with eliminating the amortization period and allowing attrition to resolve the issue. Seeing no additional speakers, Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. Commissioner Klaustermeier concurred with eliminating or extending the amortization period. Requiring business and property owners to change signs that were conforming at the time of installation is not fair. Attrition will solve the problem. In reply to Vice Chair Weigand's query, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that eliminating the amortization period would be fairly easy to accomplish if the Planning Commission wishes to recommend it to the Council. In response to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell recalled staffs desire to address nonconforming signs and raised the issue with the Council in a Study Session. Eliminating the amortization period is different from the Council's initial thoughts to extend the amortization period, but the Planning Commission may recommend elimination of the amortization requirement to the Council. The Planning Commission may recommend the City Council extend the amortization period. Eliminating the amortization period would not change code enforcement related to illegal signs. At Commissioner Kleiman's request, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell shared photos of nonconforming signs in the City. He also indicated that there is a fee associated with the Heritage Sign Program review. In answer to Commissioner Ellmore's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained the enforcement process for nonconforming signage once the amortization period ends. Enforcement is time consuming and staff intensive and could involve litigation. Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Secretary Lowrey to recommend the City Council eliminate the amortization period. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Rosene VIII. NEW BUSINESS: ITEM NO. 4. CITY COUNCIL POLICY K-3 AMENDMENT (CEQA PROCEDURES) REGARDING SB 743 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED POLICY AND PROCEDURES Site Location: Citywide Summary: Senate Bill (SB) 743, signed in 2013, changes the way transportation studies are conducted in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) replaces motorist delay and level of service (LOS) as the new metric for transportation impact determinations in CEQA. The State requires all cities to adopt a VMT policy to include transportation impact thresholds. Public Works staff has prepared a framework for completing a CEQA-level VMT transportation analysis for proposed land development projects and transportation improvement projects. 8of10 16-159 Attachment No. PC 5 Council Resolution No. 2020-66 16-160 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-66 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT AND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM COASTAL LAND USE PLAN RELATED TO THE AMORTIZATION OF NOW CONFORMING SIGNS (PA2019-184) WHEREAS, on October 22, 2019, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach ("City Council") adopted Resolution No. 2019-92 initiating amendments to Section 20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Section 21.30.065 of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to extend an amortization period for the removal of nonconforming signs; WHEREAS, on May 7, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider said code amendments. After considering all written and oral evidence, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2020-015 and Resolution Nos. 2020-15 and 2020-016, thereby recommending the City Council eliminate the amortization period; WHEREAS, amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code to eliminate the amortization period would be in conflict with City of Newport Beach General Plan ("General Plan") Natural Resources Element Policy No. NR 21.2 (Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs), which states the policy goal of "Implement[ing] programs to remove illegal signs and amortize legal nonconforming signs"; WHEREAS, amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code to eliminate the amortization period would further be in conflict with City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan ("Local Coastal Program") Policy No. 4.4.4-4, of "Implement[ing] programs to remove illegal signs and amortize legal nonconforming signs"; WHEREAS, City Council Policy K-1 (General Plan and Local Coastal Program) requires amendments to the General Plan or Local Coastal Program to be initiated by the City Council; and 16-161 Resolution No. 2020-66 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the General Plan and Local Coastal Land Program to eliminate policies that require the amortization of nonconforming signs. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council hereby initiates amendments to the Natural Resources Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan to update the policies related to nonconforming signs. Section 2: Staff is hereby directed not to enforce the October 27, 2020 deadline set forth in Section 20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Section 21.30.065(E) (Removal of Nonconforming Signs) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code until such time the City Council has taken final action on the amendments initiated by this resolution. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 4: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the substantive portion of this resolution. Section 5: The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because Section 15262 exempts projects involving feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved or adopted. 16-162 Resolution No. 2020-66 Page 3 of 3 Section 6: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting this resolution. ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 2020. ATTEST: I "MA M/1, k I i I I City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CI7.t/_ TTORNEY'S OFFICE C ffrt,— Airo6 C. Harp City Attorney `r`�,�� Will O'Neill Mayor 16-163 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2020-66, was duly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 23rd day of June, 2020; and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Mayor Will O'Neill, Mayor Pro Tem Brad Avery, Council Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Diane Dixon, Council Member Jeff Herdman, Council Member Kevin Muldoon NAYS: None RECUSED: Council Member Duffy Duffield IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 241h day of June, 2020. vylicpl Leilani I. Brown City Clerk Newport Beach, California (PC' v �►: FORM 16-164 Attachment No. PC 6 Council Minute excerpts, dated June 23,2020 16-165 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting June 23, 2020 The motion carried unanimously. 23. Ordinance No. 2020-16: Introduction of a Nonconforming Sign Code Amendment (PA2019- 184) [100-20191 Council Member Duffield recused himself due to business interest conflicts. I.n response to Council Member Dixon's question, Mayor O'Neill indicated CCC approval is needed if the Council wants to extend the period or amend the General Plan. City Attorney Harp added that a vote of the people is not required under General Plan provisions and either process will require the same amount of time. In response to Council Member Dixon's question, City Attorney Harp advised that the resolution will return to the Planning Commission, who will prevent. historical signs from being eliminated. Council Member Brenner questioned whether the Council should make a late-night decision when staff has put a lot of work into this and a lot of businesses have brought their signs up to code. Mayor O'Neill explained that it applies to existing signs only, future signs will have to comply with Code requirements, repairs cannot change signs, and both the Council and the Planning Commission have vetted it. Council Member Dixon added that the significant ordinance will remain in effect. In response to Council Member Brenner's question, Mayor O'Neill indicated replacement of signs will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Mayor O'Neill opened the public hearing. Craig Batley supported the Planning Commission recommendation and indicated the same discussion will occur if the decision is delayed five or ten years from now and a lot of signs will go away over time. Jim Mosher supported the Planning Commission recommendation, suggested Council continue the item to the next meeting in order to debate it, discussed where the 2005 Code came from, and noted no public comments were offered at the Planning Commission meeting and only two public comments at three Council meetings. J.C. Clow, Winery Restaurant, supported the Planning Commission recommendation, stated in these challenging times, improving signs will be a huge inconvenience and an unnecessary cost for business owners, and commended Deputy Community Development Director Campbell's presentation to the Planning Commission. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor O'Neill closed the public hearing. Motion by Council Member Muldoon, seconded by Council Member Dixon, to a) 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; b) adopt Resolution No. 2020-66, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Initiating Amendments to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element and the Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan Related to the Amortization of Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184). With Council Member Duffield recusing himself, the motion carried 6-0. XVII. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION — None Volume 64 - Page 454 16-166 Attachment E November 19, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes Except 16-167 Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2020 Commissioner Ellmore indicated the Planning Commission is reviewing the proposed ordinance a second time due to the Council including the separations and the City Attorney wanting findings for a public benefit. Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Vice Chair Lowrey to approve the staff recommendation as presented. AYES: Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Koetting NOES: Kleiman, Klaustermeier, Rosene RECUSED: ABSENT: In reply to Commissioner Koetting's inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported a wine tasting room could be proposed in any commercial zone that allows eating and drinking establishments with a minor use permit or a conditional use permit. ITEM NO. 4 ELIMINATION OF AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR NONCONFORMING SIGNS (PA2019- 184) Site Location: Citywide Summary: Amendments to General Plan Policy NR21.2, Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.4.4-4, and Sections 20.42.140 of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and 21.30.065 of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) to eliminate the existing amortization period for nonconforming signs, which currently requires all nonconforming signs to be removed by October 27, 2020. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15265(a)(1) due to the fact it relates to an amendment to the Local Coastal Program; 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-042, recommending the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. GP2020-005 and Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 to remove an amortization period for nonconforming signs; and 4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-043, recommending the City Council adopt Coastal Land Use Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 and authorize staff to submit the amendment to the California Coastal Commission. Principal Planner Matt Schneider reported in October 2005, the Council updated sign regulations such that approximately 400 signs were deemed legal nonconforming and wanted nonconforming signs updated or removed within 15 years. In October 2019, the Council directed staff to consider extending the amortization period by three to five years due to a concern about the sufficiency of constructive noticing to sign owners. In May 2020, the Planning Commission recommended the Council eliminate the amortization period. In July 2020, the Council concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation and initiated General Plan and Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments to address references to the policy. In addition, the Council directed staff not to enforce the abatement period until the Council takes final action. Principal Planner Schneider went on to report the proposed amendments eliminate the references to the abatement. If approved, the amendments will allow legal nonconforming signs to remain in place. However, remodeling or replacing a sign will require the new sign to comply with current standards. In March 2020, staff mailed notice to sign owners subject to the abatement process. For the Planning Commission hearing, staff published a notice in the Daily Pilot, posted notice to the City website, and mailed notice to impacted property and business owners. The notice period for SB 18 tribal consultation expired on October 27, 2020 with no requests for consultation. Commissioners Rosene, Kleiman, Klaustermeier, Koetting, and Ellmore, Vice Chair Lowrey, and Chair Weigand disclosed no ex parte communications. 6 of 8 16-168 10 Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2020 Chair Weigand opened the public hearing Jim Mosher suggested the Planning Commission consider revising the proposed LCP amendment regarding implementation of programs to remove illegal signs because the amendment will eliminate the only program. With these changes, heritage signs will be no different from other signs. Deputy Director Campbell advised that the program to remove nonconforming signs is located in Section 20.42.140 of the Zoning Code. The LCP never contained a similar program. The policy could be removed from the LCP. Chair Weigand closed the public hearing In answer to Commissioner Koetting's queries, Deputy Director Campbell indicated illegal signs may be removed through code enforcement procedures. A nonconforming sign can be replaced with a conforming sign only. Nonconforming signs are being removed through attrition and after deterioration. Staff applies requirements to signage on a case-by-case basis. The heritage sign program was established in 2005. The fish sign at the Crab Cooker has received heritage status and is no longer considered a nonconforming roof sign. Commissioner Koetting wanted to remove any potential loopholes that allow illegal signs to remain In response to Commissioner Ellmore's inquiries, Deputy Director Campbell related that banner signs are regulated by the Zoning Code. During COVID-19, staff has been issuing emergency temporary use permits for banners. Ordinarily, a banner may be displayed four times a year for a total of 60 days per year. Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis reported the banner program typically allows a banner to remain in place for 60 to 90 days. The Council adopted an emergency ordinance that authorizes staff to grant permits for banners to remain in place for an extended time period as a way to assist businesses. Chair Weigand suggested staff market the heritage sign program more widely. Motion made by Commissioner Ellmore and seconded by Commissioner Rosene to approve the staff recommendation. AYES: Weigand, Lowrey, Kleiman, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Koetting, Rosene NOES: RECUSED: ABSENT: STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None ITEM NO. 6 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported staff conducted two virtual housing workshops on Monday and Tuesday with 40 to 50 people attending. A virtual workshop for the Circulation Element is scheduled for November 23, 2020. Approximately 30 people have registered for the workshop. The agenda for the December 3, 2020, Planning Commission meeting includes the short-term lodging ordinance. The Airport Land Use Commission found the Residences at 4400 Von Karman project consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan and that will be presented to the Council in January 2021. In response to Chair Weigand's queries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the Airport Land Use Commission found the Uptown Newport project inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use 7 of 8 16-169 Attachment F Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-042 16-170 RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-042 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2020-005 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2019-007 TO REMOVE AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR NONCONFORMING SIGNS (PA2019-184) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. In October 2005, the City of Newport Beach ("City") comprehensively updated its sign regulations. Sign standards changed and certain previously allowed signs were prohibited. Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Sections 20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs) and 21.30.065 (Signs) require certain signs that do not conform to the new regulations to be abated within 15 years ("Amortization Period") from the effective date of the sign code update. 2. The Amortization Period was 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. On May 7, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005, a request to extend the Amortization Period for five (5) years. At the conclusion of the public hearing and after deliberations, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Nos. PC2020-015 and PC2020-016; thereby recommending the City Council eliminate the Amortization Period. 5. On June 23, 2020, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Zoning Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment. Endorsing the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-66 to initiate the General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment. As part of this action, the City Council also directed staff 16-171 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-042 Paae 2 of 6 not to enforce the October 27, 2020 deadline, until such time the City Council has taken final action on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment. 6. A telephonic public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 19, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, due to the Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19. 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. The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. While this amendment would allow existing legal nonconforming signs to remain in place, it does not authorize new development that would directly result in physical change to the environment. There is no evidence that removal of the Amortization Period would result in any new effects on the environment. