HomeMy WebLinkAbout- - ZA-10-39 Planned Signing Program Amend. - 9/7/2010CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 2010
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF ZONING APPLICATION ZA-10-39
PLANNED SIGNING PROGRAM AMENDMENT FOR TRIANGLE SQUARE
1870 HARBOR BOULEVARD AND 1875 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
DATE: AUGUST 26, 2010
FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER
KIMBERLY BRANDT, DIRECTOR
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, (714) 754-5611
mlee(a)cl.costa-mesa.cams
RECOMMENDATION:
Uphold or Reverse the Planning Commission's decision to approve the project.
(Please note: At the time of preparation of this report, the applicant has indicated a desire
to request that this item be continued to a future City Council meeting to allow adequate
time to prepare updated photo simulations of the proposed signs from residential
neighborhoods.)
BACKGROUND:
On August 9, 2010, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to an existing
planned signing program for Triangle Square (ZA-00-28) to allow two signs with
electronic Light Emitting Diode (LED) screens on the northeast (former Niketown dome)
and southwest (Sutra Lounge) sides of the building, approximately 10 -foot high by 96 -
foot long and 15 -foot high by 20 -foot long (as modified by the applicant), by a 5-0 vote.
The Planning Commission staff report is attached in its entirety (Attachment 3).
On August 16, 2010, Mayor Pro Tem Wendy Leece called this project up for review.
Reasons for requesting the review related to concerns raised by residents regarding
public safety, environmental issues, quality of life, property values, and similar issues.
(Review Form, Attachment 2).
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing two LED signs through a Planned Sign Program
amendment. The two proposed signs are as follows:
1. A 10 -foot high by 96 -foot long LED sign (total area 960 sq. ft.) to be located on
the northeast (former Niketown dome) side of the building, oriented toward 19th
Street and southbound Newport Boulevard.
2. A 20 -foot high by 15 -foot long LED sign (total area 300 sq. ft.) to be located on
the southwest (Sutra Lounge) side of the building, oriented toward northbound
Harbor Boulevard and northbound Newport Boulevard.
Planned Sign Programs are typically reviewed by the City's Zoning Administrator;
however, the request was referred to the Planning Commission to conduct a public
hearing and determine if circumstances exist to warrant approval of the proposed LED
signs.
During the hearing, the Commission considered public testimony for and against the
proposed signs. Additionally, the Commission considered several emails submitted by
concerned residents expressing opposition to the proposed signs (Attachment 5).
The Commission approved the request, with modifications to the conditions of approval,
to insure that the signs will minimize any adverse impacts of the proposed signs to vehicle
traffic and surrounding properties. Additionally, the Commission found that the signs
would help revitalize a mostly vacant high-profile center in the City's downtown area.
Please refer to the Planning Commission staff report for more information.
Additionally, please note the following:
• Off-site advertising (or third party advertising) refers to graphics that are not
related to on-site tenant businesses or events. Advertising of products sold
by an on-site business (i.e. soft drinks) is considered third party advertising.
The applicant decided to remove any reference to third party advertising from
the sign proposal; therefore, the Planning Commission's action prohibits third
party advertising (See Condition No. 13).
• The sign area for the Niketown dome LED sign (960 square feet) was
included in the total allowable sign area for Triangle Square. This increased
the maximum sign area from 2,445 square feet to 3,445 square feet (See
Condition 1).
• The aesthetic consultant had indicated the LED signs would not be visible
from residences. However, Planning Commission received public testimony
at the hearing regarding the apparent visibility of proposed LED sign on the
Niketown dome from certain residential properties. The applicant will be
providing new photo simulations regarding the sign visibility issue, and these
will be forwarded to City Council by separate cover.
IZI
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council has the following alternatives:
1. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision approving Application ZA-10-39.
The action may include modifications' to the project, including additional conditions of
approval. The project could proceed, subject to recommended conditions of approval.
2. Reverse the Planninq Commission's decision and deny Zoning Application ZA-10-39.
If the project were denied, the applicant could not submit substantially the same
type of application for six months.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney's office has approved the attached resolutions as to form.
CONCLUSION
Planning Commission concluded that the proposed signage, as conditioned, was in
conformance with the intent of the City's Sign Code as well as the City's General Plan
and Redevelopment Plan. The conditions of approval, as modified, will minimize any
adverse impacts to vehicle traffic and surrounding properties, and will help revitalize a
high-profile center in the City's downtown area.
MEL LEE, AICP
Senior Planner
KIMBERLY BRA. T, AICP
Development Se es Director
DISTRIBUTION: City Manager
Asst. City Manager
City Attorney
Acting Asst, Dev. Svs. Director
Public Services Director
Transportation Svs. Mgr.
City Clerk (2)
Staff (4)
Planning Staff (8)
File (2)
Peter Buffa
2824 Nevis Circle
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Greenlaw Partners
4440 Von Karman, Suite 350
Newport Beach, CA 92660
3
Jerilynn Martin
1912 Church Street
Costa Mesa, Ca 92627
ATTACHMENT: 1. Draft Resolutions
2. Review Form
3. Planning Commission Report, Resolution, and Plans
4. Minute Excerpts
5. Correspondence Received from Public
File: 090710ZA1039Review I Date: 092610 1 Time: 8:50 a.m.
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 10-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION AND APPROVE ZONING
APPLICATION ZA-10-39
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Peter Buffa, authorized agent for
Greenlaw Partners, owner of real property located at 1870 Harbor Boulevard and 1875
Newport Boulevard, in a Planned Development Commercial (PDC) zone;
WHEREAS, the request is for an amendment to an existing Planned Signing
Program (ZA-05-69) to allow two signs with electronic Light Emitting Diode (LED)
screens on the northeast (former Niketown dome) and southwest (Sutra Lounge) sides
of the building, approximately 10 feet high by 96 feet long and 20 feet high by 15 feet
long, respectively;
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission
on August 9, 2010 with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for
and against the proposal, and ZA-10-39 was approved, by the Planning Commission on
a 5-0 vote;
WHEREAS, Mayor Pro Tem Leece requested a review by City Council of the
Planning Commission's decision to approve the project at a duly noticed public hearing
on September 7, 2010;
BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings
contained in Exhibit "A," the City Council hereby UPHOLDS the Planning Commission's
approval of the project and APPROVES Zoning Application ZA-10-39.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council does hereby find
and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity
as described in the staff report for Zoning Application ZA-10-39 and upon applicant's
compliance with each and all of the conditions in Exhibit "B", and compliance of all
applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall
be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs
in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of September, 2010.
ATTEST:
ALLAN MANSOOR
Mayor, City of Costa Mesa
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF COSTA MESA
rAl
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
)ss
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, JULIE FOLCIK, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the
City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution No. 10_ as
considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of ,
2007, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City
Council held on the day of , 2010, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the
City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2010
0
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS (APPROVAL)
ZA-10-39
A. The signs comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e) because:
• The signs are compatible and harmonious with uses that exist in the general
neighborhood.
• The signs comply with the intent of the applicable performance standards as
prescribed in the Zoning Code.
• The signs are consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Redevelopment
Plan.
• The cumulative effects of all planning applications have been considered.
B. The proposed signage conforms with the intent of the City's Sign Code as it pertains
to Planned Signing Programs as well as the City's General Plan and
Redevelopment Plan. The proposed signs are consistent with each other in design
and construction, taking into account sign style and shape, materials, letter style,
colors and illumination. The signs are compatible with the buildings and
developments they identify, taking into account materials, colors, and design motif.
Approval does not constitute a grant of special privilege and/or allow substantially
greater visibility than what the standard sign provisions would allow. Specifically, the
conditions of approval will minimize any adverse impacts of the proposed signs to
vehicle traffic and surrounding properties, and will revitalize a high-profile center in
the City's downtown. Additionally, the signs are consistent with the following
General Plan goals:
• Goal CD -1: Vehicular and Pedestrian Corridors: Strengthen the image of the
City as experienced from sidewalks and roadways.
• Goal CD -6, Image: Enhance opportunities for development to contribute to a
positive visual image for the City of Costa Mesa.
• Goal CD -7, Residential: Protect and protect the unique identity of residential
neighborhoods within Costa Mesa.
• Goal CD -13, Signs: Ensure that signs contribute
image and overall economic development.
The proposed LED signs are consistent with overall in
Redevelopment Plan and Comprehensive Design Plan
signs do not resemble the roof -top or pole -mounted
commercial advertisements, new construction of which
downtown area. While the LED signs may be visible
visibility of the LED signs from residential
considered a significant aesthetic impact.
positively to Costa Mesa's
tent of the City's Downtown
because the proposed LED
billboard signs with static
is expressly prohibited in the
from residential properties,
neighborhoods is limited and not
C. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures,
and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15311 for Accessory
Structures.
D. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System
Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code.
0
i
EXHIBIT "B"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ZA-10-39
Ping. 1.
