Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 - Balboa Village Heritage Signs - PA2015-195 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT December 3, 2015 Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Balboa Village Heritage Signs (PA2015-195) 601 Balboa Boulevard 706 East Bay Avenue APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach OWNERS: Newport Beach LLC (601 Balboa Boulevard) Kent Maddy (706 East Bay Avenue) PLANNER: Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director bwisneski@newportbeachca.gov/949-644-3297 PROJECT SUMMARY Designation of one roof top sign at 601 Balboa Boulevard and two roof top signs at 706 East Bay Avenue as Heritage Signs, as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. As Heritage Signs, these signs will no longer be considered nonconforming and shall be maintained in good repair and retain the character defining features of a designed heritage sign. A heritage sign may be removed if desired. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. _ designating three roof top signs in Balboa Village as Heritage Signs (Attachment No. PC 1). 1 V� QP �P Balboa Village Heritage Signs Planning Commission, December 3, 2015 Page 2 VICINITY MAP 1°A Ry°b�o� I 27 A VY O 1 � MI °m �JOJ Js Q Sign Locations GENERAL PLAN ZONING bUs y � J a', . .� 411 e 8 ( y 411, 601 BALBOA BOULEVARD LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE Mixed Use Vertical Mixed Use Vertical Retail/Residential NORTH Public Facilities Public Facilities Parking Lot SOUTH Residential Residential Residential EAST =Mixed Use Vertical Mixed Use Vertical Commercial WEST Mixed Use Vertical Mixed Use Vertical Restaurant 706 EAST BAY AVENUE LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE Visitor Serving Visitor Serving ON-SITE Commercial Commercial (CV) Arcade NORTH CV CV Boardwalk SOUTH Public Facilities Public Facilities Public Restroom EAST CV CV Retail WEST CV CV Retail Balboa Village Heritage Signs Planning Commission, December 3, 2015 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Project Setting The subject properties are located in the commercial area of Balboa Village. The property at 601 Balboa Boulevard is located at the southeast corner of Balboa Boulevard and Palm Street. The property is improved with a two-story mixed-use building which was constructed in 1909. A bike shop, Balboa Bikes N Beach Stuff, has operated in the building for several years. The property at 706 East Bay Avenue also fronts the boardwalk. The single-story structure was built in 1915 and is occupied by Balboa Arcade. Both properties include roof top signs which are unique to the era in which they were constructed. Character defining features include a cabinet structure which projects from the building edge with neon piped lettering. Balboa Arcade includes two signs, one on Bay Avenue and the other on the boardwalk. The sign at Balboa Bikes no longer includes the neon lettering, but maintains the appearance of the original design. Each sign will be renovated as part of the Balboa Village Commercial Fagade Improvement Program. There are other existing signs with a similar construction in the Balboa Village, but are not roof top signs and are not considered nonconforming. Project Description Roof top signs are no longer permitted, therefore the subject signs are considered nonconforming and are required to be removed by the year 2020. Because the signs exhibit unique historic features, they meet the criteria for "heritage signs", as defined by the Section 20.42.180 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The designation of a sign as a heritage sign is intended to allow nonconforming signs that otherwise would be required to be removed to remain if the sign is determined to have historical significance to the City. Heritage sign designation requires approval of the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission may designate a sign as a heritage sign if it is the type of sign that would be subject to removal as a nonconforming sign and the sign meets the following criteria: 1. Historically Significant. A sign is historically significant if the sign was erected or created at least thirty-five (35) years ago and is either representative of a significant sign-making technique or style of a historic era or represents entities or establishments that are an important part of Newport Beach history. 