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. General Plan Amendment The General Plan amendment is a request to amend General Plan Policy No. NR 21.2 (Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs), which states, "Implement programs to remove illegal signs and amortize legal nonconforming signs." While this change will eliminate the reference to amortize legal nonconforming signs, the goal of removing illegal signs will remain. Elimination of the Amortization Period for nonconforming signs is 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. Eliminating the requirement for nonconforming signs to be removed or replaced will reduce the financial burden on businesses during the COVID-19 crisis and assist in the recovery of the local economy. 16-172 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-042 Paae 3 of 6 2. The Vision Statement of the City's General Plan states, in order to provide a responsive government, "Elected officials and City staff listen and respond to the interests of residents and the business community." The testimony and correspondence provided by the business community during the public hearings has shown that the proposed amendments are responsive to the business communities concerns and will assist the community in achieving and maintaining its economic vitality. 3. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65352.3 (SB 18), a local government is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission ("NAHC") each time it considers a proposal to adopt or amend the General Plan. If requested by any tribe, the local government must consult for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to cultural resources. California Government Code Section 65352.3 further requires notification at least 90 days prior to Council action to allow tribal contacts to respond to the request to consult. Notice was provided to all contacts on the NAHC list on July 28, 2020. The 90 -day notice period expired on October 27, 2020, with no tribes requesting consultation. Zoninq Code Amendment 1. Elimination of the Amortization Period for nonconforming signs is consistent with the 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 Zoning Code Amendment is consistent with this 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. Elimination of the Amortization Period for nonconforming signs is consistent with the amended General Plan Policy No. NR 21.2 (Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs), which upon approval of the City Council of this project will state, "Implement programs to remove illegal signs." This amendment will allow the City to focus on abating illegal signs instead of nonconforming signs that were consistent with the Code at the time of their erection. The Vision Statement of the City's General Plan states, in order to provide a responsive government, "Elected officials and City staff listen and respond to the interests of residents and the business community." The testimony and correspondence provided by the business community during the public hearings has shown that the Zoning Code Amendments are responsive to the business communities concerns and will assist the community in achieving and maintaining its economic vitality. 16-173 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-042 Paqe 4 of 6 3. The Zoning Code Amendment to eliminate the Amortization Period for removal of nonconforming signs is consistent with Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC. The types of signs that will no longer be subject to removal (roof signs, pole signs, internally illuminated signs with translucent faces, and oversized signs) will continue to be prohibited by the Code. All nonconforming signs that are proposed to be altered will continued to be reviewed to ensure the changes are compliant with the requirements set forth in Title 20. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. There is no evidence that removal of the Amortization Period would result in any new effects on the environment. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2020-005 and Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007, as set forth in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020. AYES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Koetting, Lowrey, Rosene and Weigand NOES: /_1:1.�IF_11►I ABSENT:/t J � BY: C rik Weigand, r BY: Lauren Kleiman, Secretary 16-174 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-042 Paae 5 of 6 WNomII Ik9V-,' i GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2020-005 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2019-007 Section 1: Policy No. NR 21.2 of the Natural Resources Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan is amended to read as follows: NR 21.2 Illegal Signs Implement programs to remove illegal signs. (Imp 2.1, 26.1) Section 2: Section 20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety to read as follows: 20.42.140 Nonconforming Signs. A. Removal of Nonconforming Signs. Nonconforming signs shall be removed if: 1. The nonconforming sign is more than fifty (50) percent destroyed, and the destruction is other than facial copy replacement. A nonconforming sign shall be deemed to be more than fifty (50) percent destroyed if the estimated cost of reconstruction exceeds fifty (50) percent of the replacement cost as determined by the Building Official; 2. The nonconforming sign is remodeled, unless the sign is remodeled to comply with the provisions of this chapter; 3. The nonconforming sign is located on a building that is enlarged or expanded, if the nonconforming sign is affected by the construction, enlargement, remodel, or expansion. An enlargement, remodel, or expansion of the portion of the building upon which the nonconforming sign is located or that is more than fifty (50) percent of the building area shall be deemed to affect the nonconforming sign; or 4. The nonconforming sign is temporary. B. Deactivation of Flashing Features. The owner of a sign that contains flashing features shall permanently deactivate the flashing features. C. Continuance of Nonconforming Signs. Except as provided in subsection (A) of this section, a nonconforming sign may be continued and shall be maintained in good condition as required by these regulations, but it shall not be: 16-175 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-042 Paae 6 of 6 1. Structurally changed to another nonconforming sign, although its copy and pictorial content may be changed. 2. Structurally altered to prolong the life of the sign, except to meet safety requirements. 3. Expanded or altered in any manner that increases the degree of nonconformity. D. Repairing and Repainting. Nonconforming signs shall only be painted and repaired in place and shall not be removed from their existing location, except for building remodeling, unless removal of the sign for painting or repair is part of the sign's customary maintenance and repair. E. Change of Business Ownership. Upon a change of ownership, the new owner of a nonconforming sign may change the name or names on the sign so long as there is no change in the structure or configuration of the sign. 16-176 Attachment G Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-043 16-177 RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-043 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 COASTAL LAND USE PLAN POLICY NO. 4.4.4-4 AND 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. Section 30500 of the California Public Resources Code requires each County and City to prepare a Local Coastal Program ("LCP") for that portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction. 2. In 2005, the City of Newport Beach ("City") adopted the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan ("Local Coastal Program") as amended from time to time including most recently on January 22, 2019, via Resolution No. 2019-8. 3. The California Coastal Commission effectively certified the City's Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan on January 13, 2017, and the City added Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) ("Title 21") to the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") whereby the City assumed coastal development permit - issuing authority as of January 30, 2017. 4. An amendment to Title 21 and the Local Coastal Program does not authorize new development or additional signs, but rather allows for the elimination of the deadline for abatement while maintaining requirements for legal nonconforming signs to be brought into conformance or removed through natural attrition, and is necessary to reduce the financial burden on businesses during the COVID-19 crisis and assist in the recovery of the local economy ("LCP Amendment"). 5. A telephonic public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 19, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, due to the Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19. 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 16-178 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-043 Paae 2 of 5 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 exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. While this amendment would allow existing legal nonconforming signs to remain in place, it does not authorize new development that would directly result in physical change to the environment. There is no evidence that removal of the Amortization Period would result in any new effects on the environment. Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265(a)(1), local governments are exempt from the requirements of CEQA in connection with the adoption of a Local Coastal Program. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment 1. The Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) amendment is a request to amend Coastal Land Use Plan Policy No. 4.4.4-4, which states, "Implement programs to remove illegal signs and amortize legal nonconforming signs." While this change will eliminate the reference to amortize legal nonconforming signs, the goal of removing illegal signs will remain. 2. The types of signs that are subject to removal (roof signs, pole signs, internally illuminated signs with translucent faces, and oversized signs) will continue to be prohibited by the code. Allowing these signs to remain will not have an impact to public access or views to coastal resources. The amendment does not authorize new development or additional signs, but rather allows for the elimination of the deadline for abatement while maintaining requirements for legal nonconforming signs to be brought into conformance or removed through natural attrition, as set forth in Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC. 3. This CLUP 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 CLUP Amendment, will be carried out fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act. 16-179 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-043 Paae 3 of 5 Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan Amendment - Title 21 1. The Implementation Plan (IP) Amendment is 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. By eliminating the requirement for nonconforming signs to be removed, the IP 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. The IP Amendment is further consistent with the amended Coastal Land Use Plan Policy No. 4.4.4-4, which upon approval of the City Council of this project will state, "Implement programs to remove illegal signs." This amendment will allow the City to focus on abating illegal signs instead of nonconforming signs that were consistent with the Code at the time of their erection. 3. This IP 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 IP 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. The Planning Commission finds the proposed LCP Amendment is exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), and Section 15265(a)(1), because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment and local governments are exempt from the requirements of CEQA in connection with the adoption of a Local Coastal Program. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends the City Council approve LCP Amendment No. LC2019-005, to amend Chapter 4 (Coastal Resources Protection) of the City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan Policy No. 4.4.4-4, and to amend Section 21.30.065(E) (Signs) as set forth in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 16-180 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-043 Paae 4 of 5 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020. AYES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Koetting, Lowrey, Rosene, and Weigand NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Eril, NIVA Lauren Kleiman, Secretary 16-181 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-043 Paae 5 of 5 1*:/:111kdV-,V LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. LC2019-005 Section 1: Policy No. 4.4.4-4 of the Chapter 4 (Coastal Resources Protection) of the City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan is amended to read as follows: 4.4.4-4 Implement programs to remove illegal signs Section 2: Section 21.30.065(E) (Signs) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be deleted. 16-182 Attachment H May 7, 2020 Planning Commission Staff Report 16-183 Pp A 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT r May 7, 2020 C44,FpR��P Agenda Item No. 3 SUBJECT: Amortization of Nonconforming Signs (PA2019-184) ■ Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 ■ Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 SITE LOCATION: Citywide APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach PLANNER: David Blumenthal, AICP, Planning Consultant 949-644-3200, dblumenthal(a)newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY Amendments to Section 20.42.140(A) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Section 21.30.065(E) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) to extend an amortization period for nonconforming signs. NBMC currently requires nonconforming signs to be removed by October 27, 2020. These amendments would extend the deadline for removal to October 27, 2025. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Find this project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3; 3) Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-015 (Attachment No. PC 1) recommending the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 to amend Section 20.42.140(A) (Nonconforming Signs) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and 4) Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-016(Attach ment No. PC 2) recommending the City Council approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 and authorize staff to submit the amendment to the California Coastal Commission to amend Section 21.30.065(E) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 16-184 16-185 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: 16-186 Pole sign: A sign that is supported by a single pole or similar support structure so that the bottom edge of the sign is one foot or more above grade. Roof sign: A sign that is erected upon or above a roof of a building Internally illuminated signs with a translucent face: A sign that is illuminated from an interior light source and more than the actual lettering and/or a registered trademark or logo is illuminated. Amortization of Nonconforming Signs Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 3 Itffdi..L k 1 I 1 Pill' I II I ��! !! Iks rop CRON OF S.E WISCONSIN 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. 16-187 Amortization of Nonconforming Signs Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 4 To accomplish this, the use of an amortization period is a common planning tool. The theory behind the amortization period is a nonconforming sign is allowed to remain for a specific period of time, thus allowing the owner to recoup their investment before the sign must be abated. In this case, a 15 -year amortization period was set in 2005. Over the past 15 years, approximately 35 percent of the nonconforming signs have been remedied through natural attrition. The initial intent of this code amendment was to grant additional time for signs to be brought into compliance with the code or be removed. Notwithstanding this, with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, an additional financial burden has been placed on many local businesses, as they have been required to reduce services or temporarily close. Since replacing a sign is a capital expense that the business or property owner would be required to undertake, extending the amortization period would provide some financial relief. Additionally, enforcing the deadline and working with business owners would require significant amount of staff, including code enforcement, planners, and attorneys, dedicated to the efforts. Extending the deadline would allow staff to focus on COVID-19 management and recovery efforts, as well as implementation of higher priority projects. This proposed would amend Sections 20.42 is recommending a five-year extension amendments are as follows: 20.42.140 NONCONFORMING SIGNS 140(A) and 21.30.065(E) of the NBMC. Staff the amortization period. The proposed A. Abatement of Nonconforming Signs. The following nonconforming signs shall be removed or altered to be conforming within f;fte 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 Q Eteber 27, 2020 October 27, 2025, with the exception of signs designated as heritage signs. 16-188 Amortization of Nonconforming Signs Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 5 Outreach Efforts On March 12, 2020, staff sent letters to 327 property and business owners for properties and/or businesses that were previously identified as having a nonconforming sign. The intent of the letter was to inform them of the pending code amendment and to elicit feedback. Staff has spoken to and/or received comments from approximately 70 respondents, the consensus of which is the City should extend or eliminate the amortization period. Comment letters are included in Attachment No. PC 3 General Plan Consiste General Policy No. NR21.2 (Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs) states, "Implement programs to remove illegal signs and amortize legal nonconforming signs." While there is already a program to remove nonconforming signs (NBMC Sections 20.42.140 and 21.30.065), the action is consistent with this General Plan Policy since it does not eliminate the amortization of legal nonconforming signs, but rather just extends the deadline for their removal. The Code Amendment is also consistent with General Plan Policy No. LU 1.5 (Economic Health), which states, "Encourage a local economy that provides adequate commercial, office, industrial, and marine -oriented opportunities that provide employment and revenue to support high-quality community services." Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses in the City are facing an economic hardship as a result of being required to reduce services or close temporarily. The Code Amendment would reduce the financial burden on businesses during the COVID-19 crisis and assist in the recovery of the local economy. Local Coastal Plan This proposal includes amendments to Title 21(Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC. Amendments to the LCP must also be reviewed and approved by the City Council, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission, prior to submitting the amendment request to the Coastal Commission. Coastal Commission review and approval is required for any proposed amendment to the certified LCP. It is staff's opinion that this amendment would not have an impact to public access or views to coastal resources. The proposal does not authorize new development or additional signs, but rather extends an amortization period for existing legal nonconforming signs. Alternatives The Planning Commission may recommend a longer or shorter timeframe for the amortization period. The Commission may also recommend denial of the suggested code 16-189 Amortization of Nonconforming Signs Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 6 amendment. Should the code amendment be denied by the City Council, all legal nonconforming signs would need to be removed by October 27, 2020. Environmental Review The Code Amendment is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3. Class 5 exemption applies to minor changes in land use limitations, provided the Property has an average slope that does not exceed 20 percent and the changes does not result in change to the permitted land use or density. The Amortization Period is considered a limitation on a land use. The Code Amendment would provide for a minor change by extending the Amortization Period. No new signs would be authorized and no change to existing sign standards would occur. Lastly, there would be no alteration to the conforming status to any sign. Public Notice Notice of this amendment was published in the Daily Pilot as an eighth page advertisement, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. The item also appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Notice was also mailed to all property and business owners for properties and/or businesses that were previously identified as having a nonconforming sign. Additionally, notice was sent to all persons and agencies on the Notice of the Availability mailing list for amendments to the LCP. Prepared by: David Blumenthal, AICP Planning Consultant ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: Jim Campbell Deputy Community Development Director PC 1 Draft resolution recommending the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 PC 2 Draft resolution recommending the City Council approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 and authorize staff to submit the amendment to the California Coastal Commission PC 3 Correspondence Received 16-190 16-191 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft resolution recommending the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 16-192 16-193 RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2019-007 TO AMEND SECTION 20.42.140 (NONCONFORMING SIGNS) OF TITLE 20 (PLANNING AND ZONING) OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE (PA2019-184) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. In October 2005, the City of Newport Beach ("City") comprehensively updated its sign regulations. Sign standards changed and certain previously allowed signs were prohibited. Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Sections 20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs) and 21.30.065 (Signs) require certain signs that do not conform to the new regulations to be abated within 15 years ("Amortization Period") from the effective date of the sign code update. 2. The Amortization Period is set to expire on October 27, 2020, at which time all nonconforming signs must be removed. On October 22, 2019, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach adopted Resolution 2019-92 initiating an amendment to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) ("Title 20") related to signs including extending the Amortization Period ("Zoning Code Amendment"). 3. On March 15, 2020, the City proclaimed a local emergency due to the COVID-19 global pandemic. Due to the extreme peril upon personal safety that is based on the existence or threatened existence of COVID-19 within and/or around the City, many businesses have been forced to reduce services or temporarily close. 4. A public hearing was held on May 7, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and NBMC Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. This Zoning Code amendment is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because elimination of the 16-194 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-015 Paae 2 of 5 Amortization Period has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The Class 5 exemption applies to minor changes in land use limitations, provided the Property has an average slope that does not exceed 20 percent and the changes does not result in change to the permitted land use or density. The Amortization Period is considered a limitation on a land use. This Zoning Code amendment will provide for a minor change by eliminating the Amortization Period. No new signs are authorized and there is no alteration to the conforming status to any sign. 3. The exceptions to this categorical exemption under Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines are not applicable. The elimination of the Amortization Period does not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern, does not result in cumulative impacts, does not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, does not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is not identified as a historical resource. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. This Zoning Code amendment is consistent with the following Land Use and Natural Resources policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan ("General Plan"). This Zoning Code amendment will eliminate an existing Amortization Period on nonconforming signs. General Plan Policy No. LU 1.5 (Economic Health), states, "Encourage a local economy that provides adequate commercial, office, industrial, and marine -oriented opportunities that provide employment and revenue to support high-quality community services." Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses in the City are facing an economic hardship as a result of being required to reduce services or close temporarily. By eliminating the requirement for nonconforming signs to be removed, the Zoning Code amendment is consistent with this General Plan policy, as it will reduce the financial burden on businesses during the COVID-19 crisis and assist in the recovery of the local economy. General Plan Policy No. NR21.2 (Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs) states the policy goal of, "Implement[ing] programs to remove illegal signs and amortize legal nonconforming signs." Nevertheless, as part of the Vision Statement of the General Plan, in order to provide a responsive government, "Elected officials and City staff listen and respond to the interests of residents and the business community." The overwhelming testimony provided by the business community during the public hearing has shown that these signs are a critical component to achieving and maintaining economic vitality. Eliminating the amortization period will meet the needs of the businesses and community by providing a consistent means to communicate which businesses are operating at specific sites to the community. Furthermore, the natural attrition of nonconforming signs will ultimately achieve the goal of General Plan Policy No. NR21.2. 16-195 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-015 Paae 3 of 5 However, staff is recommending an amendment to the General Plan in order to ensure full conformity with the General Plan. 2. The Zoning Code amendment to eliminate the Amortization Period for removal of nonconforming signs is consistent with Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC. The types of signs that are subject to removal (roof signs, pole signs, internally illuminated signs with translucent faces, and oversized signs) will continue to be prohibited by the code. All nonconforming signs that are proposed to be altered will continued to be reviewed to ensure the changes are compliant with the requirements set forth in Title 20. 3. An amendment to Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC is also underway. For properties within the Coastal Zone, this Zoning Code amendment shall not become valid until approval of the Local Coastal Program amendment by the California Coastal Commission ("CCC"), including adoption of an ordinance by the City Council that incorporated any changes required by the CCC. 4. The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. This Zoning Code amendment is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007, thereby deleting and replacing in its entirety Section 20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs.) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: 20.42.140 Nonconforming Signs. A. Removal of Nonconforming Signs. Nonconforming signs shall be removed if: 1. The nonconforming sign is more than fifty (50) percent destroyed, and the destruction is other than facial copy replacement. A nonconforming sign shall be deemed to be more than fifty (50) percent destroyed if the estimated cost of reconstruction exceeds fifty (50) percent of the replacement cost as determined by the Building Official; 16-196 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-015 Paae 4 of 5 2. The nonconforming sign is remodeled, unless the sign is remodeled to comply with the provisions of this chapter; 3. The nonconforming sign is located on a building that is enlarged or expanded, if the nonconforming sign is affected by the construction, enlargement, remodel, or expansion. An enlargement, remodel, or expansion of the portion of the building upon which the nonconforming sign is located or that is more than fifty (50) percent of the building area shall be deemed to affect the nonconforming sign; or 4. The nonconforming sign is temporary. B. Deactivation of Flashing Features. The owner of a sign that contains flashing features shall permanently deactivate the flashing features. C. Continuance of Nonconforming Signs. Except as provided in subsection (A) of this section, a nonconforming sign may be continued and shall be maintained in good condition as required by these regulations, but it shall not be: 1. Structurally changed to another nonconforming sign, although its copy and pictorial content may be changed. 2. Structurally altered to prolong the life of the sign, except to meet safety requirements. 3. Expanded or altered in any manner that increases the degree of nonconformity. D. Repairing and Repainting. Nonconforming signs shall only be painted and repaired in place and shall not be removed from their existing location, except for building remodeling, unless removal of the sign for painting or repair is part of the sign's customary maintenance and repair. E. Change of Business Ownership. Upon a change of ownership, the new owner of a nonconforming sign may change the name or names on the sign so long as there is no change in the structure or configuration of the sign. 16-197 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-015 Paae 5 of 5 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 7th DAY OF MAY 2020. AYES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Koetting, Lowrey, and Weigand NOES- OES: ABSTAIN- ABSTAIN: ABSENT- ABSENT: Rosene 16-198 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 16-199 16-200 RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-016 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. LC2019-005 TO DELETE SECTION 21.30.065(E) OF TITLE 21 (LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN) OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SUBMIT THE AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION (PA2019-184) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. In October 2005, the City of Newport Beach ("City") comprehensively updated its sign regulations. Sign standards changed and certain previously allowed signs were prohibited. Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Sections 20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs) and 21.30.065 (Signs) require certain signs that do not conform to the new regulations to be abated within 15 years ("Amortization Period") from the effective date of the sign code update. 2. The Amortization Period is set to expire on October 27, 2020, at which time all nonconforming signs must be removed. On October 22, 2019, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach adopted Resolution 2019-92 initiating an amendment to Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) ("Title 21") related to signs including extending the Amortization Period ("LCP Amendment"). 3. On March 15, 2020, the City proclaimed a local emergency due to the COVID-19 global pandemic. Due to the extreme peril upon personal safety that is based on the existence or threatened existence of COVID-19 within and/or around the City, many businesses have been forced to reduce services or temporarily close. 4. Pursuant to Section 13515 (Public Participation and Agency Coordination Procedures) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 5.5, Chapter 8, review of the draft LCP Amendment was made available and a Notice of the Availability was distributed a minimum of six weeks prior to the anticipated final action date. 5. A public hearing was held on May 7, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and NBMC Chapter 21.62 (Public Hearings). 16-201 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-016 Paae 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 elimination of the Amortization Period has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The Class 5 exemption applies to minor changes in land use limitations, provided the Property has an average slope that does not exceed 20 percent and the changes does not result in change to the permitted land use or density. The Amortization Period is considered a limitation on a land use. This LCP Amendment will provide for a minor change by eliminating the Amortization Period. No new signs are authorized and there is no alteration to the conforming status to any sign. 3. The exceptions to this categorical exemption under Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines are not applicable. The elimination of the Amortization Period does not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern, does not result in cumulative impacts, does not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, does not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is not identified as a historical resource. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. 1. This LCP Amendment is consistent with the following Land Use and Natural Resources policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan ("General Plan"). General Plan Policy No. LU 1.5 (Economic Health), states, "Encourage a local economy that provides adequate commercial, office, industrial, and marine - oriented opportunities that provide employment and revenue to support high- quality community services." Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses in the City are facing an economic hardship as a result of being required to reduce services or close temporarily. By eliminating the requirement for nonconforming signs to be removed, the LCP Amendment is consistent with this General Plan policy, as it will reduce the financial burden on businesses during the COVID-19 crisis and assist in the recovery of the local economy. General Plan Policy No. NR21.2 (Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs) states the policy goal of, "Implement[ing] programs to remove illegal signs and amortize legal nonconforming signs." Nevertheless, as part of the Vision Statement of the General Plan, in order to provide a responsive government, "Elected officials and City staff listen and respond to the interests of residents and the business community." The overwhelming testimony provided by the business community 16-202 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-016 Paae 3 of 4 during the public hearing has shown that these signs are a critical component to achieving and maintaining economic vitality. Eliminating the amortization period will meet the needs of the businesses and community by providing a consistent means to communicate which businesses are operating at specific sites to the community. Furthermore, the natural attrition of nonconforming signs will ultimately achieve the goal of General Plan Policy No. NR21.2. However, staff is recommending to the City Council amendments to the General Plan in order to ensure full conformity with the General Plan. 2. The LCP Amendment to eliminate the Amortization Period for removal of nonconforming signs is consistent with Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC. The types of signs that are subject to removal (roof signs and pole signs) will continue to be prohibited by the NBMC. All nonconforming signs that are proposed to be altered will continued to be reviewed to ensure the changes are compliant with the requirements set forth in Title 21. 3. This LCP Amendment shall not become effective until approval by the California Coastal Commission and adoption, including any modifications suggested by the California Coastal Commission, by resolution and/or ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach. 4. The LCP, including this LCP Amendment, will be carried out fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act. 5. The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: This LCP Amendment is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends the City Council approve LCP Amendment No.LC2019-005, to delete Section 21.30.065(E) (Signs). of the Newport Beach Municipal Code 16-203 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-016 Page 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 7th DAY OF MAY 2020. AYES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Koetting, Lowrey, and Weigand NOES: ABSTAIN: 16-204 Attachment No. PC 3 Correspondence Received 16-205 16-206 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Cilc'.W : po / 100 Civic Center Drive T li" Newport Beach, California 92660 949 644-3200 V newportbeachca:gov/communitydevelopment V ` s?,OM�U�li' ORN P iF11EWOOMEN' �^ ✓� MAR 2 3 2020 048 115 07 March 12, 2020 Dino Clarizio `'`�' `� "a � � �'� (C�� , 1412 Orlando D ,., �� / L>� Arcadia, CA 91006-2107 `1/�'� ( 'U -t 5 Subject: Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs Dear Dino Clarizio: Chapter 20.42 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NEMC) regulates the type, size, and location of signs within the City of Newport Beach. This includes provisions on the removal of legally built signs that do not comply with the current code (nonconforming signs). NBMC Sections 20.42.140.A and 21.30.065.E require the following types of signs to be removed from all properties in the City no later than October 27, 2020: 1. Roof signs; 2. Pole signs; 3. Internally illuminated signs with a translucent face; 4. Signs with letters, text, logos, or symbols tallerthan permitted by the Zoning Code; and 5. Signs that exceed seventy-five (75) square feet in total sign area. In a citywide survey, your property located at 500 E Balboa Blvd has been identified as having a nonconforming sign that is subject to the October 27, 2020 removal deadline. The City of Newport Beach is now considering a proposal to extend this deadline. The City seeks public comment from impacted property owners and businesses on a proposed Code Amendment that would modify NBMC Sections 20.42.140.A and 21.30.065.E to grant additional time to remove nonconforming signs. 