Planning Commission Report

Transcription

1 Planning Commission Report To: From: Subject: Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting: September 16, 2015 Amanda Schachter, City Planning Division Manager Agenda Item: 8-B 15ENT-0077 Appeal of Architectural Review Board 14ARB-326 approval of building design, colors, and materials for the painting and rehabilitation of a rear façade of an existing residential building. Address: Applicant: Appellant: 142 Hollister Avenue Horatio West Court Homeowners Association (HWCHA) Michael Feinstein Recommended Action It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following action(s) subject to the findings and/or conditions contained in Attachment A: 1. Deny appeal 15ENT-0077 and approve Architectural Review Board ARB , subject to findings and conditions contained in the Statement of Official Action. 2. Adopt the Statement of Official Action. Executive Summary On February 2, 2015, the Architectural Review Board approved the building design, colors, and materials to rehabilitate the rear façade and paint the exterior of an existing residential building designated as a Structure of Merit. The scope of the rehabilitation involves the removal of two doors that once accessed a second floor balcony (removed in 2011), installation of two wooden double hung windows, and filling in the second floor doorway gaps with a clapboard siding. Minor repairs to the clapboard, trim work, and a new exterior paint scheme of gray and white are also included in the proposed rehabilitation. The ARB approved the application with revised conditions with a 5-0 vote (2 absent). Subsequently, the appellant filed a timely appeal on February 10, The appellant s statement expresses concerns regarding Findings A and C in the Statement of Official Action. Issues related to the project s compatibility with the immediate neighborhood/south Beach Tract, inconsistency with the sustainability standards, and the questionable accountability of the applicant (HWCHA) are also included in the appellant s submittal (Attachment C). The Planning Commission, in its de novo review of this appeal, must determine whether the proposed project meets the findings required for design review approval identified in SMMC Section Further, the Planning Commission must also ensure that the 1

2 work is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation as the subject building is a Structure of Merit and considered a historic resource. Staff believes that each of the findings were appropriately made by the ARB and that the proposed work is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Resources. Staff supports the ARB s action and recommends that the subject appeal be denied. Project Chronology 07COM-1097: 08ARB-377: 08SM-001: 10ARB-017: On August 1, 2007, a code compliance order was issued to address a deteriorated and insect infested second story balcony located on the rear elevation of the subject building. On August 26, 2008, the design, colors, and materials for a rear balcony was approved by Staff for a like-for-like rebuild. The applicant opted to propose a different design and did not act on this approval. On November 10, 2008, a Structure of Merit (08SM-001) determination was made for the house at 142 Hollister Avenue by the Landmarks Commission. On June 21, 2010, the design, colors, and materials for a rear balcony was technically denied by the ARB with a 3-2 vote. No appeal was taken In 2011, the second floor balcony was removed from the building. Staff cannot confirm an actual date but the appellant and applicant have stated Plywood boards were placed on the exterior as temporary guardrails. 14COM-2167: 14ARB-326: 15ENT-0077: On July 24, 2014, a code compliance order was issued to address the absence of a guardrail or landing in front of the exiting second floor doorway at the rear of the building. On February 2, 2015, the design, colors, and materials for painting and rehabilitation of a rear façade was approved with revised conditions by the ARB with a 5-0 vote. On February 10, 2015, the appellant filed a timely appeal of the ARB s decision to approve 14ARB

3 Project / Site Information The following table provides a brief summary of the project location. Project and Site Information Table Zoning District: OP2 Ocean Park Low Density Residential Land Use Element Designation: Low Density Housing Parcel Area (SF): 12,075 SF Parcel Dimensions: 105 x 115 Existing On-Site Two-story, multi-family Improvements (Year Built): residential units (Horatio West Court, Circa 1921 and house/unit at 142 Adjacent Zoning Districts and Land Uses: Hollister, Circa ) North: OP2 Single & Multi-Residential South: R2 Single & Multi-Residential East/West: OP2 Single and multiresidential Site Location Map The subject property is located on the south side of Hollister Avenue between Neilson Way and Barnard Way and is on the same legal parcel as the landmark (Irving Gill s Horatio West Court) at 140 Hollister Avenue. The portion of the subject property commonly known as 142 Hollister Avenue is comprised of a free standing residence at the front of the lot with paving/un-striped parking area located to the rear. Environmental Analysis The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15331, Class 31 in that the building is a historic resource for purposes of CEQA, and that the project scope will be carried out in a manner that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (see also Page 6). As proposed, the scope of work would not alter the character defining features of the building and attributes to the potential South Beach Historic District. Background Code Compliance The proposal involves painting the residence gray with white details and addressing the rear façade of a two-story residence constructed some time between in the American Foursquare architectural style. In 2007, a Code Compliance violation was issued (07COM1097) to the applicant/owner due to the deteriorated condition/insect infestation of the second floor deck located at the rear of the structure. The applicant/property owner submitted an ARB application (10ARB-017) to replace the rear balcony with a Juliette balcony design that was smaller in size/dimensions. On June 21, 2010, the Architectural Review Board denied the applicant s request. The appellant/tenant states that in 2011, the second story balcony on the rear elevation was removed. The applicant/owner indicates the removal was necessary due to its deteriorated and precarious condition. Removal of the deck was deemed to address 3