The total site signage, including the LED signs, shall not exceed the total
sign area allowed under the Planned Sign Program (3,445 sq. ft. for the
entire center).
2.
Permanent window signs shall not exceed 20% of the contiguous window
area per the City's Sign Code.
3.
All newly installed signs shall be in conformance to the requirements and
intent of this Planned Signing Program, as well as other applicable Codes
and regulations. Any sign not meeting the specific criteria outlined in the
planned signing program shall not be permitted.
4.
The City's Sign Ordinance shall apply to signs not specifically covered by
this Planned Signing Program.
5.
Any modification, addition, or deletion to the approved Planned Signing
Program shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator to determine if an
amendment to the Planned Signing Program is necessary.
6.
The Planned Signing Program may be referred to the Planning Commission
for modification or revocation at any time if the conditions of approval have
not been complied with, or if, in the reasonable opinion of the Development
Services Director or his/her designee, any of the findings upon which the
approval was based are no longer applicable.
11.
There shall be no lighting on the building elevations (including rooflines)
visible from residential neighborhoods.
12.
The LED signs shall be located at the northeast (former Niketown dome)
and southwest (Sutra Lounge) sides of the building, and shall be no larger
than 10 feet high by 96 feet long and 15 feet high by 20 feet long,
respectively, and shall also be subject to the following:
a. The LED signs shall not exceed 300 nits in luminance during the
evening hours.
b. No flashing or animated displays or images on the LED signs shall
be permitted at any time.
c. The operating hours of the LED signs shall be 7:OOAM through
11:OOPM, Sunday through Wednesday, and 7:OOAM through 12:00
midnight, Thursday through Saturday. Beginning one hour prior to
the end of the above operating hours, the LED signs shall be
gradually dimmed until they are completely turned off. Outside these
approved hours, the LED signs shall be turned off.
Ping. 13.
No third -party off-site advertising shall be permitted on the LED signs.
Comm.
14.
Images on the LED signs shall not change at a rate less than once every
four seconds.
15.
Images on the LED signs shall consist of tenant names, logos, and public
service messages only.
a
RESOLUTION NO. 10-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA TO REVERSE THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION AND DENY ZONING
APPLICATION ZA-10-39
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Peter Buffa, authorized agent for
Greenlaw Partners, owner of real property located at 1870 Harbor Boulevard and 1875
Newport Boulevard, in a Planned Development Commercial (PDC) zone;
WHEREAS, the request is for an amendment to an existing Planned Signing
I
Program (ZA-05-69) to allow two signs with electronic Light Emitting Diode (LED)
screens on the northeast (former Niketown dome) and southwest (Sutra Lounge) sides
of the building, approximately 10 feet high by 96 feet long and 20 feet high by 15 feet
j long, respectively;
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission
on August 9, 2010 with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for
and against the proposal, and ZA-10-39 was approved by the Planning Commission on
a 5-0 vote;
WHEREAS, Mayor Pro Tem Leece requested a review by City Council of the
Planning Commission's decision to approve the project at a duly noticed public hearing
i
on September 7, 2010;
BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings
contained in Exhibit "A," the City Council hereby REVERSES the Planning
Commission's approval of the project and DENIES Zoning Application ZA-10-39.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of September, 2010.
ALLAN MANSOOR
Mayor, City of Costa Mesa
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF COSTA MESA
/0
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
)ss
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, JULIE FOLCIK, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the
City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution No. 10_ as
considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of ,
2007, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City
Council held on the day of , 2010, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the
City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2010
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS (DENIAL)
ZA-10-39
A. The proposed signs do not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-
29(e) because:
• The proposed signs are not compatible and harmonious with uses that exist in
the general neighborhood.
• The proposed signs do not comply with the intent of the applicable
performance standards as prescribed in the Zoning Code.
• The proposed signs are not consistent with the General Plan.
• The cumulative effects of all planning applications have been considered.
B. The proposed signs are not consistent with the intent of the City's Sign Code and
the General Plan. The proposed signs are not consistent with each other in design
and construction, taking into account sign style and shape, materials, letter style,
colors and illumination. The proposed signs are not compatible with the buildings
and developments they identify, taking into account materials, colors, and design
motif. The proposed LED signs are visible from residential neighborhoods, and this
is considered an adverse aesthetic impact. Approval would constitute a grant of
special privilege and allow substantially greater visibility than what the standard sign
provisions would allow.
C. The Costa Mesa Planning Commission has denied Zoning Application ZA-10-39.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15270(a) CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been
rejected and will not be carried out.
D. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System
Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code.
/0Z.
ATTACHMENT 2
: ,CVE.
`o to 1 esa C.ITT--L.E R :
City of Costa Mesa; AUG ! 31
.61
❑ Appeal of Planning Co.. Is Ian sl .r�lR� I' g - $1,220.00
❑ Appeal of Zoning A , IWi tr84rj�'rdX1 iX%! .00
:TION FOR APPEAL, REHEARING. OR REVIEW
Applicant Name*
Address
Phone =t:i' " Representing
REQUEST FOR: ❑ REHEARING ❑ APPEAL a REVIEWS*
Decision -of which appeal, rehearing, or review is requested: (give application number, if applicable, and the date of the
decision, if known.)
.,..' :.: _ :1.�.•_ -: ,,.: .<: .... __:: ':�. ,..:•r.:�!,v- - 'ae.: _ .;�.. .:r!,f.— :r:.:e - dL•,.,Ci2 • —ii: •. ::L=..:'r
: ... �. .: ... -• .. .... .......:..: .: ;... 4.....'..,. :,.• -- .:',iii
...fl .. .. .. .:.: -. ...:: .
:
- C GlS'f
:
,
Decision by,
*If you are serving as the agent for another person, please identify the person you represent and provide proof of authorization.
**Review may be requested only by Planning Commission, Planning Commission Member, City Council, or City Council Member
For office use only — do not write below this line
SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCIUPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF,
If appeal, rehearing, or review is for a person or body other than City Council/Planning Commission, date of hearing of
appeal, rehearing, or review:
13
Page 1 of 4
SHELTON, KELLY
From:
LEECE, WENDY
Sent:
Friday, August 13, 2010 8:11 AM
To:
SHELTON, KELLY
Subject: FW: Please submit in my absence non placement of LED 96 ft signs@Triangle Square
Please attach to appeal form.
.Qeeee
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714-754-5192
714-754-5330 Fax
wleeceaa dcosta-mesa.ca.us
http:l/www.ci.costa-mesa.ca.us
From: Jennifer Webster [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 12:39 PM
To: LEECE, WENDY
Subject: Please submit in my absence non placement of LED 96 ft signs@Triangle Square
Dearest Honorable Chairman Wendy, the City Council and the Mayor of Costa Mesa,
Please submit in my absence the non placement of LED 96 ft signs at Triangle Square. Due to the
reasons below.
1) It will be a huge .LED bright light -disturbance to the neighboring housing community. Especially the
children, elderly, disabled and parents needing their much needed rest 2) The appearance will be
"trashy" and not in keeping to our mission style West & East Side Costa Mesa. 3) a traffic accident decoy
with a disturbing view taking their eyes off the road ... from freeway to -business and residential community
traffice. Imagine those who will be injured including the pedestrians. 4) attached is a letter below set to
my attention. Please read this as well.
Please read this at the next city council meeting in my absence for I am unable to attend. This issue is of
upmost importance to me and my community.
Date: Wednesday, August 11, 2010; 11:03 PM
Hi guys,
As some of you know L attended a "Costa Mesa Planning Commission meeting on Monday night to
address the LED lighting that is planned for Triangle Square. For those of you who don't know HUGE
LED signs will be placed on the Nike Dome and the other end of Triangle square that will flash every four
.seconds with advertisement and other content that will not be regulated. The whole experience at the
commission meeting was deeply disappointing because the Planning Commissioners had no intention of
listening to the concerns of the community and just ram rodded the zoning deviation through for approval.
8/13/2010
Page 2 of 4
Many of us that were at the meeting contacted the city council to see if they would appeal this decision and it
appears someone on the council has.
I'm asking you, as residents of Costa Mesa if you mightjoin me at the next city council meeting to stand in support
of your neighbors who will be affected by this decision. Todd and I are in a direct view of the Nike Dome and this
means from dusk to 12:00 p.m. we will have this 96 ft. long LED light flashing in our living room window.
Will you come with me?? Can you make some time to support our community? Can you also forward to other
residents of Costa Mesa who might be concerned with this issue? It looks like it might come up for review at the
next City Council meeting scheduled next Tuesday at 6:00 p.m.
If you want more information please just let me know.
Thanks everyone!!
Pz4At
Sincerely ... a 24 yeas neighbor vetran of the west and east side costa Mesa. A home owner of west side costa
mesa and tax paying citizen of 22 years.
Please hear our voice!