16-207 David Jalali P. O. Box 8412 Newport Beach, CA. 92658 Phone: (949)433-5626 Email: dave@jalali.com Date: March 14, 2020 Ake. 9 3 ?_0� David Blumenthal, AICP Planning Consultant s? t City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive. Newport Beach, CA. 92660 Dear David Blumenthal, AICP: I am a long time resident and business owner in the City of Newport Beach. Referenced to your letter, a copy of which is attached, and your request to remove the 30 years old PERMITTED street sign for my Property at 6000 W. Coast HWY. Newport Beach, CA. 92663, the building consists of 5 stores, conducting various trades, which significantly depend on the exposure, which this sign provides to financially survive. Removal of this sign will not only cause the existing five businesses hardship but also significant financial damages to the building value and desirability. This sign was installed almost three decades ago and should be grandfathers due to the hardship that it will cause. Not only the survival of the small businesses in the strip depends on this sign but also it is very expensive to have this sign removed. During these tough economic times, it is unfair to expect the building owner and or the existing businesses to cover the removal cost due to survival hardship. Removal of this monumental sign, which not only adds to the beauty of the city but also helps a few small businesses to survive to create employment and city tax revenues, will create unbearable financial burden to cause hardship. Are these tradeoffs that we really want to make? Having said: 1. Please consider an exception due to the existence of this sign for years before the adaption of the new city codes (grandfather). As it has been for many other existing structures in the City. I am looking forward to your help. Sincerely, David Jalah 16-208 ql F0 BUSINESS BUSINESS OWNER 6000 COAST HWY W NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949 644-3200 newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment March 12, 2020 Subject: Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs Dear Sir or Madam: Chapter 20.42 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) regulates the type, size, and location of signs within the City of Newport Beach. This includes provisions on the removal of legally built signs that do not comply with the current code (nonconforming signs). NBMC Sections 20.42.140.A and 21.30.065.E require the following types of signs to be removed from all properties in the City no later than October 27, 2020: 1. Roof signs; 2. Pole signs; 3. Internally illuminated signs with a translucent face; 4. Signs with letters, text, logos, or symbols taller than permitted by the Zoning Code; and 5. Signs that exceed seventy-five (75) square feet in total sign area. In a citywide survey, your business located at 6000 COAST HWY W has been identified has being located on a property with a nonconforming sign that is subject to the October 27, 2020 removal deadline. The City of Newport Beach is now considering a proposal to extend this deadline. The City seeks public comment from impacted property owners and businesses on a proposed Code Amendment that would modify NBMC Sections 20.42.140.A and 21.30.065.E to grant additional time to remove nonconforming signs. Please submit your written comments prior to April 2, 2020. Comments may be emailed to dblumenthala-newportbeachca.pov or mailed to: City of Newport Beach - Community Development Department Attn: David Blumenthal, AICP 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at the above listed email address, or call me at (949) 644-3204. Sincerely, David Blumenthal, AICP Planning Consultant 16-210 e NATCAT Foundedin 1968 The National Cat Protection Society Non -Profit Cat Shelter 6904 W. Coast Highway • Newport Beach, CA 92663 • Tel: (949) 650-1232 • FAX (949) 650-7367 email: newport@natcat.org • www.natcat.org March 20, 2020 City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Attn: David Blumenthal, AICP 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 s Re: Proposed Extension of Deadline to Remove Non -Conforming Signs Dear Mr. Blumenthal, The National Cat Protection Society (NatCat) has been a staple of the Newport Beach community since 1994. Throughout those 26 years, NatCat has prided itself on compassion, consistency, and community involvement. We receive calls and letters from all over the county but our core supporters are located here, in Newport Beach. Over the years, our building and sign have become iconic, much like our neighbors at The Frog House, Cucina Alessa, and NBC Cafe. Enforcing this code would have a severely negative impact on our organization for several reasons: (1) The NatCat sign bears historical significance, uniqueness, and charm that remain a classic example of craftsmanship style from decades ago. The old marquee aesthetic, welcoming invitation to volunteers and a call for people to "Be Kind to [their] Pets" have all become essential components of the Newport Beach experience. A drive up Pacific Coast Highway would not be the same without picturesque beaches, Ruby's Diner, and the NatCat sign. For all intents and purposes, the NatCat sign should be designated a Heritage Sign and be allowed to remain despite its status as non -conforming. (2) As an independent non-profit, we rely exclusively on donations to continue operating. Individuals who have been casually passing by have noticed our sign, seen our facility, and decided - then and there — to adopt a cat, make a donation or even add us to their last will and testament. Removing our sign may have an abrupt and decidedly negative impact on the number of individuals who discover our facility, which is already strained due to the current economic climate. (3) The COVID-19 virus has altered nearly every aspect of our business. Requiring us to remove the sign at this time is commercially unreasonable and would impose undue hardships on our organization. Shelters • Adoptions • Retirement Center No cats ever sold for vivisection Page 1 of 2 16-211 The National Cat Protection Society Non -Profit Cat Shelter 6904 W. Coast Highway • Newport Beach, CA 92663 • Tel: (949) 650-1232 • FAX (949) 650-7367 email: newport@natcat.org • www.natcat.org NATCAT Foundedin1968 NatCat strongly supports a code amendment that would grant additional time to remove non- conforming signs and seeks consideration regarding a Heritage Sign designation. Kindest Re ards, Wade Golden, J.D. Sr. Operations Director National Cat Protection Society 6904 W. Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 650-1232 www.natcat.org Page 2 of 2 Shelters • Adoptions • Retirement Center No cats ever sold for vivisection 16-212 MAS' 3 0 202.0 �,I V OZ. City of Newport Beach - Community Development Department Attn: David Blumenthal, AICP 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 r ALBOA NGLINGCLU15ORGANIZED 1828 March 26, 2020 Subject: Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs Dear Mr. Blumenthal, Thank you for notifying us that our business was sited in a survey pertaining to nonconforming signs. Our building and two signs have been @ 200 A Street since 1948 and have never had an issue with building codes. We work with the city on many levels and always follow a strict city compliance. I find it hard to believe that our signs are nonconforming since the signs in adjacent businesses are larger and taller. Our signs are on our single level roof, are not on a pole, do not have internal illumination, and I believe meet all R2 zoning regulations. We look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter. Sincerely, .J Alison Ryffel Club Secretary 16-213 THE CANNERY, LLC, 1901 Bayadere Terrace, Corona del Mar, CA 92625, phone 714-814-8142, jack@croul.com March 28, 2020 City of Newport Beach - Community Development Departmen�`o'E„, �v,NITD 'R1 Att: David Blumenthal, AICP `,EVELOPPOEN-I 100 Civic Center Drive MAR 3 l 2020 Newport Beach, CA 92660 UITY OF Re: Request for comment on propos,-t,,,,, extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs Dear Mr, Blumenthal I request that the proposed Code Amendment grant additional time to remove nonconforming signs. Further, I request that we can continue to have the signage in place that was approved by the Planning Commission Modification Permit No.2001-113 at its meeting on January 3,2002. Attached are seven documents regarding that 2002 meeting. G !11 16-214 �t SEW PORT ° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 cy�� Fa R��P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (949)644-3209 NOTICE OF FINAL APPROVAL i �^ DATE: February 8, 2002 TO: Mr. Jeff Reuter FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: Modification Permit No. 2001-113 Please be advised that Modification Permit No. 2001-113 (PA2001-204) was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of January 3, 2002. Any deviation from the applications and plans on file in the Planning Department may require an amendment to the application(s) mentioned above for the project. Applicant: Steve Herbert Location: 3010 Lafayette Avenue Description: Appeal of the approval of Modification Permit No. 2001-113. The applicant requests relief from one condition of approval. Should you have any questions, please contact our office. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Patricia . Temple, Director By Gin r Varin Executive Secretary Planning Commission Enclosure: ❑ Approved Resolution with Findings and Conditions of Approval Approved Planning Commission minutes with Final Findings and Conditions of Approval cc: Property Owner (if not applicant) Gvarin\PlanComm\ntcefftpc.doc 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 16-215 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 C mmissioner Agajanian noted he would not be in support of the project, as he see o special circumstances that warrant the approval of a variance. Commi ioner Kiser noted he would be in support of the project due to the changes at have been made by the applicant with the understanding that the neighb ing property owner is here and has seen these plans as far as they go and belie s that she will be given the reciprocal easement that is needed. I want to mak sure that Ms. Hirsch understands that no matter how much deliberative effo we put into this tonight, she is giving a very significant property right here in the reciprocal easement and should feel no hesitation whatsoever to make re the project exactly meets her needs before agreeing to give that reciproca right. It is not something that needs to be acted on hastily and she should el no compunction whatsoever to make sure the project exactly meets her eds. I am comfortable with what we have in front of us tonight in the way of p ns and information in the way of approving this project, I no longer feel wit the revised project that it is giving special preference to this property. I a somewhat uncomfortable that we only have two sheets out of the four of the lans in front of us tonight, we don't have elevations. With the amount of time ave spent at looking at the property, the plans and reviewing it at the last eeting, I am marginally comfortable approving it without those two sheets. I uld like to see a site plan on what this final revised project is, but in the interest f not having this back again and because I don't think that with all the cons' erations given we have to have those things I will be voting for it. The following vote was recorded on the applica Ayes: Kiser, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: McDaniel, Agajanian Commissioner Selich noted his concern of the setback for e property at 407 Dahlia. He then submitted a sketch of the two parcels that as prepared by staff. He stated that this points out the reasons why we need va\be' these lots that are reconfigured from the original subdivision patternwhat you see are two interpretations on what the setback woulde rear property. Discussion then followed on the need for independent and discretion per lot and not just a strict application of the Zoning L The Planning Commission took a five-minute break. SUBJECT: The Cannery Restaurant 3010 Lafayette Avenue • Modification Permit No. MD2001-113 (PA2001-204) Request to permit the installation of a 52 square foot wall sign over an entry 27 INDEX Item No. 3 PA2001-204 Appeal Upheld 16-216 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 portico. This will be the fifth wall sign on the building where the Zoning Code limits the site to a maximum of three wall signs. Existing wall signs are located on four separate faces of the building. The proposed sign will be the second wall sign facing the on site parking lot. Ms. Temple distributed a picture of the front of the restaurant as provided by the applicant. She noted that the sign in question is the one on the left, which says 'The Cannery Restaurant' in block lettering. Continuing, she gave a brief summary of the staff report adding that the applicant is asking for a new wall sign. The existing sign program for the restaurant consists of four wall signs, where the new Balboa Peninsula Sign Regulations allow no more than three. In making their action, the Modifications Committee thought that in approving a new sign over the main entrance, That the total number of wall signs should not be increased. Therefore, the other wall sign on the some fagade is the new wall sign was required to be removed by condition. What is being proposed by the applicant is a different sign over the entry, which is depicted on page 15 of the staff report. Commissioner Agajanian, referring to page 16 of the staff report, asked for and received clarification of the siting of the signs. Chairperson Tucker clarified that the applicant previously had four painted on wall signs, a painted on sign above the entry as well as another sign above the entry for a total of 6 signs while the restaurant was opened? Ms. Temple answered that there was a total of 4 signs and they have a right to add a monument sign for the property in the front. Mr. Campbell stated that the last page of the Sign Program has the colored renderings, there is a schematic of the building locating the positions and types of each of the existing signs. Mr. Jack Croul, 1901 Bayadera Terrace stated that he bought the Cannery property two years ago because the owner of the property was planning on tearing it down and building residential units. I thought it would be a tragedy for the City to have the Cannery disappear. It is a symbol and icon of the old days of Newport Beach. Newport was at one-time an active fishing village with four canneries. There are very few reminders of the old days in our City today. I don't want the Cannery to disappear from the City and I am planning on placing it in a foundation so that it will remain for future generations to enjoy. For the past year, we have been remodeling the Cannery. It will be a beautiful restaurant and outside we are trying to change it as little as possible to keep its existing character. We have been required to make a few changes to the outside to meet current building codes. For example, for seismic protection the outside stairway on the side facing the Bay is now a structural member to support the building along with a large steel framework that had to be installed inside the building. The photo I gave to you is the way the Cannery has looked for almost thirty years and up to the time we started the remodel. Regarding the signage, historically there has been a sign on each of three sides of the building and the fourth side, which is the 28 INDEX 16-217 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 16-218 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 all existing wall signage to stay and it certainly receives my support. I hope that you allow them to keep the signage to represent the historic significance of the building. Kevin Weeda, 429 30th Street spoke as the majority property owner surrounding the restaurant. He urged the Commission to approve this sign as it is a nice landmark for the community and the owner has made a commitment to the property. Jeff Rooter, representing Corporate Designs clarified that there were six signs on the walls originally. The size of the red sign is immense and they are significantly reducing the overall square footage of signage by taking both those signs down and putting up a smaller one over the entrance. Russ Fluter, 2025 West Balboa Blvd. spoke in support of the application and asked that the signage be allowed. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kiser clarified with staff that the Balboa Peninsula Sign Regulations includes this property. If this signage is approved, will it be in conformance with the Sign Ordinance? Ms. Temple answered that an approval of this application is for a modification for an increased number of wall signs pursuant to the Code. Commissioner Gifford noted that she does not support this application. She applauds the owner for his concern about the community and obviously putting his money on the line to support that, however, he has clearly recognized that there have to be changes. The interior is being remodeled, the Western Canners Co. sign although it may not count as a sign under our Sign Ordinance, has been removed and if there is anything in my mind that creates historical significance it would be the reference to the Western Canners. There was a great deal of effort to establish a Sign Ordinance to bring Balboa Peninsula into a place where we would not be 'over -signed,' and have well designed signs and sufficient signage for buildings. I don't think that there is a need for an exception to be made here. There was a mis-statement about signs that don't have to be removed for fifteen years. If they are taken down, then you start from ground zero. Malarky's has its signs in place. This sign would now be an exception to the Sign Ordinance and I just don't think there is anything particularly special about the nature of that signage. The restaurant is very visible, nobody is going to miss it because there is a smaller illuminated sign and not this wall sign. I am in support of implementing the provisions of the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Selich noted his support of the application as he doesn't consider these wall signs, as signs in the typical way we consider them. This is a very unusual building and they are as much a part of the architectural style of the building as they are a sign. The one that fronts on the Bay that has Western Canners, even though it makes reference to the restaurant, may not be considered a sign. I think 30 INDEX 16-219 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 a significant investment is being made in preserving a significant part of the City's heritage. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to uphold the appeal of the approval of Modification Permit No. 2001-113 by eliminating Condition No. 5. He stated he is very sensitive to signage, however he looks at this as a historical part of Newport Beach. The signs fit the building so well. Commissioner Kranzley stated that these are signs. We will probably be hearing something from another merchant in the near future and whether that is a sign or not. If we sit here tonight and talk about Western Canners on a side of a building not being a sign, I don't think we are serving our purpose very well. I am supportive of the appeal, somewhat reluctantly because a lot of time has been spent on the Peninsula and on the signs. This isn't technically a historical building, because I think the building was only built in 1972. Commissioner McDaniel noted he was going to support the motion. He noted however in the testimony tonight that it was going to be kept the same but we are going to change it by making it smaller and a different sign. I am confused on some of that but this is the Cannery and I would like to support it for all the reasons. There are concerns here, but I will support the motion. Chairperson Tucker noted that there are too many signs on the front of it and I would have done it the opposite way. I don't think the illuminated sign that is going up should have been approved. I like the sign that is on the exterior of the building that's not illuminated other than by a spotlight. However, that is not the issue before us. I am supporting the motion. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Kranzley Selich Noes: Gifford INDEX Beacon Bay Auto Wash, Newport Place Item No. 4 4200 Birch Street PA2001-200 • PA2001-200 Request for a Us ermit (UP2001-035) to reconfigure and improve an existing Approved service station and wash. The improvements include demolition and reconstruction of the detail ding as well as redesign and replacement of the gas dispensing islands and canoe - e proposed project also includes the partial conversion of an existing landscape bu into additional tandem parking spaces. Commissioner Kiser asked if there were any conce about the reflectivity of the roofing materials. Mr. Weber noted that this was mentioned to the architect and w * it had not finalized, a condition has been included regarding reflectivity , that the e no bare exposed metal and is subject to the Planning Director's review and appro 31 16-220 AN' &N Am L' s. 16-221 From: Barbara Dove <bjdcpa@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 10:39 AM To: Planning Commissioners; Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Rooftop signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners: Barbara J. Dove, CPA has been in business in Corona del Mar for four years. I would like to voice my concerns regarding removing the roof signs in Corona del Mar. I strongly object to the removal. I have received several new clients from locals due to the signage. It is value to my business and critical for many others. I hope that you will extend the use of the signs. With the current crises it is more important than ever. Please let me know if you have any questions. Be well and stay safe! Thank you, Barbara J. Dove, CPA Wertz & Company, LLP Mailing address: 5450 Trabuco Rd. Irvine, CA 92620-5704 949-756-5000 Irvine office 949-756-1618 bdove wertzco.com Secondary address: 3810 E Coast Hwy, Ste 5 Corona del Mar, CA 92625-2543 949-673-1040 telephone 949-673-1041 fax 714-321-1117 cell bidcpa(a)-msn.com The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 16-222 From: bradford kuish <kuishb@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 9:36 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Cc: Valerie Kerr Subject: Extension of Amortization Period for Non Conforming Signs (Revised) [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. PLEASE FORWARD TO STAFF Dear Planning Commission: As a property owner in the Village of Corona Del Mar, it is my position that the small businesses and entrepreneurs in our community need every advantage they can to survive in a changing retail world. The monument signs provide value to the small businesses in Corona Del Mar and perhaps even hope; an opportunity to garner recognition, identity and even economic sustenance. It gives each one of them some minor chance to eke out clients in a world dominated by mega - retailers such as Amazon, Walmart, Walgreens and Home Depot. Also, it seems THE LAST THING GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DOING IN THIS TIME OF UNPRECEDENTED ECONOMIC STRESS (COVIDI9) IS REMOVING ANY SOURCE OF SUSTENANCE OR INCOME. Eliminating the tenant signs will clearly reduce their identity, visibility and to some degree, their clients. Why make their businesses more difficult, reduce their patronage, reduce their potential clients and reduce their revenue at a time like this. It makes no sense. Businesses are already stressed. Does the City of Newport Beach think it prudent to make it worse??? I do not support removing the monument signs, certainly not in the short run and probably not in the long. 16-223 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 16-224 From: Campbell, Jim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 8:33 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: FW: non -conforming signs : 1495 Superior Avenue. Newport Beach CA Email correspondence. JIM CAMPBELL Community Development Department Deputy Community Development Director icamobe11(aa)ne woortbeachca. aov 949-644-3210 From: mirala@aol.com <mirala@aol.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 4:51 PM To: Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Kimberly.Parenzan@7-11.com Subject: non -conforming signs : 1495 Superior Avenue. Newport Beach CA [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Respected Madam(s) / Sir(s) , have received, via email, the attached notice. wish to submit my comments for your kind review and consideration Grace And Goodwill Enterprises LLC acquired the property at 1495 Superior Avenue on March 30th 2015, without the knowledge of this long -pending matter in regard to signs. am of the strong opinion that my tenant, 7 -Eleven, needs to maintain appropriate and adequate signage which displays their presence at this location. As you may be aware, 7 -Eleven has been at this property since approximately 35 years. The signs at this location are standard 7 -Eleven signs, which are present at all 7 -Eleven locations. These signs are not overly big, and neither are they causing any nuisance. Therefore, I am requesting that this municipal code be rescinded in its entirety, or that the location at 1495 Superior Ave be granted a permanent exemption from this municipal code. Respectfully Sunil Lalwani Grace And Goodwill Enterprises LLC 1349 South Broadway Los Angeles CA 90015 tel 213 746 4853 16-225 David Jalali P. O. Box 8412 Newport Beach, CA. 92658 Phone: (949)433-5626 Email: dave@jalali.com Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 David Blumenthal, AICP Planning Consultant City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive. Newport Beach, CA. 92660 Dear David Blumenthal, AICP: I am a long time resident and business owner in the City of Newport Beach. Referenced to your letter, a copy of which is attached, and your request to remove the 30 years old PERMITTED street sign for my Property at 6000 W. Coast HWY. Newport Beach, CA. 92663, the building consists of 5 stores, conducting various trades, which significantly depend on the exposure, which this sign provides to financially survive. Removal of this sign will not only cause the existing five businesses hardship but also significant financial damages to the building value and desirability. This sign was installed almost three decades ago and should be grandfathers due to the hardship that it will cause. Not only the survival of the small businesses in the strip depends on this sign but also it is very expensive to have this sign removed. During these tough economic times, it is unfair to expect the building owner and or the existing businesses to cover the removal cost due to survival hardship. Removal of this monumental sign, which not only adds to the beauty of the city but also helps a few small businesses to survive to create employment and city tax revenues, will create unbearable financial burden to cause hardship. Are these tradeoffs that we really want to make? Having said: 1. Please consider an exception due to the existence of this sign for years before the adaption of the new city codes (grandfather). As it has been for many other existing structures in the City. I am looking forward to your help. Sincerely, David Jalali 16-226 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 16-227 From: Edson, Kirk <Kirk.Edson @cit.com> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 4:34 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Cc: Dinna Lugiman (DLugiman@idsrealestate.com) Subject: Nonconforming sign extension requested - City of New Port Beach [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. David — It has been brought to my attention that there is a sign ordinance issue at the OneWest Bank branch located at 3700 E Coast Hwy, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625. Please understand I just received this notice and I require some time to address the matter. Also, due to the short notice and with the uncertainties of Covid-19 and not knowing how long restrictions may be imposed, I'm not sure when we can get to this project. Please grant us a sufficient extension period to get us well beyond the uncertain Covid-19 period, as well as enough time to complete the project. Thank you. Kirk E. Edson Vice President Corporate Services OneWest Bank, A division of CIT Bank NA. C: (626) 255-5387 75 N Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, California, 91103 www.cit.com This email message and any accompanying materials may contain proprietary, privileged and confidential information of CIT Group Inc. or its subsidiaries or affiliates (collectively, "CIT"), and are intended solely for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, any use, disclosure, printing, copying or distribution, or reliance on the contents, of this communication is strictly prohibited. CIT disclaims any liability for the review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon, this communication by persons other than the intended recipient(s). If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender advising of the error in transmission, and immediately delete and destroy the communication and any accompanying materials. To the extent permitted by applicable law, CIT and others may inspect, review, monitor, analyze, copy, record and retain any communications sent from or received at this email address. 16-228 From: cynthia <cynthiacdm@cox.net> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2020 4:44 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: FW: signage 2900 Newport Blvd [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. April 6, 2020 Dear Mr. Blumenthal, I received your letter regarding the signs on the property located at 2900 Newport Blvd Newport Beach. The illuminated signs which are currently on the roof and in the planter were existing when the property was purchased in 1998 and I believed that there were permits on filed at the City, Over time the various tenants changed the acrylic fagade per restaurant businesses but since I thought the signs were conforming I did not require that they change the encasement. The property has now been vacant for the past two years. It is a financial hardship for me to pay the taxes, insurance, flood insurance, utilities, maintenance and repairs, in addition to the in lieu parking fees which I pay the City $2,700.00 annually. It would be a relief to not be required to incur more coasts to make the changes I have a tenant and cash flow. Additionally I am the full time caregiver in my home for my 90 year old mother and it is difficult to leave her and take on a new project. That being said I do go to the property daily (with mom waiting in the car) and verify everything looks presentable for potential tenants and just planted new flowers, bulbs and new soil to add to the curb appeal. Unfortunately due to the corona virus I am concerned that I may not find a tenant for sometime until the restaurants are able to reopen. I would appreciate your consideration in extending the deadline and forgive me for this late response. I called the city a few weeks ago but was unable to speak with you directly and the planner told me to email you directly. Please let me know which signs are non- conforming and what the signs should look like going forward. Thank you. Best regards, Cynthia Klanian (949) 610-6568 16-229 From: Bencharat Morarit <bencharat@mind prossage.com> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2020 3:39 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Business Sign [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Blumenthal, my name is Bencharat Morarit and I am the business owner of Mind Prossage, a business located at 3617 Coast HWY E Suite B in Corona del Mar. We have received your letter about non conforming signs. Apologies for writing late but the last 3 weeks have been really chaotic with the business closure, social distancing and uncertainty on when it will be possible to re -open again. I am writing you to inquiry about the reasons our sign is considered non conforming. We went through the full approval of the city for every minimal detail when we opened the business back in 2012 (including site visits to check out everything) and we had no issues with that. Actually even the business previously located at our location address had exactly the same sign (we just re -made it identical with our business name) for several years. This is going to be a tough time for small businesses due to the inability to be open, running multiple costs with no revenues at all and we would like to get a better understanding before incurring in further costs. Thank you in advance and looking forward to your reply. Bencharat Morarit bencharatkmindprossa eg com (949)630-5559 16-230 From: Art <cdmpease@sbcgloba1.net> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2020 3:13 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Fw: Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove non -conforming signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forwarded Message From: Arthur Pease <arthurpease58@gmail.com> To: "cdmpease@sbcglobal. net" <cdmpease@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020, 3:03:00 PM PDT Subject: Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove non -conforming signs am opposed to enforcing the city sign ordinance at 408 32nd Street Newport Beach requiring non- conforming sign removal. The cost of new signs is exorbitant and unaffordable for most small businesses of one or two employees. In my case the existing business impacted by your request for change could not be afforded. Going forward we do not know what the economic impact will be on such a small scale business. I therefore request you eliminate the demand for change on the existing non -conforming signs and allow the signs to continue into use as built. The existing non -conforming signs have not created any negative impact on the neighborhood or community. Any changes should be left to the discretion of the property owner and business owner at such time as they request a sign change. At that time consideration of the guidelines from the sign ordinance would be implemented. I feel this is a proper and adequate solution the city council should consider and implement. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 16-231 Arthur Pease 408 32nd Street Newport Beach 16-232 From: Colin Berger <colinberger@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2020 2:41 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Extension non confirming rigs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear David I just received your letter today as it was sent to Golden Mardikian LLC the property owners address We at the CAR SPA at 1200 West Coast Hwy have been closed for the past 16 days due to the rainy weather and the Coronavirus stay at home order WE seeks businesses on a proposed Code Amendment that would modify NBMC Sections 20.42.140.A and 21.30.065 to grant additional time to remove nonconforming signs or consider our sign as confirming as the sign cost us in excess of $25000 and the cost to remove it would be very costly and further more with our business being closed due to the Corana virus stay at home order We hope you will consider our comments Thanking you Colin Berger Director THE CAR SPA Colin Berger 16-233 From: CLASSOF47 <classof471ounge@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2020 12:12 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Comment re: extension of deadline to remove allegedly nonconforming signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Blumenthal: On March 12, 2020 you sent a letter addressed to the Building Owner of the business located at 209 Palm St, Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661 requesting comment on a proposed extension of the deadline to remove nonconforming signs pursuant to some alleged NBMC Sections 20.42.140A and 21.30.065.E. The business located at that address is Class of 47. I am the owner of Class of 47. I am sending you this email in response to your letter dated March 12, 2020. Class of 47 believes that it would be a wise move on behalf of the City of Newport Beach to grant additional time for the removal of any allegedly nonconforming signs. Class of 47 believes that, at a minimum, the deadline should be extended from October 27, 2020 to "indefinitely". Indeed, Class f 47 is of the position that any such NBMC should be revoked and/or otherwise be eliminated in their entirety. There should be no such law on the books. Nor, should the City make any effort or attempt to try to enforce any such NBMC. Class of 47 has been located at 209 Palm St., Newport Beach, CA since March 1, 1977. The business has operated in that location continuously since its grand opening almost 43 years ago. Class of 47 is a historic and iconic part of the history of Newport Beach. Due to its location in the heart of Balboa Village at the entrance and exit of the Balboa Ferry. Class of 47 is also a very significant part of the history of Newport Harbor. The sign was originally installed in the mid 1960's, Kelly's Steak House. 16-234 Class of 47 has had prominent signage in place throughout its long history. That signage is as much a part of the history of Newport Beach and Newport Harbor as is the Tavern named Class of 47, itself. Any attempt to "scrub" or rewrite the history of Newport Beach or the history of Newport Harbor by attempting to force Class of 47 to remove or modify its historic signs is a disgrace. We also believe that it is unconstitutional. We believe that it would be most unwise for the City of Newport Beach to have such a rule on its books. We also believe that it would be even more unwise for the City of Newport Beach to attempt to enforce such an unconstitutional and disgraceful statute. So, yes, the City of Newport Beach should, at a minimum, indefinitely delay enforcement of any such alleged code section. But, more importantly, the City of Newport Beach should eliminate any such code sections. Such code sections, if they do exist, never should have been enacted in the first place. Thanks, Patrick Conners 3345 Newport Blvd., Suite 204 Newport Beach CA 92663 (949) 566-9375 Office (949) 554-5725 Cell (866) 784-7341 Fax http://www.farmersagent.com/pconners Pat Conners CLASS OF 47 209 Palm St. Newport Beach, CA 92661 Ph: (949)554-5725 Fx: (866)784-7341 16-235 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 16-236 From: Alvin Ta <Alvin.Ta@unionbank.