2. Visually Significant. The sign is visually significant in at least two of the following regards: 4 Balboa Village Heritage Signs Planning Commission, December 3, 2015 Page 4 a. The sign possesses a uniqueness and charm because it has aged gracefully; b. The sign remains a classic example of craftsmanship or style of the period when it was constructed and uses materials in an exemplary way; c. The sign complements its architectural surroundings or is particularly well integrated into the structure; or d. The sign is an inventive representation of the use, name, or logo of the building or business. Based on the era the signs represent, and with the renovation of the signs, they represent a classic example of the style when they were constructed. Therefore, it can be determined that the above findings can be met. Maintenance of heritage signs shall be consistent with the preservation of the character or defining features of the sign. A designated heritage sign may be removed if desired. The property owners were notified that the designating the signs as heritage signs was required to justify utilizing the Fagade Improvement Funds to renovate the signs. Alternatives The Planning Commission may choose to not designate one or all of the signs. Environmental Review The approval of the heritage sign designations is categorically exempt under Section 15301, of the State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines — Existing Facilities, as the signs are existing and will maintained in their current configuration. Public Notice Notice of this review was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: *nal i, r ICP, Deputy Director ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution V� QP �P Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution V� QP �P g RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DESIGNATING THE ROOF MOUNTED SIGNS LOCATED AT 601 BALBOA BOULEVARD AND 706 EAST BAY AVENUE AS HERITAGE SIGNS (PA2015- 195) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. Staff from the City of Newport Beach (City) have identified one roof top sign located at 601 Balboa Boulevard and two roof top sings located at 706 East Bay Avenue as nonconforming and subject to removal by the year 2020. The signs represent a design unique to the era they represent and contribute to the character of Balboa Village. 2. The City, as stated in the Balboa Village Master Plan, seeks to maintain the unique character of Balboa Village. Designation of heritage signs allows for nonconforming signs to be retained. 3. A public hearing was held on December 3, 2015 in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 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 approval of the heritage sign designations is categorically exempt under Section 15301, of the State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines — Existing Facilities, as the signs are existing and will maintained in their current configuration. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 20.42.180 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following criteria are provided for review by the Planning Commission: 1 . Historically Significant. A sign is historically significant if the sign was erected or created at least thirty-five (35) years ago and is either representative of a significant sign-making technique or style of a historic era or represents entities or establishments that are an important part of Newport Beach history. The structures where the signs are erected were constructed in the early 1900's. Based on historic photos, the signs were also constructed during this period. The signs were erected at least 35 years ago, and most likely over 90 years ago. The 9 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 4 style, which includes a metal cabinet projected perpendicular to the building and neon lettering, is a classic example of the signs from the early 1900s. This sign design can be seen on several other signs in the Balboa Village. 