Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Streetscape Aesthetics topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board OKs black‑and‑white awning replacement in courtyard; staff to handle final review

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Historic Resources Board approved a finding that replacing a courtyard awning with a black‑and‑white striped retractable awning is consistent with the Downtown Conservation District and recommended staff or planning follow up for final approval; the motion passed unanimously.

The Historic Resources Board on Aug. 18 voted to adopt a finding that the replacement of an existing retractable awning with a black‑and‑white striped awning at a nonhistoric downtown property is consistent with the Downtown Conservation District design context.

The awning matter is part of the Clark Fairlie project (DR25‑151). Staff presented examples of awnings across Ocean Avenue and emphasized the district’s design guideline objective that storefronts be treated as a consistent whole while allowing variety in form and color. The applicant’s courtyard awning is a retractable sunshade; the Planning Commission previously encouraged adding a trellis/structure to give the retractable shade a more permanent appearance.

Board members debated aesthetic factors — including scalloped valances, durability and maintenance — and noted different nearby examples, including striped awnings on neighboring businesses. Some board members expressed personal reservations about stripes and maintenance of white fabric; others said the black‑and‑white palette is already thematic in the alley. Several members emphasized the difference between personal preference and the code’s consistency standard.

On a motion the board adopted a resolution finding the color change to black and white stripes consistent with the established design context and determined no adverse impact on historic resources. The motion passed with the following vote: Board Member Dyer — yes; Board Member Goodhue — yes; Board Member Gualtieri — yes; Board Member Voorhis — yes; Chair Kromen — yes. Staff explained the project otherwise qualifies for staff‑level review and will proceed through the appropriate approval channel.