Jennifer Hope Webster
President & Founder www.chatwithGod'orct
Chat with God.org Ministries, Inc. Since 2004
P.O. Box 12376, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 USA
949.548.9412 www.MisCharlasConDios.com
Need Prayer?
http://www.'Chatwithgod.org/praver-lournal/pravers.php4
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Fred Herman < 1>
To: Jen Webster <i net>
Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 10:55:53 AM
Subject: I'm asking for your help
John 6:29 .... "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."
--- On Wed, 8/11/10, Martin, Jerilynn L 00111> wrote:
From: Martin, Jerilynn L < .Dm>
Subject: I'm asking for your bein
To: "Todd Martin" < _ , "Flo Martin" >, "Christlieb, Rhonda"
<Rhonda.Christlieb@t _ "Carlee Darr N111
<cuzicancarlee t>, "Frecia Winebarger (FV .,)��
8/13/2010
Page 3 of 4,
�* nnrrli
Date: Wednesday, August 11, 2010, 11:03 .Five
Hi guys,
As some of you know I attended a Costa Mesa Planning Commission meeting on Monday night to address the
LED lighting that is planned for Triangle Square. For those of you who don't know HUGE LED signs will be
placed on the Nike Dome and -the other end of Triangle square that will flash every four seconds with
advertisement and other content that will not be regulated. The whole experience at the commission meeting was
deeply -disappointing -because -the -Plane ing-Commissioners-had-no-intention-of-listening-to-the-concerns-of-the
community and just ram rodded the zoning deviation through for approval.
Many of us that were at the meeting contacted the city council to see if they would appeal this decision and it
appears someone on the council has.
I'm asking you, as residents of Costa Mesa if you might join me at the next city council meeting to stand in support
of your neighbors who will be affected by this decision. Todd and I are in a direct view of the Nike Dome and this
means from dusk to 12:00 p.m. we will have this 96 ft. long LED light flashing in our living room window.
Will you come with me?? Can you make some time to support our community? Can you also forward to other
residents of Costa Mesa who might be concerned with this issue? It looks like it might come up for review at the
nextCity Council meeting scheduled next Tuesday at 6:00 p.m.
If you want more information please just let me know.
Thanks everyone!!
From: Katie Arthur [mailto:l
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 3:35 PM
To: 'Mary Makena'; 'Jeff. McConville'; 'syndy neyland'; 'Kerry Weisbruch; denisecmoon!
Cc: Martin, Jerilynn L; pnelson20.O4
Subject: LED signs will be appealed
Importance: High
Dear ESCMG fellow Directors and neighbors, Jerilyn and Paul:
The LED. signs are going to be appealed today. It's very possible this will come up as an aoenda item at Cltv
Council almost immediately and possibly as early as Tuesdayl
My opinion Is that more information is required before such a long lasting and Dotentially.high impacting decision
is made. I believe all of us want to keep and enhance the "look and feel" of our neighborhood and CM in general.
None of us want Newport Blvd. to look like the Las Vegas strip. .
It's imperative that we (1) notify all our neighbors, the Daily Pilot, and any other influential sources in order to
create awareness of the situation, (2) we MUST pack the City Council when it comes up, and (3) we must reach
out to each of the City Council people; we need 3 votes. WE CAN DO /TY
8/13/2010
16
Page 4 of 4
I am going out of town tonight and am back Friday. I will be in touch. In the meantime, please do what you can
and feel appropriate on this. And... I highly encourage careful communication so that those in favor of the current
plan are not alerted to our efforts.
Thank you,
Katie
8/13/2010
SHELTON, KELLY
From: LEECE, WENDY
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:12 AM
To: SHELTON, KELLY
Subject: FW: Triangle Square signage ZA-10-39
Please attach to the form.
e7z # zece
A1joa 01a =gym
166,ir, 9/-/ l�
`OV'&oanerl
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714-754-5192
714-754-5330 Fax
wleece(@ci.costa-mesa.ca.ds
http://www,ci.costa-mesa cavus
From: Paul Nelson [mallto.,, ---n]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:30 PM
To: MANSOOR, ALLAN; LEECE, WENDY; BEVER, ERIC; FOLEY, KATRINA; MONAHAN, GARY
Cc:. LEE, MEL; jeff@jm4realestate.com; esidecm@gmail.com
Subject: Triangle Square signage ZA-10-39
Mayor and City Council Members:
I'm writing to ask you to request a review of the PSP amendment approved by the Planning
Commission yesterday, allowing a massive LED sign on the former Niketown dome. :This thing
is*goirig to be a monstrosity, a laughing stock, a danger to traffic, and an eyesore. I can't believe
that something like this can be approved with no public notice and no public debate.
htt2://Www.ci.costa-mesa.ca.us/council/planning/2010-08-09/0809 I QZAI 039pdf
There's a certain odor to the way that Greenlaw Partners was able to hire a former Costa Mesa
mayor and city council member to get around the zoning code, to the Senior Planner's absurd
conclusion that this signage is consistent with General Plan goals (in particular, "Strengthen the
image of the city"), and to the way the Planning Commission buried the item in the consent
calendar. It's time for the City. Council to step in.
thanks,
Paul Nelson
150 feet from the Niketown dome
1917 Church St #3
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
8/13/2010
in
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2
SHELTON, KELLY
From: LEECE, WENDY
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:07 AM
To: GOLDSWORTHY, CHRIS; SHELTON, KELLY
Subject: FW: LED Signage at Triangle Square
Please attach -to my appeal form (which I will bring).
• ���-gid-� •
:o�f�IVl�s:1
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714-754-5192
714-754-5330 Fax
wleeceaa.ci.costa-mesa ca us
http,//www.ci.costa-mesa ca us
From: BobSimonson [maiito:.
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 9:11 PM.
To: MANSOOR, ALLAN; BEVER, ERIC; MONAHAN, GARY; FOLEY, KATRINA; LEECE, WENDY
Cc: CityManager
Subject: LED Signage at Triangle Square
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
I am very concerned about the Planning Commission's recent approval.of ZA-10-39.
As you know, the itltersection of Newport Boulevard and Nineteenth Street is the busiest
intersection in Orange County. Southbound traffic from the Freeway is decelerating from
freeway speeds of 65-75 miles per hour down to Zero when the traffic signal at Nineteenth. Street
is red and nearly zero when the signal is green due to the on-going traffic congestion along
southbound lanes of Newport Blvd. Northbound traffic ranges between very heavy to extremely
heavy, in the summer time, with extreme stop -and -go conditions as drivers battle the multiple
traffic signals that line the approach to the Freeway.
A properly designed sign, by definition, is a mechanism intended to grab ones attention and take
control of ones total focus for as long as it takes to deliver the message being communicated by
that sign. Computer controlled LED signs with multiple and changing graphics plus mixed text
messages are probably the most effective (distracting) type of signage commercially available
today.
If I were involved in an accident that could be, in any way, attributed to a distracted driver that
was focused on a sign rather than the traffic and if I wanted to recover huge damages as a result
of said accident, I would not expect to recover significant damages from the other driver. I also
8/13/2010
/19
Page 2 of 2
would not expect to recover a large award from the owners of Triangle Square because I know
they are struggling financially. I would however advise my attorney to go after the "deep
pockets" of the City that approved the sign in the first place.
Fortunately, it is not likely; I will ever be involved in an accident near Triangle Square because I
avoid that area like the plague, due to the horrific traffic conditions there.' But as a taxpayer in
this City I am terrified by the potential liability the City might be creating by approving such
signage in this very unique and previously "known" high traffic location, that is prone to
accidents.
Regards, Bob Simonson
325 Broadway
8/13/2010
MIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 9, 2010
ATTACHMENT 3
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT: ZONING APPLICATION ZA-10-39
PLANNED SIGNING PROGRAM AMENDMENT FOR TRIANGLE SQUARE
1870 HARBOR BOULEVARD AND 1875 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
DATE: JULY 28, 2010
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER
(714) 754-5611 ta-mesa.cams)
DESCRIPTION
An amendment to an existing planned signing program for Triangle Square (ZA-00-28) to
allow two signs with electronic Light Emitting Diode (LED) screens on the northeast (former
Niketown dome) and southwest (Sutra Lounge) sides of the building, approximately 10 feet
high by 96 feet long and 20 feet high by 15 feet long, respectively. The request does not
involve any increase in the maximum allowable sign area for Triangle Square under the
current Planned Signing Program.
APPLICANT
Peter Buffa is the authorized agent for Greenlaw Partners, the property owner.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve by adoption of Planning Commission resolution, subject to conditions.
MEL LEE, AICP
Senior Planner
W-- � � X -- fi-,
KHANH NGUY
Acting Asst. D Q
e;V
Svs. Director
Ii
ZA-10-39
.BACKGROUND
Project Site/Environs
Triangle Square shopping center is located within the City's Downtown Redevelopment
Project Area, and is zoned PDC (Planned Development Commercial). The site is bounded
on ail sides by major streets and commercial businesses. Major tenants include the former
Edwards Movie Theater, Yardhouse Restaurant, and Sutra Lounge.