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2020 5:00 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Union Bank Newport Beach - Extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Blumenthal: On behalf of MUFG Union Bank, our businesses located at 1501 Westcliff Dr (Westcliff) and at 396 Superior Ave (Superior) have been identified with a nonconforming sign that is subject to the October 27, 2020 removal deadline. Union Bank Westcliff The building top signage at this location is essential for visibility of the branch to existing clients and the community at large. Union Bank is a regional Bank that needs visibility afforded to other national banks. Due to the architecture and design of the building, signage visibility from the street and adjacent area are only available from the upper portion of the building. Due to this unusual sightline, it is imperative for this sign to remain in order to maintain visibility. Union Bank Superior The Pole Sign at our Superior location is essential as we have very limited signage at this location due to the architecture of the building itself. We feel that this sign helps not only our customers know where we are located, but the community at large as we are a regional bank with ties to the community for over many years. The intersection of Superior and Placentia Ave have virtually no other signage visibility but for this pole sign. Please grant additional time to remove nonconforming signs. In addition, these signs were legally approved and permitted. If the signs need to come down, who should pay for this. Thanks very much for considering our request to extend this deadline and answering our question. Sincerely, Alvin Ta JLL I Project Management Contractor Supporting Corporate Real Estate at MUFG Union Bank, N.A. M +1 626.543.3211 Alvin.Ta(a)_unionbank.com lwww.JLL.com Please note the MUFG logo and name is a service mark of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. ("MUFG") and may be used by it or other Group companies for marketing purposes, including 16-237 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. 16-238 From: Meussner, John <John.Meussner@am.jll.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2020 4:58 PM y To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) 19t,x4R*xr Cc: coxtim1947@gmail.com; Meussner, John Subject: RE: Request for Extension to Remove Nonconforming Signs. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I'm happy an extension, however long, will be put in place. I'll be sure to update the BofA branding team after I speak to a planner. Thank you and have a great day! John Meussner M +1714 454 4034 From: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 4:49 PM To: Meussner, John <John.Meussner@am.jll.com> Cc: coxtim1947@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Request for Extension to Remove Nonconforming Signs. John, We are moving forward with a code amendment to extend the deadline for removal of the nonconforming signs. Until this amendment moves through the public hearing process, we cannot guarantee how long it will be extended for. Having said this, please call the planning counter at (949) 644-3204 to discuss the sign refresh with a planner. DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP Community Development Department Planning Consultant dblumenthal(c_newportbeaehca.gov 949-644-3204 F Please consider the environment before printing this email From: Meussner, John <John.Meussner@am.Ill.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 10:40 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: coxtim1947@gmail.com; Meussner, John <John.Meussner@a m.ill.com> Subject: Request for Extension to Remove Nonconforming Signs. Importance: High 16-239 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello David — I hope all is well in these interesting times we are all going through. I received the attached letter regarding a nonconforming sign at the BofA mentioned within it reached out to the banks branding team and this was their response; Bank of America in 2019 began a multi-year program to rebrand its financial centers with its new branded signage in a refreshed and updated design. The bank would respectfully request an extension of up to five years of the deadline for conforming to the new sign regulations. It is anticipated that permit requests to update the Corona Del Mar site would be submitted to the City well in advance of an extended deadline for conforming the updated signage regulations, but given the bank's over 4300 financial centers and over 3000 remote ATMs this will give the bank time to respond to these new regulations. In the near term the bank would like to proceed with refreshing the existing signs (primarily via repainting) to improve the look of those signs pending the rebranding effort. Please advise if we can move forward with this game plan Thank you and have a great day!! John Meussner Facility Manager JLL Bank of America 275 Valencia Ave Brea CA 92823 M +1714 454 4034 www.all.com (0) 1 LL lq"441� One of the 2020 World's Most Ethical Companies® Jones Lang LaSalle For more information about how JLL processes your personal data, please click here. This email is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this email without the author's prior permission. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. The information contained in this communication may be confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege. If you are the intended recipient and you do not wish to receive similar electronic messages from us in the future then please respond to the sender to this effect. 16-240 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, 16-241 Jamie Duarte Duarte & Associates 245 Fischer Ave., Ste. A-1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (714) 545-4800 E-mail: iduarte(@duarte-law.com 16-242 From: Holly Broxterman <hollyb@loungegroup.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2020 12:40 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Cc: Mario Marovic Subject: Request to Extend: Non -conforming Sign October Deadline [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi David, We are in receipt of the attached notice for signage changes requested at 106 22nd St. Although this sign hasn't changed for years, we appreciate your associate Chelsea's explanation that the amortization for sign code changes from 10 years ago will be ending in October and enforced soon. Due to recent business closures and public health changes since the date of this notice, we kindly request to postpone or extend the October 27th deadline for removal. Thank you for your understanding. Your guidance in proceeding as we approach the deadline would be greatly appreciated. Holly Broxterman Real Estate Lounge Group 3334 E Coast Highway #418 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 tel: 949.675.1913 1 email: hollyb@loungegroup.com web: www.loungegroup.com ��; 4 F f C y4 `Pi�$ - P1140 - LOUNGE Mcia BE LM.ff NiNi ny r u eoo.r• C 0OtSULT fNG 16-243 From: Grace Dove <doveperch @sbcgloba1.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 1:52 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Cc: Campbell, Jim Subject: Extension of Time -Nonconforming Signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Blumenthal, following are my comments, as requested, on the proposed extension of time of deadline to remove non conforming signs: I support an extension of time. This deadline was included with a study of all signs more than 10 years ago. Pole signs were a minor consideration and punted. The requirement has long been forgotten by most business/property owners along with the opportunity for a sign to be considered for historic status. Time is needed for sign owners to do any research necessary to achieve historic status and for the City to review and consider applications. Should someone decide to remove a sign, time is needed to contract for removal and to design and permit a replacement. Pole signs are found in the older parts of the City and outside of areas controlled by CC&Rs with design requirements. The buildings were placed, often on small lots, in consideration of locating a ubiquitous pole sign and will not be easily replaced. This deadline for removal comes at an especially bad time for burdening owners of small properties and of small businesses. Compliance will be expensive at a time when businesses are closed or experiencing reduced revenues. Once they are able to operate, time will be necessary to recover or for the property to find a replacement tenant. They also will need the identity provided by a familiar sign. Likewise the City staff and decision makers will be occupied with the unexpected tasks of planning for an anticipated and substantial reduction in revenues. This is a time to encourage and facilitate recovery not to burden it. Please consider a substantial extension of time to comply with or reconsider this obscure requirement. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for Whone 16-244 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, 16-245 Bob Carson Eric Carson Hugh Carson Family, LLC 29 Chapital San Clemente, CA 92672 Owners of 3050 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar 16-246 From: Meussner, John <John.Meussner@am.jll.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 10:40 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Cc: coxtim1947@gmail.com; Meussner, John Subject: Request for Extension to Remove Nonconforming Signs. Importance: High [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello David — I hope all is well in these interesting times we are all going through. I received the attached letter regarding a nonconforming sign at the BofA mentioned within it. I reached out to the banks branding team and this was their response; Bank of America in 2019 began a multi-year program to rebrand its financial centers with its new branded signage in a refreshed and updated design. The bank would respectfully request an extension of up to five years of the deadline for conforming to the new sign regulations. It is anticipated that permit requests to update the Corona Del Mar site would be submitted to the City well in advance of an extended deadline for conforming the updated signage regulations, but given the bank's over 4300 financial centers and over 3000 remote ATMs this will give the bank time to respond to these new regulations. In the near term the bank would like to proceed with refreshing the existing signs (primarily via repainting) to improve the look of those signs pending the rebranding effort. Please advise if we can move forward with this game plan. Thank you and have a great day!! John Meussner Facility Manager JLL Bank of America 275 Valencia Ave Brea CA 92823 M +1714 454 4034 www.all.com i LL AdA.ZAI& One of the 2020 World's Most Ethical Companies® Jones Lang LaSalle 16-247 For more information about how JILL processes your personal data, please click here. This email is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this email without the author's prior permission. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. The information contained in this communication may be confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege. If you are the intended recipient and you do not wish to receive similar electronic messages from us in the future then please respond to the sender to this effect. 16-248 From: zu-hsiung hsiao <outpostl@att.net> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 11:34 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Sign [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Blumenthal: My name is Zu-Hsiung Hsiao (Tony), and I am the owner of the property located at 6110 W. Coast Hwy and The Outpost Liquor store which sits on the property. I am writing in response to your letter dated March 12, 2020 regarding Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs. In this unprecedented time, the COVID-19 situation is affecting the communities in which you and I live and work. Unfortunately, my business is not immune to the financial crisis brought on the COVID-19 and the Safe At Home Order. Although as an essential business we are able to operate, our business is expected to suffer severe financial loss. The time and expenditure required to remove the sign before October 27,2020 world be an impossible mission. Not only I am uncertain when and if the sign vendor world be able to open for business, the extra cost of removal would impose an undue financial burden. The foreseeable result world be to layoff employees or filing bankruptcy. have served the Newport Beach communities since 1985, and it has been an honor and pleasure to serve the Newport Beach communities. The Outpost Liquor store is not just a convenience store: it is also an indispensable 16-249 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 16-250 From: Erin Alonso <erinalonso5@icloud.com> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 2:12 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Re: Nonconforming signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I have a building in Orange, a while ago they were offering grants to help make the city look better. Many people took advantage of this. It was a win win. Erin Sent from my iPhone On Mar 27, 2020, at 12:26 PM, Blumenthal, David(Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> wrote: Erin, Thank you for your comment. The proposal will be to grant a multi-year extension. What do you mean when asking about a "beauty allowance"? <image002.jpg> DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP Community Development Department Planning Consultant dblumenthalanewnortbeachca. eov 949-644-3204 <image003. gif> -----Original Message ----- From: Erin Alonso <erinalonso5@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 10:09 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Nonconforming signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. This deadline needs to be moved since it's very hard to do business now as it is. This won't be a trivial expense either. Does the city offer beauty allowances? This should be reconsidered next year. Erin Alonso 310-863-5961 16-251 2430 W PCH NEWPORT BEACH Sent from my iPhone 16-252 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 16-253 From: beaconservice@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 5:45 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: PROPOSAL FOR REMOVAL OF NONCONFORMING SIGNS [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City of Newport Beach - Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: David Blumenthal, AICP Dear Mr Blumenthal, I am in receipt of your letter to Donna Adele Gallant Trust, the owners of the property at 1501 E. 16th Street, Newport Beach. Beacon Healthcare Services,lnc, d.b.a. Newport Bay Hospital has leased this property for the last 26 plus years. Newport Bay Hospital is the only Freestanding Acute Psychiatric Hospital in Orange County that is licensed by the State of California. Because of the uniqueness of the Hospital's Mental Health Programs, the catchment area for patients extends to San Louis Obispo, Fresno, Barstow, San Diego, as well as Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The subject sign has been in place for more than 20 years and is important for ambulance drivers, patients families and others who come from out of the area to be able to find the Hospitals location. The Hospital sits adjacent to the Environmental Nature Center which fortunately has a lot of foliage on 16th Street, but unfortunately blocks the view of the Hospitals entrance until a driver is past it. I believe that a permit was issued by the City to install the sign originally, but I will need to do research in the Hospitals archives. 16-254 We respectfully request that the City of Newport Beach issue a Conditional or Special Use Permit such that the signage remains in place. Regards, Phyllis Parkhurst, Senior Vice President Newport Bay Hospital 1�6ZPer:T:M :M-ZMII 16-255 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 16-256 From: Valerie Kerr <bradfordaccounting@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 10:31 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Re: 3800 E. Coast Highway- Corona del Mar- Letter received [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. HI David, Thank you for the prompt response. I am a bit confused, those signs have been in place since 1961. What exactly is nonconforming? Thank you, Valerie Kerr c/o, 39 Beach View LK100, LLC c/o, Pacific Riviera Collection, LLC Phone (949) 547-9167 On 3/25/2020 11:52 AM, Blumenthal, David(Contractor) wrote: Valerie, It appears that the nonconforming signs are the roof signs. Be advised, this proposal is to extend the deadline for removal of the signs. We are not asking for the signs to be removed at this time, but rather are working to give the signs additional time. W DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP Community Development Department Planning Consultant dblumenthal(&newportbeachca.g qy{+ * 949-644-3204 +�a F Please consider the environment before printing this email From: Valerie Kerr <bradfordaccounting@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 10:12 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 3800 E. Coast Highway- Corona del Mar- Letter received [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello David, We received a letter in the mail regarding non -conforming signs. Will you please tell which signs you are referring to? 16-257 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 16-258 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 16-259 From: Joe Vallejo <joevallejo22@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 12:29 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Fw: Signage [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Sorry I got your email address wrong have now resent it. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Joe Vallejo <joevallejo22@yahoo.com> To: dblunenthal@newportbeachca.gov <dblunenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020, 12:09:54 PM PDT Subject: Re: Signage On Friday, March 20, 2020, 05:43:14 PM PDT, Joe Vallejo <joevallejo22@yahoo.com> wrote: Hello David, I spoke with Liz in planning regarding the signage on my building at 1610 W. Coast Hwy, across from the Balboa Bay Club apartments. She said I should contact you. I first rented part of the premises in 1972 and moved away in a different location for a few years and moved back in 1978 taking over most of the building till 2015. The signage was already in place,at that time and was sited by the city that it was non- conforming. We presented our case to the City Council in 1978 and they approved the existing signs stating, that the location of the business in relation to the bend of Coast Hwy requires a sign that can be observed in either direction. (see enclosed minutes from the city). With constructed of the walk bridge coming in a few months that will further block our building going south makes the signage needed even more. We have not had any complaints or contact with the city for 42 years regarding the signs. Thank you for your consideration. With Regards, Joe Vallejo Cell 949-677-5713 16-260 -----Forwarded Message ----- >From: Joe Vallejo <valleiogallery(c_earthlink. net> >Sent: Mar 20, 2020 5:04 PM >To: Vallejo Gallery<valleiogallery(aD_earthlink.net> >Subject: Signage Sent from my Phone 16-261 From: ALRON7099@aol.com Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 4:04 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Cc: mhewitt@lawverdict.com; garen@korkerliquor.com; jordan@arestaurantnb.com Subject: Signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Blumenthal: My husband and I are the property owners at 2325 East Coast Highway (Corona Del Mar Restaurant) and the property at 2229 East Coast Highway (Korker Liquor) I have received a notice dated March 12, 2020 concerning the signs at these properties. would request an opportunity to come in and meet with you to discuss why my tenants need these signs for their business, and especially now with the closures and social upheaval our community is experiencing. When may I meet with you? Or what steps do I need to take register our vehement opposition to removal of the signage, and have the signs stay? Thank you for your attention on this matter, Allyson Presta, Partner Blackbird Investments, GP PV 1984, GP 16-262 Phone 949-759-1275 Fax 949-759-1288 Mobile 949-874-1725 Email ALRON7099@AOL.COM 16-263 From: Kathy Humphries <kjhlrules@aol.com> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 2:26 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Re: Nonconforming signs, Newport Beach Code [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you very much, We are trying very hard to remove any unnecessary stress from our tenants. Kathy Humphries 949 887-2232 -----Original Message ----- From: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> To: 'Kathy Humphries' <kjhl rules@aol.com> Sent: Wed, Mar 18, 2020 3:56 pm Subject: RE: Nonconforming signs, Newport Beach Code Kathy, Thank you for comment. The proposal is to amend the code and provide an automatic extension for removal of non -conforming signs. We will send additional notices to you as this request progresses through the public hearing process. DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP Community Development Department t Planning Consultant u dblumenthal(a)newportbeachca.pov 949-644-3204 bA, Please consider the environment before printing this email From: Kathy Humphries <kjhlrules@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 1:58 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Nonconforming signs, Newport Beach Code [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. -----Original Message ----- From: Kathy Humphries <k4h1rules(cDaol.com> To: dblumenthal <dblumenthal(aDnewportbeach.aov>; propertyanalyst <propertyanalyst(cDbrighthorizons.com> Sent: Wed, Mar 18, 2020 1:56 pm Subject: Nonconforming signs, Newport Beach Code 16-264 Dear Mr. Blumenthal, My name is Kathy Humphries and my sister's and I own the property at 2500. W. Coast Hwy, Newport Beach, CA, 92663. am responding to the letter we received regarding our tenant, Bright Horizon's non conforming sign. We are respectively asking for an extension of the proposed deadline for removal of the sign. Our tenant has spent a lot of money in designing a tasteful sign that as far as we can see has absolutely no negative effect on the property or the area. In light of these trying times, it seems ridiculous to put business's under more financial stress that is unnecessary. Please consider our position, right now we are all trying to pull together so I'm hoping this issue can be delayed for further consideration. Thank you, Kathy Humphries 949 887-2232 16-265 From: Kathy Humphries <kjhlrules@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 1:58 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Fwd: Nonconforming signs, Newport Beach Code [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. -----Original Message ----- From: Kathy Humphries <kjhlrules@aol.com> To: dblumenthal <dblumenthal@newportbeach.gov>; propertyanalyst <propertyanalyst@brighthorizons.com> Sent: Wed, Mar 18, 2020 1:56 pm Subject: Nonconforming signs, Newport Beach Code Dear Mr. Blumenthal, My name is Kathy Humphries and my sister's and I own the property at 2500. W. Coast Hwy, Newport Beach, CA, 92663. am responding to the letter we received regarding our tenant, Bright Horizon's non conforming sign. We are respectively asking for an extension of the proposed deadline for removal of the sign. Our tenant has spent a lot of money in designing a tasteful sign that as far as we can see has absolutely no negative effect on the property or the area. In light of these trying times, it seems ridiculous to put business's under more financial stress that is unnecessary. Please consider our position, right now we are all trying to pull together so I'm hoping this issue can be delayed for further consideration. Thank you, 16-266 Kathy Humphries 949 887-2232 16-267 eX- From: davidvoss@cox.net P_ Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 12:21 PM 15 To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) ��kaR'r Subject: RE: No -Conforming Signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. a� So basically the city somewhat snuck this code change in without consenting with property owners first? These signs on older buildings give 'value' to the older buildings. As I understood, old buildings would be grandfathered in until they are remodeled and then up to code. What's next, we need to add more parking per code? Slippery slope here. At considerable expense we went up to code for ADA compliance. Why the push now? The old sign give CDM character. Again, these signs have a value, how does the city plan to reimburse the property owners for that value? Will they pay to have the signs removed? In these unprecedented times, we will be 'lucky' to keep our tenants this year. City needs to focus on helping business stay in business and not give reasons for tenants to want to relocate or get a way to get out of their leases. Our Governor is doing all he can to make business move out of CA (fact). Let's not let Newport follow that example. Lead by example. End of the day the city will dictate. It would be a help if the signs could be removed after leases are up and then city pays for removal (which will be costly) TY Dave From: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 12:08 PM To: Dave Voss <dvoss@lrisCPG.com> Subject: RE: No -Conforming Signs A notice was not sent, which is why the City is one of the reasons the City is considering the extension. DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP Community Development Department Planning Consultant dblumenthal(d)newportbeachca.kov 16-268 949-644-3204 P 15iPlease consider the environment before printing this email From: Dave Voss <dvoss@lrisCPG.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 12:04 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: RE: No -Conforming Signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 0 Yes. Need time. Also need the original notice that was sent to building owners notifying them that the code had changed. I don't remember receiving this, it would not have gone unnoticed. Dave David Voss Director of Sales - West Iris Brands C: 949/494-1124 E: dvoss@irisCPG.com From: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 11:14 AM To: Dave Voss <dvoss@lrisCPG.com> Subject: RE: No -Conforming Signs Hello Dave, Thank you for your comments, and I understand your frustration. The proposal is to extend the deadline to give property owners additional time and proper notification. Based on your comments, is it correct to assume you would prefer the extension be over three years to give you time to work out the lease issues with tenants? DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP Community Development Department Planning Consultant dblumenthalna-,newportbeachca.g 949-644-3204 h Please consider the environment before printing this email 16-269 From: Dave Voss <dvoss@lrisCPG.com> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 3:01 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: No -Conforming Signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi: My family has owned that property at 3641/3643/3645 East Coast Highway, CDM for over 40 years. We have always had these roof signs grandfathered in to the code. In these forty years, we have NEVER had an issue with the city. I learned today from the 'other' David at the NB number on your letter that in 2010 the code changed and we had 10 years to comply? Where is that original letter, need to see it. To get a letter saying we are now not to code is ridiculous. Especially when the letter does not give us 'specific issues' with our signs. Are you asking us to remove them, replace them, modify them? Be specific! If it is just to remove, if that is the case, the next conversation will representation. We have it in our leases to our lessee's these signs that have been legal for as long as we have owned the buildings. This diminishes the value of our property as these signs are an important part of their marketing. We do not want to remove them. IF we are forced to remove them or be faced with fines, then we need time to work them out of our lease agreements. Mine a usually 2-3 year in length depending on the unit. If I just go and take down the sign, I will be open to my tenants taking action on the lessor. I would be glad to meet you at our building so you can specifically point our to me what is not to code. If it is something simple, I can address with my lessee's and we can address. if it is about removal of the signs, we have a much larger issue that may take time to rectify. You can't just decide the change the rules in 2010 because you don't like the signs. That is 100% unfair and unjust without proper notice. TY, Happy to go over this by phone as well. TY Dave David Voss C: 949/494-1124 16-270 From: mirala@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 5:32 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Fwd: Your letter dated March 12th re: SIGNS. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello again Mr. David Blumenthal, received a return phone call back from Miss.Jocelyn, in response to a voice message which I had left earlier. She indicated that there are three signs that were non -conforming at 1495 Superior Avenue... all three are with a translucent face, internally illuminated. She described the locations of the signs, so that I could tell which ones she was talking about. She indicated that 10 years ago, the city council passed a resolution, granting upto October 27th 2020, for removal of the non -conforming signs, and now, before the due date, they wish to seek comment from businesses and property owners. Grace And Goodwill Enterprises LLC acquired the property on 1495 Superior Ave on March 30th, 2015 without the knowledge of this matter in regard to signs. am of the strong opinion that my tenant 7 -Eleven, needs to maintain appropriate and adequate signage which displays their presence at this location. As you may be aware, 7 -Eleven has been at this property since approximately 35 years. Further, these signs are standard signs, which are present at all other 7 - Eleven locations. These signs are not overly big, and neither are they causing any nuisance. Therefore, I am of the opinion that municipal code either be rescinded in its entirety, or that the location at 1495 Superior Ave be granted exemption from this municipal code. Respectfully, 16-271 Sunil Lalwani Grace And Goodwill Enterprises LLC 1349 South Broadway Los Angeles CA 90015 tel 213 746 4853 -----Original Message ----- From: mirala <mirala@aol.com> To: dblumenthal <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Tue, Mar 17, 2020 4:46 pm Subject: Your letter dated March 12th re: SIGNS. Hello Mr. David Blumenthal received your letter dated March 12th ( copy attached ). This is the first letter that I have received regarding the subject of signs. Please, would you let me know which exact sign is the non -conforming sign at 1495 Superior Ave, and what exactly makes it non -conforming ? Based on your reply, i can then take this up with the appropriate tenant, who will then respond to your request for public comment. Thank You Sunil Lalwani 16-272 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) 16-273 From: Shelly@hilbertproperties. net Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 1:57 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: 4667 MacArthur Blvd. Monument sign [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Blumenthal, I received your letter regarding our building signage. Although it was not specifically mentioned, I am assuming that you were referencing the monument sign on the street. We would like the sign to remain if at all possible. On most days the speed of traffic is such that motorists pass our building before they can see the address. The sign for Pacific Premier Bank is the most identifying aspect of the property. We don't necessarily need the sign to be illuminated, however. The Bank closes at 5 pm. Please keep us informed if the Code is amended or extended. Thanks! Shelly Johnson Hilbert Property Management 1300 Bristol Street North Suite 190 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 476-0104 16-274 From: peteduca@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 9:41 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: non conforming sign at 3840 east coast hwy. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. David Blumenthal Thanks for your reply. We would like to keep the existing sign without a deadline. This sign has been existing since 1979. We have provided on site parking and have conformed to all city requirements at that time. We have been a good neighbor with all the local residents for many years. was on the residents board of directors with Phil Sansone the mayor at that time and the main concerns were parking which has evolved into a major problem in Corona del Mar. The city has issued permits to businesses which do not have any parking or less then code requirements, have doubled the density in Corona del Mar in the village without considering the impact on parking. It is evident that the garages are being used for storage instead of parking cars. They were blaming the commercial district for the parking but I would recommend taking a drive at 6 am in the morning on the streets in Corona Del Mar when the commercial area is not open and you will see all streets in the residential area without any parking available due to cars not parked in the garages. am sorry for getting away from the sign subject but that is not the problem that I can see for the city and the timing is very bad. Most of the businesses will be struggling financially in the very near future if they are not already in that situation due to the impact of the virus situation. Hope I didn't bother you but I have been in business for 47 years in Corona del Mar and have seen many good and bad times.. 16-275 From: Pete <dmieng@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 4:21 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Re: nonconforming sign at 3840 east coast hwy. Corona del mar [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. David Thanks for responding We want to keep the sign as it is since 1980 Believe me we are going thru some financial times right now due to this virus especially restaurants Thanks Pete Duca Sent from my 1Phone On Mar 16, 2020, at 2:09 PM, Blumenthal, David(Contractor) <dblumenthalknewportbeachca.gov> wrote: Pete, Yes, it appears the sushi restaurant's wall sign is nonconforming because it is internally illuminated, but does not have an opaque background. Per Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) 20.42.060(H)(2), "Signs may be internally or externally illuminated. Internal illumination is permitted only if the sign background is opaque and the only portion of the sign that appears as illuminated is the actual lettering and/or a registered trademark or logo." The code currently requires that nonconforming signs, such as the wall sign for the sushi restaurant, be brought into compliance no later than 10/27/2020. The proposal is to extend the removal deadline and allow a longer time for these signs to be removed or changed. When you say "We would like to have everything remain as is," I'm I correct in assuming you are not proposing the existing deadline shall remain, but rather you want to keep the sign without a deadline? rrt�'� DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP Community Development Department r Planning Consultant `g ra £ dblumenthalknewportbeachea.gov "t o) 949949-644-3204 F Please consider the environment before printing this email 16-276 From: dmieng@aol.com <dmieng@aol.com> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 8:49 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: nonconforming sign at 3840 east coast hwy. corona del mar [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Blumenthal Received your letter concerning a non -conforming sign at 3840 East Coast Hwy in Corona Del mar of which I am the property owner since 1979. My question is what sign are you referring to since the signs have been in place since 1979 on our conditional use permit. We would like to have everything remain as is. Very truly yours, Pete J. Duca P.E. 16-277 From: MMY <mmymanagement@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 5:27 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Cc: mmymanagement@yahoo.com Subject: 3305 Newport signage [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. hi David . thanks for the call back about the signage the signage post has been there since the building was there the tenants rely on that signage since the location is challenging and many cars just pass by since it's hard to locate since the city took away the street parking in front of the stores when the redevelopment of the lido house hotel and areas surrounding, it has been hard for the businesses we kindly ask that the city consider grandfathering the sign if possible and allow it thanks for your consideration grace Pak Sent from my Whone On Mar 16, 2020, at 1:49 PM, Blumenthal, David (Contractor) <dblumenthal@newportbeachca.gov> wrote: Grace, Below is my contact information. <image002 Jpg> DAVID BLUMENTHAL, AICP Community Development Department Planning Consultant dblumenthalna,newvortbeachca. gov 949-644-3204 <image003.gif> 16-278 From: Dave Voss <dvoss@lrisCPG.com> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 3:01 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: No -Conforming Signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My family has owned that property at 3641/3643/3645 East Coast Highway, CDM for over 40 years. We have always had these roof signs grandfathered in to the code. In these forty years, we have NEVER had an issue with the city. I learned today from the 'other' David at the NB number on your letter that in 2010 the code changed and we had 10 years to comply? Where is that original letter, need to see it. To get a letter saying we are now not to code is ridiculous. Especially when the letter does not give us 'specific issues' with our signs. Are you asking us to remove them, replace them, modify them? Be specific! If it is just to remove, if that is the case, the next conversation will representation. We have it in our leases to our lessee's these signs that have been legal for as long as we have owned the buildings. This diminishes the value of our property as these signs are an important part of their marketing. We do not want to remove them. IF we are forced to remove them or be faced with fines, then we need time to work them out of our lease agreements. Mine a usually 2-3 year in length depending on the unit. If I just go and take down the sign, I will be open to my tenants taking action on the lessor. I would be glad to meet you at our building so you can specifically point our to me what is not to code. If it is something simple, I can address with my lessee's and we can address. if it is about removal of the signs, we have a much larger issue that may take time to rectify. You can't just decide the change the rules in 2010 because you don't like the signs. That is 100% unfair and unjust without proper notice. TY, Happy to go over this by phone as well. TY Dave David Voss C:949/494-1124 16-279 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 16-280 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 16-281 From: Bill Cote <estates@fea. net> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 10:58 AM To: Blumenthal, David(Contractor) Subject: 3748 E Coast Hlghway sign [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr Blumenthal and City of Newport Beach management; I am the sole owner of the building note in your letter to me of March 12, 2020. I am nearly 78 years old and a recent widower. The only income I receive is that from a lease I have with the current tenant in the above noted building. If I am required to remove the existing sign on the building, the tenant, pursuant to the existing lease, has the right to void the lease and vacate the premises. In that event, I will have no income from the building which would put me in a devastating financial bind. Please know that an extension of the sign removal deadline is imperative for me to be able to continue to pay my bills. Thank you for the opportunity of submitting this e-mail for your consideration. Respectfully, William F. Cot6 16-282 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 16-283 949-720-9414 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. 