2. Visually Significant. The sign is visually significant in at least two of the following regards: a. The sign possesses a uniqueness and charm because it has aged gracefully; b. The sign remains a classic example of craftsmanship or style of the period when it was constructed and uses materials in an exemplary way; c. The sign complements its architectural surroundings or is particularly well integrated into the structure; or d. The sign is an inventive representation of the use, name, or logo of the building or business. The subject signs represent a classic style which is reflective of the period they were constructed. The use of neon was particularly specific to this era. This unique style of sign is demonstrated in other signs in the Balboa Village which have been retained in varying degrees of preservation. The signs also possess a uniqueness and charm because they have aged gracefully and complement their architectural surroundings. Therefore, it is imperative the signs be maintained in their current locations as they contribute to the overall character of Balboa Village. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby designates one sign located at 601 Balboa Boulevard and two signs at 706 East Bay Avenue as Heritage Signs (shown as Exhibit A). 2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 3rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 10-02-2015 2� Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 4 BY: Kory Kramer, Chairman BY: Peter Koetting, Secretary io-oz-zoic YZ Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 4 Exhibit A Heritage Signs 601 Balboa Boulevard 706 East Bay Avenue — at Boardwalk �qV n - — cNr g E BALUOA OEAC11'I'RU! I,lllll,.1 706 East Bay Avenue �M PW 10-02-2015 2� Planning Commission - December 3, 2015 Item No. 2a: Additional Materials Received Balboa Village Heritage Signs (PA2015-195) Dec. 3, 2015, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(o),vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 2. BALBOA VILLAGE HERITAGE SIGNS (PA2015-195) Summary The brief staff report seems designed to make it appear the Commission is being asked to grant a routine, almost trivial, approval. I believe it to be nothing of the sort. Based on the public records I have been able to review: 1. In 2005, by enacting, after much review, the precursor of NBMC Section 20.42.140, the City put the owners of certain prohibited signs (including especially pole and roof signs) on notice that those signs would have to be removed by October 27, 2020. This mandate was to be tempered by what was expected to be a relatively short list of Commission-approved "Heritage Signs" that would be exempted from the removal deadline as long as they were maintained in keeping with certain conditions as specified in the present Section 20.42.180. 2. Prior to the present proposed action and despite the 2020 deadline looming over us and the continuing presence in the City of numerous signs far more iconic than the present three, to the best of my knowledge no signs have ever been brought forward for protection from the deadline. 3. The intent of the presently proposed resolution is unclear to me, for after declaring the signs illustrated in its Exhibit A (none of which were under consideration as potential Heritage Signs in 2005) to be the City's first "Heritage Signs,"the plan seems to be, under the guise of"renovation," to use City money to replace and/or alter them — something wholly out of keeping with both the letter and the intent of the as-yet-unused and untested Heritage Sign provisions of the Zoning Code. 4. Given staff's apparent wish to have future new, altered signs pre-approved as protected "historic" signs even though they are new, staff's intent could perhaps be better described as a wish to create a new category of"faux historic" signs that can be installed in certain areas without regard to the current Sign Standards. 5. While that may be a commendable idea, and something the Commission may wish to recommend to the Council, it is not an idea supported by the present Zoning Code. 6. Within the existing code, for example, I am unable to find anything supporting the staff report's claim in its lead sentence that a "Heritage Sign" designation causes a sign to "no longer be considered nonconforming." The original intent was simply to exempt them from the abatement deadline and I believe the designation was at most intended to make them legally nonconforming. As nonconforming signs, any substantial alteration or removal from the premises would automatically terminate their protected status. At least that seems to have been the intent in 2005. Hence without modifying the code the resolution will not achieve its intended purpose. Planning Commission - December 3, 2015 Am Ite�gqm No. 2a: Additional Materials Received December 3, 2015, PC agenda item 2 comments Balboa'%illage Heritage Signs (PA2015-195) 7. Without some coherent plan for the creation of a pseudo-historic district in Balboa Village, it would seem to me the Commission's time would be better spent dealing with the Citywide issue of how it proposes to deal with the October 27, 2020, sign removal deadline. 