A summary of the Planned Signing Programs (PSP's) and the various amendments
approved for the center is in the table below:
PA -90-55
Original PSP for Triangle Square allowing a maximum of 1,873 sq. ft. of total
building signage for all tenants, including major tenants such as the movie
theatre and the basement market (former Alpha Beta and Whole Foods
Market).
PA -90-55A
Amendment to allow signs for Niketown, including 228 sq. ft., 8 -foot high
"NIKETOWN" plaster relief letters on the northeast dome. This sign was
determined by the City Council to not count toward the sign area for the total
site. Total sign area allowed, 1,820 sg. ft., 53 sq. ft. below the permitted
maximum under the PSP.
PA -90-55A2
Amendment to allocate an additional 186 sq. ft. of sign area to the movie
theater, the former North Face retail store, and to the basement market. Total
si n area 1,830 s . ft., 43 sq. ft. below the permitted maximum under the PSP.
PA -90-55A3
Amendment to allow 3 tower signs for the former Virgin Megastore, as well as
additional wall signage, totaling 453 sq. ft. Sign area for Virgin within allowed
tenant allocations. Total sign area is 1,828 sq. ft., 45 sq. ft. below the
permitted maximum under the PSP,
ZA-96-04
Amendment to allow a 5' high, 32 sq. ft. monument sign for the basement
tenant; a 65 sq. ft. major tenant W. sign; and an increase of 22 sq. ft. of si^n
area for all of the tenants in the center. This amendment also increased the
maximum allowable sign area to 2,445 sq. ft. for the entire center under the
PSP (Zoning Code allowed a maximum of 2,462 sq. ft. of maximum sign area
for the center).
ZA-00-28
Amendment to allow a 30' high 218 sq. ft. freestanding sign, a 93 sq. ft. "blade"
sign; and a 105 sq. ft. "blade" sign. These signs remain in existence to this
day. Total sign area is 2,239 sq. ft., 206 sq. ft. below the permitted maximum
sign area under the PSP.
Zoning Code Provisions for Electronic Signs
Electronic changeable copy signs (except movie theater & time and temperature signs) are
prohibited by Zoning Code (Section 13-112). However, these types of signs may be
approved through a PSP on a case-by-case basis.
2--
ZA-10-39
The Code states the following as to the purpose of the PSP:
`A PSP is intended to provide maximum incentive and latitude to encourage variety and
good design, and to allow response to special circumstances, but shall not be used to
circumvent the objectives of this chapter." (Code Section 13-120).
ANALYSIS
Proposed LED Signs
The primary purpose of the proposed LED signs is twofold:
• To increase the visibility of the center and its tenants; thereby allowing the property owner
to attract a greater number of new businesses and retain quality tenants;
• To generate revenue for the property through third -party advertising on the LED signs.
The applicant is proposing two LED signs through a PSP amendment. The two proposed
signs are as follows:
1. A 10 foot high by 96 foot long LED sign (total area 960 sq. ft.) to be located on the
northeast (former Niketown dome) side of the building, oriented toward 19th Street and
southbound Newport Boulevard.
2. A 20 foot high by 15 feet long LED sign (total area 300 sq. ft.) to be located on the
southwest (Sutra Lounge) side of the building, oriented toward northbound Harbor
Boulevard and northbound Newport Boulevard.
PSP's are typically reviewed by the City's Zoning Administrator; however, staff has referred
this request to the Planning Commission to determine if circumstances exist to warrant
approval of the proposed LED signs.
On October 19, 2009, Planning Commission approved a PSP for South Coast Collection at
3333 Hyland Avenue to allow a 60 foot high pylon sign along the 1-405 Freeway frontage with
a 15 foot wide by 25 foot long LED screen (total area 375 sq. ft.) under Zoning Application
ZA-09-33, which is currently under construction. The conditions of approval for the sign
included the following:
1. LED screen shall be a maximum size of 15 feet wide by 25 feet long.
2. LED screen shall not exceed a maximum height of 32 feet as measured from the
grade to the highest point on the screen.
3. LED screen shall not exceed 300 nits in luminance during the evening hours and
shall perform as described in the lighting study prepared by the project consultant.
4. No flashing or animated displays or images on the LED screen shall be permitted
at any time.
5. The operating hours of the LED screen shall be 7:OOAM through 10:OOPM, seven
days a week. Beginning at 9:OOPM, the LED sign shall be gradually dimmed until it
is completely turned off at 10:OOPM. Outside these approved hours, the LED
screen shall be turned off.
a3
Staff supports approval of the proposed signs for the following reasons:
ZA-10-39
The LED signs will not be visible from residentially- zoned properties. A view simulation has
been prepared by the applicant showing the view of the proposed LED signs from off-site.
No portion of the LED signs will be visible from residentially zoned properties. Additionally,
staff has incorporated, as a condition of approval (condition no. 11), that no lighting on the
building elevations (including rooflines) shall be visible from residential neighborhoods.
The LED signs will not exceed the maximum allowable sign area allowed under the current
PSP. As indicated earlier, the maximum allowable sign area allowed under the current PSP
is 2,445 sq. ft. for the entire center. The Zoning Code allows a maximum of 2,462 sq. ft. of
maximum sign area for the center. If the, signs are approved, a remainder of 1,185 square
feet of sign area will be allocated for the other tenants in the center. The applicant did not
provide the current sign square footage for the existing tenants in the center since the
signage will change as the center is renovated and new tenants are added. -However, as
new tenants come in, staff will review their sign area square footage prior to issuance of sign
permits to ensure that both future tenant signs and the proposed LED signs do not; exceed
the maximum sign area permitted under the PSP.
All applicable conditions of approval for the South Coast Collection LED sign (ZA-09-33)
have been incorporated to minimize adverse visual impacts to vehicle traffic and surrounding
°properties. Staff has incorporated, as a condition of, approval (condition no. 12), that the
signs comply with the conditions of approval for the South Coast Collection LED sign noted
earlier in this report to minimize any visual impacts to vehicle traffic or, surrounding
properties.
The signs will help revitalize a high profile shopping center in the City's downtown area
Triangle Square has suffered from a decline in business even before the current economic
downturn. The current owners of the center believe the signs will help attract high-quality
-tenants to the center, as well as customers.
LED signs are required to comply with Caltrans requirements for off-site signage A
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) outdoor advertising sign permit is required
for the proposed signs due to visibility from SR -55 and Newport Boulevard. Condition of
approval no. 13 requires that the permit be approved by Caltrans prior to issuance'of building
permits for the LED signs.
GENERAL PLAN AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONFORMITY
Conformity with General Plan
It is staff's opinion that the proposed signs, with the recommended conditions of approval,
are consistent with the following General Plan goals:
• Goal CD -1: Vehicular and Pedestrian Corridors: Strengthen the image of the City as
experienced from sidewalks and roadways.
ZA-10-39
Goal CD -6, Image: Enhance opportunities for development to contribute to a positive
visual image for the City of Costa Mesa.
Goal CD -7, Residential: Protect the unique identity of residential neighborhoods within
Costa Mesa.
Goal CD -13, Signs: Ensure that signs contribute positively to Costa Mesa's image and
overall economic development.
Conformity with Redevelopment Plan
In December 1973, the Costa Mesa Downtown Redevelopment Plan was adopted. The plan
set forth development standards to maximize private enterprise and eliminate visual
blight/negative conditions in the Redevelopment Project Area.
In February 1985, the Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency adopted the Comprehensive
Design Plan for the Downtown Redevelopment Project Area. This plan was prepared as a
guide to ensure that all new improvements in the Project Area would be cohesive and further
reinforce specified architectural design themes.
With regard to signage, the Downtown Redevelopment Plan indicates that:
"Design of all signs shall conform to the City of Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance, and all
applicable design guidelines. Billboards and other off-site advertising devices, however,
shall not be permitted in the Project Area."
The appl.icant proposes that the LED signs not only provide exposure to the Triangle Square
tenants but also include unlimited content for the electronic images. The LED display screens
are proposed to exhibit a wide range of third -party advertising, which may include:
• Corporate product advertisers (local and national).
• Special events or concerts (local events and outside the City limits).
• Shows at the OC Performing Arts Center.
• Movie advertisements.
• Various upcoming attractions.
While the proposal involves "electronic billboards" partially serving off-site advertising purposes,
it is staffs opinion that the proposed LED signs are consistent with overall intent of the City's
Downtown Redevelopment Plan and Comprehensive Design Plan because:
The Plan did not anticipate the new technology of electronic message signs, which can
be approved through a PSP.
The proposed LED signs do not resemble the roof -top or pole -mounted billboard signs
with static commercial advertisements, new construction of which is expressly prohibited
in the downtown area.
Given that the images will be changing every four seconds, staff believes that limited
display of third -party advertising will not create any negative visual impacts.
Staff is recommending condition of approval no. 14 to require that the majority of the
advertising on the LED signs feature the on-site tenants, movies, or activities within Triangle
Square. The applicant may also place restrictions on third -party advertising.
i
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following alternatives:
1. Approve the proposed LED signs, subiect to conditions of approval This would allow the
project to proceed, subject to the recommended conditions of approval as discussed earlier
in this report.