16-284 From: Lee, Amanda Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 4:53 PM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Cc: Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject: FW: non -conforming signs : 1495 Superior Avenue. Newport Beach CA From: mirala@aol.com <mirala@aol.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 4:51 PM To: Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Kimberly.Parenzan@7-11.com Subject: non -conforming signs : 1495 Superior Avenue. Newport Beach CA [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Respected Madam(s) / Sir(s) , have received, via email, the attached notice. wish to submit my comments for your kind review and consideration Grace And Goodwill Enterprises LLC acquired the property at 1495 Superior Avenue on March 30th 2015, without the knowledge of this long -pending matter in regard to signs. am of the strong opinion that my tenant, 7 -Eleven, needs to maintain appropriate and adequate signage which displays their presence at this location. As you may be aware, 7 -Eleven has been at this property since approximately 35 years. The signs at this location are standard 7 -Eleven signs, which are present at all 7 -Eleven locations. These signs are not overly big, and neither are they causing any nuisance. Therefore, I am requesting that this municipal code be rescinded in its entirety, or that the location at 1495 Superior Ave be granted a permanent exemption from this municipal code. Respectfully Sunil Lalwani Grace And Goodwill Enterprises LLC 1349 South Broadway Los Angeles CA 90015 tel 213 746 4853 16-285 April 1, 2020 SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY TO DBLUMENTHAL@NEWPORTBEACHCA.GOV City of Newport Beach — Community Development Department Attn: David Blumenthal 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: MUFG Union Bank, N.A.'s request for proposed extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs at 1501 Westcliff Dr. ( "Union Bank Westcliff") and 396 Superior Ave ("Union Bank Superior") Dear Mr. Blumenthal: MUFG Union Bank, N.A. ("Union Bank") received letters from the City of Newport Beach (the "City") dated as of March 12, 2020 notifying us that our signage at the above -referenced locations have been identified as nonconforming and subject to removal. It is also our understanding that the City is seeking comment from impacted businesses on a proposed Code Amendment to grant additional time to remove nonconforming signs. We hereby submit the following comments to the City for consideration: Union Bank Westcliff The building top signage at this location is essential for visibility of the branch to existing clients and the community at large. Union Bank is a national bank that requires the same visibility afforded to other national banks. Due to the architecture and design of the building, signage visibility from the street and adjacent area are only available from the upper portion of the building. Due to this unusual sightline, it is imperative for this sign to remain in order to maintain visibility. Union Bank Superior The pole sign at this location is essential as we have very limited signage due to the architecture of the building itself. We feel that this sign helps not only our customers know where we are located, but the community at large as we are a national bank with ties to the community for over many years. The intersection of Superior and Placentia Ave have virtually no other signage visibility but for this pole sign. In addition, these aforementioned signs were approved and permitted by the City. Should the City require the signs to be removed, we would request that such removal be at the sole cost and expense of the City. Our signage is critical to our business. We respectfully request that the City amend the code to provide businesses like our selves an extension to remove the signage. Should you need any further information or wish to discuss this further, please contact me at Olivia.Fu@unionbank.com. Sincerely, MUFG Union Bank, N.A. 6 via 7u Olivia Fu Vice President Corporate Real Estate, Project Management 16-286 � I / loop Bright Horizons. Re: Bright Horizons Property on 2500 West Coast Hwy Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. Blumenthal I am glad to learn that on May 7, 2020, the commission will be considering a multi-year extension to the deadline for sign removal. As you can imagine, we have deferred all spend in our organization due to COVID-19. Once we get beyond this crisis, we can budget accordingly for the removal of the existing sign and appropriate replacement signage. Please let me know if you have any questions. Jeff Castro Regional Property Manager Bright Horizons 303 253 2196 Jeff.Castro@brighthorizons.com 200 TALCOTT AVENUE, WATERTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS 02472 1 P 617.673.8000 F 617.673.8001 AMSTERDAM I BENGALURU 1 BOSTON I DENVER 1 LONDON 1 NEW YORK www.brighthorizons.com 16-287 From: Terisa Britt <terisa.britt@pazingredients.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 10:09 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Cc: Mark M. Paz Subject: RE: Roof Top Signiture [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners: Paz Ingredients, Inc. has been in business in Corona del Mar for three decades. We wanted to voice our concerns regarding removing the roof signs in Corona del Mar. We strongly object to the removal. We obtain a significant amount of interest and walk-in clients from this signage. It is critical for our survival and prosperity. We hope that you will extend the use of the signs. With the current crises it is more important than ever! Please let me know if you have any questions. Be well and stay safe! Thank you, Terisa Britt Paz Ingredients, Inc. AZ INGREDIENTS 3800 E. Coast Highway, Suite#1 Corona del Mar, CA. 92625 (949) 220.9117 Ph. (949) 220.9146 Fax www.i)azingredients.com April 1, 2020 To: City of Newport Beach — Community Development Department David Blumenthal 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Request for comment on proposed extension of deadline to remove nonconforming signs Mr. Blumenthal: On behalf of MUFG Union Bank, our businesses located at 1501 Westcliff Dr (Westcliff) and at 396 Superior Ave (Superior) have been identified with a nonconforming sign that is subject to the October 27, 2020 removal deadline. Union Bank Westcliff The building top signage at this location is essential for visibility of the branch to existing clients and the community at large. Union Bank is a regional Bank that needsvisibility afforded to other national banks. Due to the architecture and design of the building, signage visibility from the street and adjacent area are only available from the upper portion of the building. Due to this unusual sightline, it is imperative forthis sign to remain in orderto maintain visibility. Union Bank Superior The Pole Sign at our Superior location is essential as we have very limited signage at this location due to the architecture of the building itself. We feelthat this sign helps not only our customers know where we are located, but the community at large as we are a regional bank with ties to the community for over many years. The intersection of Superior and Placentia Ave have virtually no other signage visibility but for this pole sign. Please grant additional time to remove nonconforming signs. In addition, these signs were legally approved and permitted. If the signs need to come down, who should pay for this. Thanks very much for considering our requestto extend this deadline and answering our question. Sincerely, �euc,Gt �a Alvin Ta Supporting Corporate Real Estate at MUFG Union Bank, N.A. Alvin.Ta(@unionbank.com 16-289 From: Valerie Kerr <bradfordaccounting@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 9:47 AM To: Blumenthal, David (Contractor) Subject: Fwd: Extension of Amortization Period for Non Conforming Signs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Morning David, I hope you are doing well. I received your email and update on the non -conforming signs amendment and the public hearing set for May 7th. Thank you so much! The owner is trying to submit comments as indicated in the notice, but the email for the planning commission comments keeps bouncing. Will you please confirm receipt of the below email? Are you able to submit the below comments to them on his behalf or can you provide me with an email to submit comments? Thank you, Valerie Kerr c/o, 39 Beach View LK100, LLC c/o, Pacific Riviera Collection, LLC Phone (949) 547-9167 Forwarded Message Subject:Extension of Amortization Period for Non Conforming Signs (Revised) Date:Tue, 28 Apr 2020 09:36:02 -0700 From:bradford kuish <kuishb(ibyahoo.com> To: dblumenthalknewportbeachc a. gov CC:Valerie Kerr<bradfordaccounting(a,gmail.com> PLEASE FORWARD TO STAFF 16-290 Dear Planning Commission: As a property owner in the Village of Corona Del Mar, it is my position that the small businesses and entrepreneurs in our community need every advantage they can to survive in a changing retail world. The monument signs provide value to the small businesses in Corona Del Mar and perhaps even hope; an opportunity to garner recognition, identity and even economic sustenance. It gives each one of them some minor chance to eke out clients in a world dominated by mega - retailers such as Amazon, Walmart, Walgreens and Home Depot. Also, it seems THE LAST THING GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DOING IN THIS TIME OF UNPRECEDENTED ECONOMIC STRESS (COVIDI9) IS REMOVING ANY SOURCE OF SUSTENANCE OR INCOME. Eliminating the tenant signs will clearly reduce their identity, visibility and to some degree, their clients. Why make their businesses more difficult, reduce their patronage, reduce their potential clients and reduce their revenue at a time like this. It makes no sense. Businesses are already stressed. Does the City of Newport Beach think it prudent to make it worse??? I do not support removing the monument signs, certainly not in the short run and probably not in the long. Let's help the mom and pop entrepreneurs rather than harm them. Keep the signs. On another note, I would also suggest delaying the hearing until you can have a true public hearing. Having one by e-mail or write in does not constitute a true public forum or allow the voice of the people to be heard. A seminal moment for the revolution and the founding of our country was based on an objection to taxation without representation. Well, ruling or making laws or decisions on public matters without the full participation of the public is similar and certainly lacks full representation. It's well down the slippery slope to be functioning from the bog or shade. 16-291 Best, Bradford Kuish Principal 3800 East Coast Hwy Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 phone 949.723.2050 16-292 Attachment I Resolution No. 2019-92 16-293 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 ENTITLED "PLANNING AND ZONING" AND TITLE 21 ENTITLED "LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN" OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO SIGNS (PA2019-184) WHEREAS, Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.66.020 provides that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach ("City Council") may initiate an amendment to the Zoning Code with or without a recommendation from the Planning Commission; WHEREAS, City Council Policy K-1 entitled "General Plan and Local Coastal Program" requires amendments to the City of Newport Beach certified Local Coastal Program codified in NBMC Title 21 to be initiated by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend NBMC Title 20 and Title 21 to modify regulations related to signs. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council hereby initiates amendments to NBMC Title 20 "Planning and Zoning" and Title 21 "Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan" to modify regulations relating to the date by which legal nonconforming signs must be removed or altered to conform to the NBMC. Section 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 3: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the substantive portion of this resolution. 16-294 Resolution No. 2019-92 Page 2 of 2 Section 4: The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is exempt from environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because Section 15262 exempts projects involving feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved or adopted. Section 5: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting this resolution. ADOPTED this 22T" day of October, 20 9. Diane B. Dixon Mayor ATTEST: "(i.� Leilani I. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFIC Aaron C. Harp City Attorney 16-295 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2019-92, was duly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 22nd day of October, 2019; and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Mayor Diane Dixon, Mayor Pro Tem Will O'Neill, Council Member Brad Avery, Council Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Duffy Duffield, Council Member Jeff Herdman, Council Member Kevin Muldoon NAYS: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 23rd day of October, 2019. a �w� Leilani I. Brown City Clerk Newport Beach, California H U SEW 16-296 Attachment J Strikeout/Underline Summary of Proposed Amendments 16-297 Non -Conforming Sign Code Amendment Ordinance (PA2019-184) Proposed Change General Plan Amendment General Plan Policy No. NR 21.2 (Illegal Signs and Legal Nonconforming Signs), which is within the Natural Resource Element, would be amended as follows: Implement programs to remove illegal signs and amei4ize legal nonnnnfE)rmiR Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment Coastal Land Use Plan Policy No. 4.4.4-4, which is in Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection) of the Coastal Land Use Plan would be amended as such: Policy 4.4.4-4 Implement programs to remove illegal signs and amortize legal RE)RG0nf0FFniRg cigRS Zoning Code Amendment Section 20.42.140(A) of the NBMC would be amended to delete the requirement that nonconforming signs be removed by October 27, 2020. The proposed amendments are as follows: AS. Removal of Nonconforming Signs. Nonconforming signs shall be removed if: 1. The nonconforming sign is more than fifty (50) percent destroyed, and the destruction is other than facial copy replacement. A nonconforming sign shall be deemed to be more than fifty (50) percent destroyed if the estimated cost of reconstruction exceeds fifty (50) percent of the replacement cost as determined by the Building Official; 16-298 Non -Conforming Sign Code Amendment Ordinance (PA2019-184) Proposed Change 2. The nonconforming sign is remodeled, unless the sign is remodeled to comply with the provisions of this chapter; 3. The nonconforming sign is located on a building that is enlarged or expanded, if the nonconforming sign is affected by the construction, enlargement, remodel, or expansion. An enlargement, remodel, or expansion of the portion of the building upon which the nonconforming sign is located or that is more than fifty (50) percent of the building area shall be deemed to affect the nonconforming sign; or 4. The nonconforming sign is temporary. . Deactivation of Flashing Features. The owner of a sign that contains flashing features shall permanently deactivate the flashing features. . Continuance of Nonconforming Signs. Except as provided in subsections (A) and (B) of this section, a nonconforming sign may be continued and shall be maintained in good condition as required by these regulations, but it shall not be: Structurally changed to another nonconforming sign, although its copy and pictorial content may be changed. 2. Structurally altered to prolong the life of the sign, except to meet safety requirements. 3. Expanded or altered in any manner that increases the degree of nonconformity. Repairing and Repainting. Nonconforming signs shall only be painted and repaired in place and shall not be removed from their existing location, except for building remodeling, unless removal of the sign for painting or repair is part of the sign's customary maintenance and repair. . Change of Business Ownership. Upon a change of ownership, the new owner of a nonconforming sign may change the name or names on the sign so long as there is no change in the structure or configuration of the sign. Local Coastal Program Amendment Section 21.30.065 of the NBMC would be amended to delete subsection E, thereby removing the October 27, 2020, deadline in the Coastal Zone. The proposed amendments are as follows. 16-299