8. Regarding the specific proposals before the Commission: a. The historic "Bay Arcade" signs may well be the sort of thing the authors of the 2005 sign standards would, today, have wanted to protect as "Heritage Signs." However, as soon as they are removed from the building they would lose that status, and installation of the proposed replacement roof signs, even if they resembled the originals, is prohibited by the current code. That would make the Commission's granting of a Heritage designation to the old signs pointless unless the applicants proposed to keep them, which they evidently do not. b. The "BIKES" sign does not qualify as a "Heritage Sign" because it is not, in its current configuration, more than 35 years old. Even if it was "restored" to something resembling the neon sign style of the 1930's and 40's, it still would not qualify, because the existing code section is for the preservation of existing signs, not for the creation of new signs with an old look. Moreover, even as an existing sign the "BIKES" sign would not seem to meet any (let alone two) of the required "Visually Significant" criteria of Subsection 20.42.180.C.2: it has not aged well, it is not (as currently painted) an exemplary example of an earlier style, it is not particularly well integrated into the rest of the building, and it is not an especially inventive expression of the building's use. Instead, it seems to be little more than a convenient existing surface on which yet another rather crude sign can be painted. 9. Given these problems, it seems extremely capricious to act on this proposal when a vast number of truly iconic signs — both in Balboa and throughout the City-- remain unprotected. Background — History of Newport Beach's Present Sign Codes Although recodified as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update of Ordinance 2010-21, the Sign Standards in Chapter 20.42 of the current Zoning Code, in substantially their current form, were actually adopted five years earlier with Ordinance 2005-17. That ordinance was the result of a multiyear effort, that included final review by the Planning Commission on May 5, 2005, June 9. 2005 and July 7, 2005. It superseded both the "Balboa Sign Overlay' of Ordinance 2000-22 (which through 2005 continued to sanction both pole and roof signs on the Peninsula) and the sign portion of the Mariner's Mile Strategic Area Plan of Ordinance 2000-20 (which allowed pole signs but disallowed roof and wall-mounted signs that protruded above the roofline) as well as the sign portion of the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework. At least part of the motivation behind the 2005 Sign Standards revisions seems to have been a possibly wrong-headed desire to rid the City, over what was deemed the 15 year useful life of a sign, of what some apparently regarded as dated and un-modern commercial signage from earlier eras, with the opportunity for exceptions to made for a few "Heritage Signs" of unusual value. Planning Commission - December 3, 2015 Item No. 2a: Additional Materials Received December 3, 2015, PC agenda item 2 comments J�mtialNOa"%illage Heritage Signs (PA2015-195) In particular, from page 3 of the May 5, 2005, staff report to the Planning Commission: "The prohibition of pole and roof signs is one of the more significant new provisions of the proposed code. The Steering Committee found these types of signs to be the most distracting from the community's aesthetics, and the most out-of-step with contemporary quality sign design." The designation of a small number of existing signs as Heritage Signs was a matter of considerable debate in 2005, with the resolution, at the recommendation of the City Attorney's Office (see page 20 of the June 9, 2005, Planning Commission minutes) being that the "Heritage Sign List" (which staff said was being worked on at each of the Commission hearings, and of which an initial version was presented starting on page 94 of the staff report) be a "separate document that follows closely' after adoption of the ordinance and further review by the Commission. The July 7, 2005, minutes reiterate (on page 15) that "the Heritage Sign list ... will be coming back to the Planning Commission for review before City Council adopts it. There are plans to have at least 3 