2. Deny the proposed LED signs. This would not allow the project to proceed. The applicant
could not submit substantially the same type of application for six months.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
If the request is approved, it would be exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act under Section 15311 for Accessory Structures. If the request is
denied, it is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Section 15270(a) for projects which are disapproved.
CONCLUSION
It is staffs opinion that the proposed signage conforms with the intent of the City's Sign Code
as it pertains to PSP's as well as the City's General Plan and Redevelopment Plan. The
conditions of approval will minimize any adverse ' impacts- to vehicle traffic and surrounding
properties, and will help revitalize a high-profile center in the City's downtown. Therefore, staff
supports the applicant's request.
Attachments:
2. Proposed LED Signs _
3. View Simulation
cc: Development Services Director.
Deputy City Attorney
City Engineer
Transportation Svs. Mgr.
Fire Protection Analyst
Staff (4)
File (2)
Peter Buffa
2824 Nevis Circle
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Greenlaw Partners
4440 Von Karman, Suite 350
Newport Beach, CA 92660
File: 08091OZA1039 . Date: 072910 1 Time: 9:30 a.m.
RESOLUTION NO. PC -10- at?
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF COSTA MESA APPROVING ZONING APPLICATION ZA-10-39
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Peter Buffa, authorized agent for Greenlaw
Partners, owner of real property located at 1870 Harbor Boulevard and 1875 Newport
Boulevard, in a Planned Development Commercial (PDC) zone;
WHEREAS, the request is for an amendment to an existing Planned Signing Program
(ZA-05-69) to allow two signs with electronic Light Emitting Diode. (LED) screens on the
northeast (former Niketown dome) and southwest (Sutra Lounge) sides of the building,
approximately 10 feet high by 96 feet long and 20 feet high by 15 feet long, respectively;
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission on August
9, 2010 with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the
proposal;
BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings
contained in Exhibit "A," and subject to the conditions of approval contained within Exhibit
"B," the ,Planning Commission hereby APPROVES Zoning Application ZA-10-39 with respect
to the property described above.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission does hereby
find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity
as described in the staff report for Zoning Application ZA-10-39 and upon applicant's
compliance with each and all of the conditions in Exhibit "B" as well as with compliance of all
applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be
subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the
operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of August, 201 ��.
heimer, Chair,
Mesa Planning Commission
a?7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
)ss
COUNTY OF ORANGE
I,. Khanh Nguyen, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa
Planning Commission held on August 9, 2010, by the following votes:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RIGHEIMER, CLARK, FITZPATRICK, MCCARTHY, MENSINGER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Khanh Nguyen,
Costa Mesa PIe
Commission
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS (APPROVAL)
A. The signs comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e) because:
• The signs are compatible and harmonious with uses that exist in the general
neighborhood.
• The signs comply with the intent of the applicable performance standards as
prescribed in the Zoning Code.
• The signs are consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Redevelopment
Plan.
• The cumulative effects of all planning applications have been considered.
B. The proposed signage conforms with the intent of the City's Sign Code as it pertains
to Planned Signing Programs as well as the City's General Plan and
Redevelopment Plan. The proposed signs are consistent with each other in design
and construction, taking into account sign style and shape, materials, letter style,
colors and illumination. The signs are compatible with the buildings and
developments they identify, taking into account materials, colors, and design motif.
Approval does not constitute a grant of special privilege and/or allow substantially
greater visibility than what the standard sign provisions would allow. Specifically, the
conditions of approval will minimize any adverse impacts of the proposed signs to
vehicle traffic and surrounding properties, and will revitalize a high-profile center in
the City's downtown. Additionally, the signs are consistent with the following
General Plan goals:
• Goal CD -1: Vehicular and Pedestrian Corridors: Strengthen the image of the
City as experienced from sidewalks and roadways.
• Goal CD -6, Image: Enhance opportunities for development to contribute to a
positive visual image for the City of Costa Mesa.
• Goal CD -7, Residential: Protect and protect the unique identity of residential
neighborhoods within Costa Mesa.
• Goal CD -13, Signs: Ensure that signs contribute positively to Costa Mesa's
image and overall economic development.
The proposed LED signs are consistent with overall intent of the City's Downtown
Redevelopment Plan and Comprehensive Design Plan because the proposed LED
signs do not resemble the roof -top or pole -mounted billboard signs with static
commercial advertisements, new construction of which is expressly prohibited in the
downtown area.
C. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures,
and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15311 for Accessory
Structures.
D. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System
Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code.
2
ZA-10-39
30
EXHIBIT "B"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Ping. 1.
The total site signage, including the LED signs, shall not exceed the total
sign area allowed under the Planned Sign Program (3,445 sq. ft. for the
entire center).
2.
Permanent window signs shall not exceed 20% of the contiguous window
area per the City's Sign Code.
3.
All newly installed signs shall be in conformance to the requirements and
intent of this Planned Signing Program, as well as other applicable Codes
and regulations. Any sign not meeting the specific criteria outlined in the
planned signing program shall not be permitted.
4.
The City's Sign Ordinance shall apply to signs not specifically covered by
this Planned Signing Program.
5.
Any modification, addition, or deletion to the approved Planned Signing
Program shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator to determine if an
amendment to the Planned Signing Program is necessary.
6.
The Planned Signing Program may be referred to the Planning Commission
for modification or revocation at any time if the conditions of approval have
not been complied with, or if, in the reasonable opinion of the Development
Services Director or his/her designee, any of the findings upon which the
approval was based are no longer applicable.
11.
There shall be no lighting on the building elevations (including rooflines)
visible from residential neighborhoods.
12.
The LED signs shall be located at the northeast (former Niketown dome)
and southwest (Sutra Lounge) sides of the building, and shall be no larger
than 10 feet high by 96 feet long and 15 feet high by 20 feet long,
respectively, and shall also be subject to the following:
a. The LED signs shall not exceed 300 nits in luminance during the
evening hours.
b. No flashing or animated displays or images on the LED signs shall
be permitted at any time.
c. The operating hours of the LED signs shall be 7:OOAM through
11:OOPM, Sunday through Wednesday, and 7:OOAM through 12:00
midnight, Thursday through Saturday. Beginning one hour prior to
the end of the above operating hours, the LED signs shall be
gradually dimmed until they are completely turned off. Outside these
approved hours, the LED signs shall be turned off.
Ping. 13.
No third -party off-site advertising shall be permitted on the LED signs.
Comm.
14.
Images on the LED signs shall not change at a rate less than once every
four seconds.
15.
Images on the LED signs shall consist of tenant names, logos, and public
service messages only.
30
cA
U � ATTACJ ENT
STUDIOPROGETTI
LED Sign -"I
-fit-
LED Sign i2
jj
j7
--------- -
nlit ii
c" jA
STUDIOPROGETTI
—JR— .. —
--- -- - - --- - . _ G -
_ T
l(.li(11{i
STUDIOPROGETTI
� tiv wFv� 6tleu9 Ri � .,
\1 \�
,, .. ..,.
?� ._ � � � i
' �"• � A �,
,r.y � '�
'.7.rJ . '"`"�
,.
i •� ___
r �`'� �' \ � '
i �� � �'.. L X11 �.�:�� :��----I I .. .-
i `" � �' � , .. •,� _ �❑ p . 1.T6'4 �U •! Off' I � I __
- 1� r : d p LED Display ' ❑ ❑ -lF- - � .
,`, � :1� }' p ❑ � 'f+7P oma' cca,.c. +,
+ Ii} 14 ❑ i' ❑ x.710-6' —�:
1 - •:p
t
-. N +r- 3 1 - � .
9' '�� W
m+? _ ..
� ,
❑
�,� �a _ r�
Y
'� 1' '� `'' ;�C'�I:ILEVAI�D �8 N�WPt�I+�T :BE]41L_E�.°�F�b� �LE�f�>F'IC51�J I I ��
la ...,� .. �:�• 1 1
� ..
..
' '
,� _-.
,
��.� -..
;:.: -��
'+mac ;'_
_..
_-
.-- __
.>.-;�;v;R;.�..
PICTURE FRAME LED
Corner of Harbor and Newport Blvd
:�ip6fil(ifu R. :. tnl 7?lii..• �,.. i � -:\ v'I � I ,.J� f� Irl ';cr it lr.i �•`�1�� i� I���i{�I � �s�� y��r
" i � � j
,� i � ' STUDIOPROGETT( � r., - - 1 � �,� ��� I`
I>
jj
�,:i 'I ". - t�' I, � � JJ 6 n9n Prolac } �7p11. � � � I I �.� � 1F 1f��i 1 �if117
��� �'
_ •
��
�, I •r.��,.....r.<.�r,-.,. ,-....... :.,-��._ — 3�*_:.. I _ u.,� �'� 3x 7 1�i �7;fii 17.,
1 "��, �� J 1 I'
I,.
` - C' .�
t._ :_..._ .� �. _.c_....__. .. _gin __ _:. _:c :>_:. •:__ _. _ ., _. _. _ ,..:.. -._ � I �hi",Ca
_- .�_ -- r
7— —
DOME SECTION
LED
Corn— of Newport Blvd P IN 19 St
u
Ui
0
BOG,
TEFT f�;�S_T I
c1r)
99,
ILI
(. �1-. f31J—Ca � 3 �
. ...............
N.
OA4,
STAIR R4
20'-0' 201,01 20'-0' 204' 20'-4;' 204".
t IID I'D
E_ _7 7_�: 71 7
STUDIOPROGETTI \M/l
.,dil—,. I du19
ATTACHMENT 3
TRIANGLE SQUARE PLANNED SIGNING PROGRAM AMENDMENT
,_-, Visual Impacts
Attachments A & E Illustrate the visual Impacts of the proposed LED
screens, Sign I at Harbor and Newport Boulevard and Sign 2 at js9 h Street
and Newport Boulevard (Niketown wrap-around screen.) Both signs have
no visual impacts on nearby residential uses.
e.�Lryj.' y • ,
Ax
Ff
3o,( -
pp
77
�: s ��'.`-' � k ,tx .elk, �'� ,� i _y,�•
y F �
+li •. 'Ry, 1, 4 d:.'^' 4, a �} h �
O,i tx T i
4��
® tea. f
vt
lk
40"Al—
ilp
NIS k
i
'wk .y, � �T a''n "§�� �� .,,g�, ''.i"+� �' ?r '�51rpV�� ,., r �, � • �F f 1`. ' t .
t ..r a �,.. 4,t' qT �P 4 �FI�;�R 'S�y�,V.,�a..Q�''vg1"�� y `' i '".v � W' •_
I;:F
°�.,. vir�
M +
fR� j J F .:i:.` aY.` ..,P aw.
;....af. �' 'r aw n— +e.;sx 'cac„h 1 �--
aw h~w�
Al
tL
... ..q •r. },:� fit' '!zI
�._..' i".r e+r,r ;.Y„
sy S ✓r
�� F�. A � �^ L 4 � '� �' � �•: =b Th � ,.' }� �.�{-���aatr'' �T' M - Fr
c
T'
Ste*,"' •�,� aw�� 4, ' , �f ,. , �;; �' �� rs'��� .rsy. .
f
�
9 K In
:�
L'�AlIV
' .d'� ♦ I � r°�na _ ;y
`s .S }kx4' tr�r y��� �+i � � ,r•Y Y ,� ,�.�`�' }� - � rr s
a, ,:� q' was .�k; _a a k A -ci'� '-' . r�! }#�'• ,.�'^tr % .�'}} ..
�Ws t_
F� s!`i�.''L \6 �t ''�l i" r. _ � 4 X -` 's*e. ;� t x. �3'�r` k�; `� :c.:�j'•�1°�k4 ', �^�f&�, J ;
Ag ,e .'?74 'z - �C.AGe' • X y.e e
3't*1 ��" 'X'•x d T^ni. m^.�� ._-..� S'��t ...� �h�'�.
rf-Bru"'wrak;
,
� f 1 I .aw !aa 1bF,. �l ,. 7i •. �` ,a n `r r
•1R ,{: yi.i � '. alii�.p' a� _.Ay..'a t'}, �itY " `Y � &".
r
ATTACHMENT 4
08-09-10 PC Minute Excerpt for ZA-10-39 - Unofficial Until Approved
6. Application No.: ZA-10-39
Site Address: 1870 Harbor Blvd. and
1875 Newport Blvd.
Applicant: Peter Buffa
Zone: PDC
Proi. Planner: Mel Lee
Environmental
Determination: Exempt
Description:
An amendment to an existing planned signing program for Triangle
Square (ZA-00-28) to allow two signs with electronic Light Emitting
Diode (LED) screens on the northeast (former Niketown dome) and
southwest (Sutra Lounge) sides of the building, approximately 10'
high by 96' long, and 20' high by 15' long, respectively.
Regarding ex parte communications, Commissioner Mensinger said he met with
the consultant for the applicant, and the Chair, Commissioner McCarthy, and
Commissioner Fitzpatrick said they met with the applicant.
Peter Buffa, authorized agent for Greenlaw Partners, the property owner, gave a
detailed presentation on the history of Triangle Square and LED signage.
Jim Camp, Greenlaw Partners, noted that potential tenants want LED signage to
help promote their businesses.
Chris McEvoy, Costa Mesa, expressed concern regarding motorists being
distracted as they approach the 19th Street/Newport Boulevard intersection from
the 55 Freeway.
Jerilynn Martin, Church Street resident, expressed concern regarding illumination
and sign content.
Katie Arthur, Costa Mesa, expressed objection to the application due to the
appearance and size of the signage.
Howard Denghausen, Costa Mesa, expressed objection to the application due to
the offensive glow of the signage and the distraction it will cause.
Jeff McConville, Costa Mesa, noted this was too important of an item and should
be addressed at the City Council level.
Steve Klaustermeier, Flower Street resident, expressed objection due to driver
distraction and noted the notice sign was not placed correctly.
y/
Beth Refakes, Costa Mesa, expressed objection due to visual blight,
sign content, and driver distraction.
Synthia Neyland, Costa Mesa, expressed concern regarding light pollution and
opposed the large format of the signage.
Daniel Weelo, Multimedia LED, sign consultant representing applicant, explained
light pollution, LED point of light, nits, and LED related information.
MOTION: Approve Zoning Application ZA-10-39, by adoption of Planning
Commission Resolution PC -10-28, based on the evidence in the record and
the findings contained in Exhibit "A", subject to conditions in Exhibit "B",
with modifications to Condition Nos. 1, 2, 12, 13, 14, and the addition of a
new condition No. 15, adopted as follows:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The total site signage, including the LED signs, shall not exceed the
total sign area allowed under the Planned Sign Program (3,445 sq. ft. for
the entire center).
2. Permanent window signs shall not exceed 20% of the contiguous
window area per the City's Sign Code.
12. The LED signs shall be located at the northeast (former Niketown dome)
and southwest (Sutra Lounge) sides of the building, and shall be no larger
than 10 feet high by 96 feet long and 15 feet high by 20 feet long,
respectively, and shall also be subject to the following:
a. The LED signs shall not exceed 300 nits in luminance during the evening
hours.
b. No flashing or animated displays or images on the LED signs shall be
permitted at any time.
c. The operating hours of the LED signs shall be 7:OOAM through 11:00PM,
Sunday through Wednesday, and 7:OOAM through 12:00 midnight,
Thursday through Saturday. Beginning one hour prior to the end of the
above operating hours, the LED signs shall be gradually dimmed until they
are completely turned off. Outside these approved hours, the LED signs
shall be turned off.
13. No third -party off-site advertising shall be permitted on the LED signs.
14. Images on the LED signs shall not change at a rate less than once
every four seconds.
15. Images on the LED signs shall consist of tenant names, logos, and public
service messages only.
y�
Moved by Vice Chair Sam Clark, seconded by Commissioner Stephen
Mensinger.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Chair James Righeimer, Vice Chair Sam Clark; Commissioner Jim
Fitzpatrick, Commissioner Colin McCarthy, and Commissioner Stephen
Mensinger
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
The Chair explained the appeal process.
ATTACHMENT 5
Jim Camp --7A— 1,0--39
From: Mary Makena [marysmakena@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 10:36 AM
To: Jim Camp
James V. Camp
Executive Vice President
Greenlaw Partners
4440 Von Karman Ave. Suite #305
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949-221-8051
Dear Mr. James Camp;
RECD AUG - 9 2010- Dkxc 143,
Thank you very much for inviting the members of the Eastside Costa Mesa Neighbor's Group to your
presentation yesterday. After hearing your presentation, I would like you to know that I support your project
and wish you all the success.
Because our group has not had time to reach a consensus, I am not speaking as a Director but as an individual
and resident. Please feel free to share my comments as such.
We have a blighted area on our side of town that is not doing any good for our city or our neighborhood. My
husband, Eduardo, and I have walked down to the shops and restaurants on the Lido Island area off the bay and
were horrified to see so many shops and restaurants literally boarded up.
If the municipal bonds fail as predicted throughout parts of the USA, our city and cities nationwide could be
facing the next big crisis. I support this project but would really like the city to acknowledge that with the
increased revenue from this project that they earmark a certain percentage to aid in protecting and beautifying
the most affected area in the region: The Eastside Costa Mesa Neighborhood. I would like the city to ear mark
fiends to help develop a plan to carry forth Kerry's vision for the east side of Newport Blvd. across from the
Triangle Square as explain in yesterday's meeting.