meetings on this item a Council level- one Study Session and two regular public hearings." The matter was indeed heard by the City Council on August 9, 2005 (Item SS2), August 23, 2005 (Item 11), September 13, 2005 (Item 11), and September 27, 2005 (Item 3). Each time a "Preliminary "Heritage"Sign List" draft was included in the staff report-- the last time being Exhibit C starting on page 241 of the September 27th report. In addition to adopting what are essentially Title 20's current sign standards, the September 27, 2005, City Council action adopted (by Resolution 2005-49)what is presumably the still current uniform Citywide Sign Design Guidelines Manual but left intact (as noted in the preamble currently codified as Section 20.42.020, "Effect of Chapter") the older, separate and not always consistent sign design standards in Chapter 15.16 of the Buildings and Construction code. Prior to the Council's action, several Planning Commissioners had expressed a fear of being overwhelmed with Heritage Sign status applications, only a very few of which would truly be of merit. And although some applications (such as the current ones) might be initiated by City staff, after the Council action, in preparation for the onslaught, the City's Revenue Division dutifully established a fee for"Heritage Sign Review," currently set at $183 per hour per line item 191 on page 4 of the City's current Master Fee Schedule. Despite these good intentions, as best I can tell the "Heritage Sign List" of exempted non- conforming signs was never heard of again, let alone adopted, and prior to the proposed action on the current agenda item, I have been unable to find any indication of any sign in Newport Beach having been formally declared a "Heritage Sign." Yet large numbers of the prohibited pole and "roof' signs continue to exist in all the City's older commercial areas (such as West Newport, the Peninsula, Mariner's Mile and Corona del Mar). Planning Commission - December 3, 2015 ,� Pape No. 2a: Additional Materials Received December 3, 2015, PC agenda item 2 comments Balboa"%illage Heritage Signs (PA2015-195) The "Roof" Signs Prohibited in 2005 A "Roof sign" prohibited (in the absence of a variance) by Subsection 20.42.050.F.7 is defined in Section 20.42.040 as "a sign erected upon or above a roof of a building." Based on staffs proposed "Heritage Sign List," this apparently was intended to include what other might be regarded as allowable "Projecting"wall signs (where the mounting hardware attaches to an exterior wall) if any portion of the sign rises above the supporting structure's roofline. Although prohibited by Title 20, and required to be removed by October 27, 2020, it might be noted that Section 15.16.270 (last revised in 1960) continues to detail the specifications for legally constructing roof signs. The Fagade Improvement Program In 2014, with Resolution 2014-25, we had the "Newport Beach Dividend" whereby for the best part of a year permit fees for most residential repairs and remodeling were waived. On October 28, 2014, with Resolution 2014-92 the Council went that program one better by approving the "Facade Improvement Program" for (and only for) Balboa Village, whereby commercial tenants and property owners in that area would receive not only a waiver of all City permit fees, but in perpetuity a right to $5,000 of free City money ($10,000 along Balboa Boulevard) and $50,000 of matching funds every 10 years for exterior building improvements. The Council later, and with questionable legality, approved funding the improvements with parking revenue from the public streets. The Subject Proposals The brief staff report is not very explicit about the expected fate of the signs the Commission is being asked to declare to be Heritage Signs other than to say"Each sign will be renovated as part of the Balboa Village Commercial Fagade Improvement Program." In fact, the money for the improvements has already been granted, with the contracts posted on the City website. 1. Contract C-6356 for 706 East Bay Avenue became effective November 4, 2015, and about all that can be gleaned about the work to be performed in return for the City money is the contractor's estimate reproduced on page 10: MATERIAL Oty PRICE TOTAL REMOVE TW'OOI D SIGNS FROM n9i'FRONT AND BACK UVILDING AND MSTALL TWO NEW U.00 CIO SIGNS SA.UE STYI.F AND DLMF'4SION W ITII ALUMINUM FRAME AND LED LIGHTS W I nI V INYL MATERIAL LENS. REiR.'f SOME WELDING ON TIB:Mt.FAI.STRUCfURA IF IS NECESSARY TO INSTALL THE IWO 0.00 0.00 NEW SIGNS LABOR AND MA`rMAL TO COMPI.Kn 11IF.IOR IS 1 6,000.00 000110. Planning Commission - December 3, 2015 Am Ite�gqm No. 2a: Additional Materials Received December 3, 2015, PC agenda item 2 comments Balboa"%illage Heritage Signs (PA2015-195) In the absence of any other information, it would appear that after the Planning Commission finds the existing "Bay Arcade" signs to be Heritage Signs, the owner intends to remove them and replace them with new aluminum/LED/vinyl signs at the same locations. 2. Contract C-6343 for 601 East Balboa Boulevard became effective November 2, 2015, and although the description of the intended work is slightly more complete, the City appears to rely on the notes and contractor's estimate on pages 11-12: SIGNS • Design,produce, and instal exterior grade plastic letters to read, `Balboa,Bilges N Beach Stufr where the existing recessed sign cavity exist on the north wall- • Design,produce, and instal exterior grade plastic letters to read, "$10 ALL DAY BIKE RENTAL"where the existing recessed sign cavity extlst on the east wai- • Design, produce, and instal exterior grade plastic letters to read,0$10 ALL DAY BIKE RENTAL'where the existing recessed sign cavity exist on the west wall. • Hand Paint 1909 Street Comer Anchor sign to reed, 'Balboa Bias". • Design. produce and Instal a metal sign above the west side entrance to read,"THE SHOP' Description • DESIGN, CONCEPTUAL ART AND PLANNING 1 $ 1A00 $ 1,01x1 CITY PERMITS t WANED $ o PAINT 1.850 sq.R. 1 $ 2,700 $ 2,700 LANDSCAPING(Horm7ail Wood Troughs and Wood Blind) 1 $ 800 $ B00 MURAL(168 Sq. Ft.$11.60 per Sq, Ft.) $ 11950 $ 1,960 SIGN#1 (East Wall"$10 ALL DAY BIKE RENTAL'S t $ goo $ 900 SIGN#2(North.Wall-BALBOA BIKES N BEACH STUFF") 1 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 SIGN#3(West VUI 110 ALL DAY BIKE RENTAL") 1 $ 900 $ 900 SIGN#d(Org. Corner Sign Paint"Balboa BIKES') 1 $ 250 $ 250 SIGN 05(South west Wall"THE.SHOP') .. .1 $ 500 -$ 500 It is not totally obvious, but one might guess the "1909 Street Corner Anchor Sign" referred to as the next to last item in each list, which seems recently to have been altered to read "BIKES," is the sign the Commission is being asked to designate as a Heritage Sign. The plan seems to be to add the word "Balboa" to that. Analysis of Heritage Sign Requests NBMC Subsection 20.42.180.D.1 requires Heritage Sign applications to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It therefore seems inappropriate to me to lump these two applications together and to provide only combined generic findings. In my view both applications should be rejected. Planning Commission - December 3, 2015 Am Ite�gqm No. 2a: Additional Materials Received December 3, 2015, PC agenda item 2 comments Balboa"%illage Heritage Signs (PA2015-195) The Bay Arcade application Although not part of the original proposed Heritage Sign List, the "Bay Arcade' signs on the roof of the building at 706 East Bay Avenue may well fit the definition of Heritage Signs. However, the proposal to replace them with modern roof signs of new design and construction (see "improvement" proposal, above) is completely contrary to the intent of Subsection 20.42.180.E, which defines the allowable scope of"Alteration of Heritage Signs." Although removal of the "Bay Arcade' signs after they have been declared "Heritage signs" is allowable, any wholesale replacement of them or physical alternation beyond "routine cleaning and general maintenance" is supposed to result in automatic revocation of the Heritage sign status, and since new roof signs are prohibited throughout the City, the physically different modern replacement signs are not allowed to be installed. The following photos support the claim that the existing "Bay Arcade" signs are more than 35 years old, but designating them as Heritage signs seems pointless if they are to be replaced. Exhibit 1: A photo from the Hugh R. McMillan photographs, 1946— 1974, collection of the UCI Libraries Special Collections and Archives showing the Fun Zone, McNally's Pier & Pavilion as seen from the top of the Ferris Wheel, documenting the prevalence of projecting "roof' signs along boardwalk ca. 1950: I " •a I � C , `ya •A _ Source: http://hdl.handle.net/l0575/10703 Planning Commission - December 3, 2015 Item No. 2a: Additional Materials Received December 3, 2015, PC agenda item 2 comments 6mIboa Village Heritage signs (PA2015-195) Exhibit 2: Another photo from the same series, showing the Bay Arcade building rooftop circa 1950: a i ■ '■ - I 7771 Source: http://hdl.handle.net/10575/10708 Exhibit 3: Details from the above photo showing the roof sign over the boardwalk: SHELLS ► r. ARCA Planning Commission - December 3, 2015 Item No. 2a: Additional Materials Received December 3, 2015, PC agenda item 2 comments 6mIboa Village Heritage Signs (PA2015-195) Exhibit 4: And over East Bay Avenue: • oat wwwbac �T• !r'� Planning Commission - December 3, 2015 Item No. 2a: Additional Materials Received December 3, 2015, PC agenda item 2 comments tialE0aVillage Heriagesgns (PA2015-195) The Balboa Bikes `N' Beach Stuff application As demonstrated by the following illustrations, the "BIKE" sign in its current configuration is clearly not 35 years old. And restoring it to something resembling its earlier style would clearly require much more than "routine cleaning and general maintenance" of a sign that has aged well. Since it has not been maintained in a way that would have preserved and honored its heritage status, it no longer qualifies. Exhibit 5: A historic postcard showing the 601 Balboa Boulevard building operating as a cafe and possibly including a smaller corner roof sign seen edge-on: % SEA SHELL 41:� ONE OF THE BEAUTIFUL VIEWS OF BALBOA BEACH, CALIFORNIA Source: http://www.,qoodiegoodiegoodie.com/puss-sea-shell-cafe/ Although the source website says the above card was postmarked 1939, local historian (and postcard collector) Jeff Delaney assumes in his book Newport Beach that the photo is from around 1925, probably due to the absence in the background of the Rendezvous Ballroom (first built in 1928, rebuilt in 1935, finally destroyed in 1966). What the original sign may have said, and what its style may have been, is not apparent from this image. Exhibit 6 (on following page): A photo circa 1950 from the Hugh R. McMillan photographs collection of the UCI Archives, probably taken from the top of Fun Zone Ferris Wheel, looking across the `Blue Room" towards the "Bamboo Rattan Gift Shop" with the Rendezvous Ballroom beyond (in the extreme left distance): ��—� /� Asti U C � ❑ cln ■- • .•• - • • • • • - • •• - -.• _ i -rte:wii�•1•a+� ....__ - `: !-? MUM- 5. o d _ s, r Planning Commission - December 3, 2015 Item No. 2a: Additional Materials Received December 3, 2015, PC agenda item 2 comments &Iboa"%illage Herbage§igns (PA2015-195) Exhibit 8Acolor oto of same from ground level said to be taken in 1952: drr �-�►„ - 71 � 11 Ir Source: http://www.100megspopup.com/ark/RendezvousBallrooml941.htmi Alternate source: http://ochistorical.blogspot.com/2007/04/swing-dancing-home-movies-hb- tustin.html Exhibit 9: An undated photo taken after the tenant changed to "Balboa Bikes W Beach Stuff," but showin the historic "GIFTS" sign still intact: Ai ` err n A » Source: http:/imedia.yellowbot.com/r/650x500/photos/3XIDw-nu5k2 x--/balboa-bikes-n-beach- stuff-newport-beach-ca.i pg Planning Commission - December 3, 2015 Item No. 2a: Additional Materials Received December 3, 2015, PC agenda item 2 comments 6mIboa"%illage Herbage§igns (PA2015-195) Exhibit 10: Image from Balboa Bikes 'N' Beach Stuff's own website, also showing the historic "GIFTS" sign intact: Source: http://www.balboabikes.com/balboabikes.ipa Planning Commission - December 3, 2015 Item No. 2a: Additional Materials Received December 3, 2015, PC agenda item 2 comments 6mIboa"%illage Herbage§igns (PA2015-195) Exhibit 10: Illustrating the present condition of the sign (see also Exhibit A to the proposed resolution B i r Source: http://s3-medial.fl.velpcdn.com/bphoto/4giRmieo-IINA3gOFdCNLQ/o.ipg It might be noted that as altered and repainted the sign not only fails to retain the character of the original, but the style is the inverse of the historic sign technique in the area which, as documented in the above exhibits, tended (at least in the 1940's and early 50's) to consist of accented bright letters on a dark background. Heritage Signs Awl Planning Commission //,, �► Public Hearing \ \' December 3, 2015 III 1 FeJM NEW - am—K -- • • • ' —1 1 - ' --�d-------------- --- - • _ rr _ tpt BALBOA PHAR,,IACY" 1 Planning Commission - December 3, 2015 ting 95) c;,soa N e t K . E fllithr- ush , C BEACHIEAR.ETI 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 3 Planning Commission - December 3, 2015 ting 95) Vicinity Map z Y BALBOA BEACH'FRE,'- 1 1 t , r 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 4 SM L ■ • a t ti 4 M