On a different note, my company, California English Homestay, would like to highly recommend this Costa
Mesa taxi cab company to you for clients visiting the Triangle Square. I have included
the contact information below:
Michael Eltahir, Owner
ABC Ride Taxi
2045 Tustin Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92627-2117
(949) 650-4768
infoQaberide.com -
www.abcride.com
I wish you all the success in your new venture.
Mary Makena
301 Broadway
Costa Mesa, CA 92627-2341
949-646-8086
Yy
C)
From: bmflynn@; [mailto:i
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 6:14 PM
To: PLANNING COMMISSION
CC: E
Subject: Zoning Application ZA-10-39 specifically 2 LED Screens at Triangle Square
Planning Commission:
I am shocked that Senior Planner, Mel Lee, and Acting Asst. Development Svs. Director, Khanh Nguyen,
recommend approval by adoption of Planning Commission resolution, subject to conditions, of Zoning
Application ZA-10-39.
I live on Flower Street in Costa Mesa and know the area well. I believe two huge LED screens would be
totally out of place, actually environmentally polluting.
Picture tourists on their way to a wonderful beach experience being exposed to this Manhattan, New
York experience. Picture our night time sky changing color and intensity. Picture the nightly glare.
Picture the daytime obscenity which residents would have to view; to live with.
I understand the property and billboard owners would increase their revenue astronomically and the City
of Costa Mesa would benefit financially. But LED signs like the ones advocated are a blight and should
not be permitted even in hard economic times.
If this Application is approved there will be no stopping other such LED projects. The City of Los Angeles
approved LED billboards in September 2006 leading to a proliferation of this type of advertising around
residential neighborhoods. Public outrage at the eyesores followed. People felt they had been betrayed
by the hasty decisions of their city council. Houston, Seattle and other cities have had similar problems.
Stop this now by denying Zoning Application ZA-10-39 with respect to 2 LED signs.
Elizabeth Flynn
358 Flower St.
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
08/09/2010
-n. "'
7..A- 10--3i
From: Frank Hanrahan [mailto:fr
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 8:44 AM
To: PLANNING COMMISSION
Subject: Application no. ZA-10-39
I object to the erection of LED signage on the Triangle Square buildings. I fear that if this
proposal is approved it will open the gates for other large billboards across Costa Mesa. The
LED's will be garish and in poor taste for Costa Mesa. If this was Las Vegas it would fit right in.
Sincerely,
Frank Hanrahan
2545 Fairway Drive
Costa Mesa
41;�o
08/09/2010
�.6
�A ► o-39
From: Brian Burnett [mailto:-
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 12:50^AM
To: PLANNING COMMISSION
Cc: MANSOOR, ALLAN; LEECE, WENDY; BEVER, ERIC; FOLEY, KATRINA; MONAHAN, GARY
Subject: Triangle Square LED Signage
Dear Costa Mesa Planning Commission,
Please do not approve the LED signs for Triangle Square.
The intensity of these lights are greater than they used to be. They are so bright they
actually hurt your eyes after you stare at them for a few seconds.
If they want some fancy lighting, let them do something more creative and light up the
side of the building which Sutra has done in the past with warm exotic tones and patterns
for some of their special events.
Let's make Costa Mesa special and give meaning to the city of the arts.
Anyone can put up an obnoxious LED sign. Costa Mesa needs to make sure Triangle Square
goes the extra distance and does something artistic as well as serve the purpose of
advertising. Something understated yet magnificent that sets our city apart from every
other city out there.
Thank you for listening,
Brian
Costa Mesa
%/
From: Cindi Finley [mailto:cir. M]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 3:05 PM
To: PLANNING COMMISSION
Subject: Signage
I have lived in lovely Eastside Costa Mesa for decades and dream of a community with
"integregated street scapes" filled with familiar faces meandering in and out of shops and cafes. I
admit that I do not have all of the facts concerning the proposed signage in Triangle Square, but I
am hoping that the property is developed in such a way that shops, shopkeepers, cafes and
service industries beckon us to leave our neighborhoods and head to Triangle Square to
participate in community.Let's put on our thinking caps to create a setting that invites us to linger
with friends and family and build community in our charming neck of the "mesa".
LED signage does not a community make!!
Happy trails,
Cindi Finley
"!,F
08/09/2010
4 G
-zA - 10-31
From: pj�
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:34 PM
To: PLANNING COMMISSION
Subject: LED signage
Commision Members,
I received information about the proposed signage from the Eastside Costa Mesa Neighbors Group.
I intended to attend this Monday's meeting to express my opinion but am sufferring from a back problem
that does not make that likely.
In short, I think such signage would be "tacky" and would appreciate your denial or the proposal.
Thank you,
Pete
Peter Jacobs
290 Walnut St
(over 30 yr CM property owner , 20+ yr Westside and almost 10 yr and current Eastside resident and
landlord
I actually worked for a displaced employer before Triangle Square took their site)
7/
08/09/2010
n1em v/ • ro
219-10—,5,9
Planning Commission August 9, 2010
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Esteemed Planning Commissioners:
My name is Synthia Neyland. My husband and I are homeowners, rental and commercial
property owners, business owners and residents of the Eastside of Costa Mesa and have been
for the past 14 years. I am also one of the directors of the Eastside Costa Mesa Neighbors'
Group (ECMNG), however, I should add that the opinions and concerns stated below are strictly
those of my husband and myself and in no way reflect a formal stance being taken by the
ECMNG.
Regarding the proposal for large format LEDs to be installed at Triangle Square, here are our
concerns:
1) There are currently no specific guidelines for the contents of LED signage;
2) The content has not been satisfactorily and fully explained by the applicant;
3) LED type of signage is not in keeping with the overall feel of the immediately adjacent
residential area, i.e., the Eastside.
4) LED signage will add to the overall signage blight currently experienced on Newport Blvd.
between 19th and 17th St.
5) The type of signage has not been fully researched as to the overall environmental impact.
6) If the LED signage is allowed to contain advertising for activities or services not provided
from within Triangle Square then it is considered a 'billboard' by the current sign
ordinances and falls within signs that are prohibited.
7) A proper and formal presentation has not been made to the immediate surrounding
residential areas.
8) Only those residences within a certain area (300-500'?) have been notified of the
proposal. Wherein, this affects the entire Eastside and immediate Westside residents,
the majority of the residents in the surrounding neighborhoods should have been duly
notified.
9) We are setting precedence for the use of LED's.
10) While we understand there should be a balance between commercial and residential
needs we feel that this type of signage alters that balance at the expense of our quality of
life.
11) The Planning Commissions decision on Aug. 9, 2010 could affect the appearance, feel
and overall quality of life of our segment of Costa Mesa.
We would also like to respond to some comments made by the applicant and their representative
that were made during a brief presentation on Aug. 4, 2010 and also made in a letter to the
Eastside residents.
Ordinances specifically prohibits LEDs:
Some (read — Greenlaw Partners) would argue that the current sign ordinances were written
before the development of LED's.
Sec. 13-112, Section L, clearly prohibits 'Electronic changeable copy signs'. An 'electronic
changeable copy sign' is defined as 'a sign that uses ....LED displays...'. Proof that the
ordinances were written with the intent of prohibiting the use of LED signage.
Adhere to ordinances or re -write ordinances to suit specific needs:
Some (read — Greenlaw Partners) would argue that the current zoning signage ordinances need
to be changed while there are those of us who would argue that the ordinances, as they are
currently written are in place, to protect us from this type of signage. Ordinances are there to
make sure that all adhere to the codes. Not the other way around — that the ordinances should
0
be changed at the whim of one person or a group to suit their needs. If this was the case then
why would the City of Costa Mesa go to the trouble of having ordinances? What is more
important — the general well being that the ordinances are there to protect or the special needs of
a given applicant or group?
Imagery within close proximity to a residential area:
Some (read — Greenlaw Partners) would argue that the signage proximity to the Eastside
residential area is a suitable type of imagery & will not be visible to any residents from their
homes. We would argue that while the potential to see the signage from any one home is
extremely important it is also important to note that this type of signage is not conducive with the
overall goals of the Eastside — more specifically — identifying and beautifying. This would not be
the type of identity we would want for the Eastside.
Guidelines for LED Content.
Some (read — Greenlaw Partners) would argue that while the content of the signage has not been
fully and specifically outlined beyond 'current lifestyle graphics' that it will be done tastefully and in
keeping with the same guidelines as is used for public bus stop sheltering. If this is the case then
we would suggest that the city take a look at what is currently being advertised at some bus stops
(see attached example photo taken from the bus stop at Redhill and Bristol — unacceptable!).
Digital Clutter:
Some (read — Greenlaw Partners) would argue that 'high-definition LED screens bear no relation
to billboards and the clutter they create...' We would argue that they are indeed billboards, i.e.,
high-tech billboards creating their own type of digital clutter and blight.
Branding Costa Mesa:
Some (read — Greenlaw Partners) would argue that this type of signage is 'a very effective way to
"Brand" Costa Mesa'— perhaps so — but to whose standards of 'branding'? Are we looking for a
Times Square effect? Are we looking for a Los Angeles type of effect? Do we need another
'District' or'City Block'? And immediately adjacent to a residential area?
Advertisinq:
Some (read — Greenlaw Partners) would argue that the signage will not be used for advertising
and yet in the same statement written by representatives of Greenlaw it is stated that the 'ads
appearing on the Triangle Square LED screens....will include recurring "plugs" for Costa Mesa
and its neighborhoods.' This again places the LED's in the billboard category as per the Costa
Mesa sign ordinances' definition —'Billboard. A sign that advertises a business, product service
or activity which is not available at or is not conducted on the premises on which the sign is
located.'
In general we feel that not enough time nor dialogue with the surrounding neighborhoodshave
been achieved and that perhaps the Planning Commission reach out to the residents for their
views for they are the ones that will have to live with whatever decision is made.
We respectfully ask that the Planning Commission weigh the seriousness of the possible effects
that the large format LED signage could have on the immediate neighborhoods and to look
beyond the wishes of investment developers. We would also ask that the Planning Commission
consider the overall well being of the immediate neighborhoods and their residents. Remember—
this is a decision that couid affect us for many, many years to come — as the decision to build
Triangle Square has.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Sincerely,
Synthia Neyland-Cortesy
Stephen Cortesy
250 Broadway
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
-57
Page 1 of 1
LEE, MEL
From: Paul Nelson [p
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:30 PM
To: MANSOOR, ALLAN; LEECE, WENDY; BEVER, ERIC; FOLEY, KATRINA; MONAHAN, GARY
Cc: LEE, MEL; jeff@jm4realestate.com; esidecm@gmail.com
Subject: Triangle Square signage ZA-10-39
Mayor and City Council Members:
I'm writing to ask you to request a review of the PSP amendment approved by the Planning Commission
yesterday, allowing a massive LED sign on the former Niketown dome. This thing is going to be a
monstrosity, a laughing stock, a danger to traffic, and an eyesore. I can't believe that something like this
can be approved with no public notice and no public debate.
http_//www.ci.costa-mesa.ca.us/council/plan.ning/2010-08-09/080910ZA 1039.pdf
There's a certain odor to the way that Greenlaw Partners was able to hire a former Costa Mesa mayor
and city council member to get around the zoning code, to the Senior Planner's absurd conclusion that
this signage is consistent with General Plan goals (in particular, "Strengthen the image of the city"), and
to the way the Planning Commission buried the item in the consent calendar. It's time for the City
Council to step in.
thanks,
Paul Nelson
150 feet from the Niketown dome
1917 Church St #3
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
,53
08/11/2010
LEE, MEL
From: Martin, Jerilynn L ,.......
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 3:53 PM
To: MANSOOR, ALLAN; BEVER, ERIC; LEECE, WENDY; FOLEY, KATRINA; MONAHAN, GARY
Cc: LEE, MEL
Subject: Request to Appeal Approval of Zoning Application ZA-10-39 - Planned Signing Program
Amendment for Triangle Square
Importance: High
Attachments: Picture (Enhanced Metafile) 1.jpg
A
Picture (Enhanced
Metafile) 1....
Dear City Council Members,
As a long time resident and property owner in Costa Mesa I am deeply disturbed by what
transpired at the Planning Commission Meeting last night on August 9 2010.
The subject Application was brought forward for discussion at 11:00 p.m. last night as the
last agenda item for the evening. Given the importance and impact of this topic, much
discussion and consideration should have been given to this topic and it should have been
brought forward to the City Council for further review. I, and many of my fellow
neighbors, implored the Commissioners to study this request further to determine the
impact to our neighborhood. Not one resident that spoke last night was in support of this
deviation from our current zoning policy.
Much concern was given to the content these signs would carry as well as the visual appeal
of LED lighting to the area and the light pollution this would create to the surrounding
neighborhoods. All these concerns could not be properly addressed.
As a resident and property owner at 1912 Church St, Costa Mesa, I am 530 ft. away from the
Nike Dome and can clearly see the dome from my living room window and a portion of the
area that would hold the LED lighting. The Justification for Approval, as shown below,
was based on the premise that NO PORTION of the LED signs would be visible from
residentially zoned properties. I do not know who prepared this view simulation asserting
this assumption, but clearly this is not the case for my residence, my left -side neighbor,
or my two-story neighbor directly behind me on Fullerton Ave .
I would kindly ask that the City Council hold an Appeal Hearing / Review of this issue to
better understand the impact to the residents of East Side Costa Mesa and their desire for
this type of lighting in their community. It was clear to the residents who attended this
meeting last night that the Planning Commission was more concerned with the impact to the
investors at Triangle Square and their'investment than to those who have invested into the
community we call home on the East Side.
One further thought, I was told by Mel Lee that there was an outreach to the surrounding
community about this issue. However, I and my neighbors knew nothing of this until a
flyer was left on our doorstep Sunday evening. If, I, being only 530 ft. from Triangle
Square was not contacted by the city or the Applicant about this issue, who did they talk
to?
Please help me and the community you represent by ensuring this decision is well thought
out and properly addressed to the community it impacts. Please readdress this issue
before moving ahead.
As the appeal needs to be formalized by 5:00 p.m. August 16, I would kindly ask that your
response be provided to me as soon as possible.
Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter. I am deeply appreciative of your
support.
Jerilynn Martin
1912 Church St.
Costa. Mesa, CA 92627
M
'from resiendaly
:. gLQ,f�f�-r . -A vIew.Imulatlon teas
br� p�repgr bq tf�6 �pli rpt sh ing tha -view cf hp-1- prop �s LEO, sigr�� from. ,-4.ite.
No- portion of the- LECA signs i11 t= visible -fry,M r identiall, r�ed proparties. d�litional !
staff -hay in roor� ei d. as. a nd kioh. of appma � rnditioinnig. �f 1 �� that no Iigl�tir�g 'or�i th�
iIiiing-eltior's (iricludin-.ro flines) Doli be vi ibie from i"Iderdial nelgh rte oes.
From: CHALMERS, SYLVIA
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 1:28 PM
To: VIERA, CORRIE
Subject: FW: Signage on Triangle Square
This is the email that was received after the meeting started last night
Thanks,
Sylvia Chalmers
Executive Secretary
City of Costa Mesa
(714) 754-5270 Fax (714) 754-4856
From: Katie Arthur [mailto:H
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 6:25 PM
To: CHALMERS, SYLVIA; LEE, MEL
Cc: 'Jim Fitzpatrick'
Subject: Signage on Triangle Square
I do not support LED signage as requested by Greenlaw for Triangle Square. Reasonable signage which
is for tenants _oniy is understandable and should "in line" with the level, of son_histication_ and _class .._that
we want in the area.
Key points:
1) No 3rd party advertising should be allowed! We do not want our neighborhood looking like
Century Blvd. in LA or the surrounding areas near Disneyland in Anaheim. Neither CDM nor
Newport Beach would allow anything like this.
2) Who is going to monitor for if/when they re -submit to ask for 3rd party advertising?
3) Per Peter Buffa: "NO PART O1= EITHER LED SCREEN WILL BE VISIBLE TO ANY
RESIDENTIAL AREAS"; I am not just concerned about what can be seen from
someone's home but what will be seen by all walking or driving by. The proposed LED's
will not look "subtle" or "classy" in anyway. They will look cheesy and tacky and I don't
think anyone is going to be happy with that "look" in our neighborhood. I understand the
requirement for signage. We don't need to have something like this whose real purpose
is advertising.
4) Costa Mesa's definition of a billboard as per their Sign Ordinances..... `Billboard - A sign
that advertises a business, product, service or activity which is not available at or is not
conducted on the premises on which the sign is located." I believe this violates that
ordinance.
5) Peter Buffa's response was that the signs would have "plugs" for the neighborhood. An
advertisement is an advertisement!! Exactly what we don't want
6) Greenlaw says the signs would have "lifestyle graphics". What does that mean? Who is going
to control what goes up there? Can the city afford to have someone monitor this? There's a very
strong probability that what some may deem "acceptable" is not "acceptable" by others. i.e.:
Guess Models and much other "current lifestyle" content are far too graphic and suggestive for
the neighborhood that we're in.
7) The Eastside Costa Mesa Neighbor's Group is interested in "monument" types of designations
08/10/2010 .57
for the Eastside neighborhood. The proposed LED signs are not at all consistent with the "look and
feel" that we're trying to cultivate.
8) The parking of Triangle Square is limited and is probably the largest inhibitor to success of this
space, along with overall economic conditions — both of which are, for all intents and purposes,
things we can't control. Greenlaw has compared what they want at Triangle Square to Irvine's
"The District" Shopping Center. That shopping center is exponentially larger than Triangle
Square and is NOT surrounded by residential, much like Triangle Square is. Due to parking
limitations at Triangle Square, we will never be able to have a center like "The District" and it's
unreasonable to compare the 2 locations.
Thank you,
Katie Arthur
400 Cabrillo St.
Costa Mesa, CA
10 •
08/10/2010