4 the citation and the case was closed on April 18, 2013, with temporary guardrail (plywood boards) outside the two deck doors. Currently, the façade remains in an incomplete state with temporary plywood barriers along the second floor doors (Exhibit 1). On July 24, 2014, Code Compliance Case No. 14COM2167 was initiated citing substandard building conditions. Specifically, the doorway at the rear of the building on the second floor did not have a landing or guard rails. In response, the owner submitted ARB application (14ARB-326) to remedy the substandard condition by removing the two second floor doors and proposing two double-hung wood windows. The ARB approved the request with an added condition requiring that the two windows and filling in of any remaining void space occur within the existing door openings of the rear façade. Structure of Merit Designation The subject property at 142 Hollister Avenue is on the same legal parcel as the Landmark Horatio West Court at 140 Hollister Avenue. The Landmarks Commission designated 142 Hollister Avenue as a Structure of Merit on November 10, The Landmarks Commission determined that the residence represents a good example of an American Foursquare style residence. The original architectural features include the property s nearly square plan, hipped roof, central hipped dormer, double hung sash windows, front porch and wood clapboard siding. The rear (south) elevation is noted in the City s Evaluation Report (Attachment D) to have been modified with non-original features which include the addition of the balcony and two doors on the second story and two windows on the ground floor. Pursuant to Landmarks Ordinance Section , an alteration to a Structure of Merit does not require Landmark Commission review, but is subject to architectural review by the ARB or Planning Commission on appeal. Project Analysis Building Design The applicant proposes to remove the two upper level balcony doors and add two wooden double-hung windows with clear glazing. Any remaining openings would be filled-in and finished with clapboard siding and the header that was previously cut for the balcony doors would be repaired as part of the detailing and finish. The Planning Commission, in its de novo review of this appeal, must determine whether the proposed project meets the findings required for design review approval identified in SMMC Section Further, the Planning Commission must also ensure that the work is 4

5 consistent with the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation as the subject building is a Structure of Merit and considered a historic resource. Staff has reviewed the installation of the windows within the existing building opening and has determined this approach is consistent the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation in that the proposed alteration does not impact the historic character or defining features of the building. Specifically, the balcony doors are not original to the structure and are not identified as character defining features for the Structure of Merit. As such, the installation of new windows is compatible with the general character of the building but differentiated to a degree to avoid creating a false historical appearance. More specifically, the installation of the two windows within the existing opening is compatible with the overall building design and the window design is sufficiently differentiated from the fenestration pattern and detailing of the character defining front elevation. In examining the Historic Resource Inventory description of the potential South Beach District, the dominant physical features of the neighborhood include hipped and gabled roofs, dormer windows or centered vents on the façades, exposed rafters with shaped tails in the eaves, wood siding (shingles and clapboard), and the ubiquitous element of front porches. Staff believes that all of the pertinent features on the Structure of Merit would be maintained with the proposed window design and would be in keeping with the neighborhood context. Further, Staff believes that the rear elevation is secondary in nature and that the proposed windows in-lieu of non-original balcony doors, provide for an appropriate treatment that satisfies the ARB s findings and the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff supports the ARB s action and recommends that the subject appeal be denied. Necessary Findings and Determinations Given the limited review of the ARB, and the Planning Commission on appeal, the required findings are as follows: a. The plan for the proposed building or structure is expressive of good taste, good design, and in general contributes to the image of Santa Monica as a place of beauty, creativity and individuality. b. The proposed building or structure is not of inferior quality such as to cause the nature of the local neighborhood or environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. c. The proposed design of the building or structure is compatible with developments on land in the general area. d. The proposed development is in conformity with the effective guidelines and standards adopted pursuant to this chapter and all other applicable ordinances insofar as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved. 5

6 Further, for environmental purposes the Planning Commission on appeal must also ensure that the proposal for the Structure of Merit is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff believes that the proposed exterior alterations do not result in destroying historic materials and that the scope of work retains the historic character of the Structure of Merit. Staff believes that as conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior s Standards (Nos. 1-10) listed below: 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. The historic use of the property is not altered and will continue to serve as a residence. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. The Structure of Merit involves a two-story residence in the American Foursquare architectural style and the original architectural features include the property s nearly square plan, hipped roof, central hipped dormer, double hung sash windows, front porch and wood clapboard siding. The proposed alterations to the second floor doors would not result in the removal of historic materials as such elements are not original to the building. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. As conditioned, the two wood windows would be installed within the existing door openings on the second floor. The applicant would install new or newer salvaged double hung wood windows that are not to be mistaken with the original windows on the structure. As a result, Staff finds the placement and installation of a newer window type would not create a false sense of historic development on the rear façade. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. The Structure of Merit involves an American Foursquare architectural style and also located in the potential South Beach Historic District. The dominant physical features of the neighborhood include hipped and gabled roofs, dormer windows or centered vents on the façades, exposed rafters with shaped tails in the eaves, wood siding (shingles and clapboard), and the ubiquitous element of front porches. There is no reference of second floor 6

7 balcony and/or door features that have been identified in either the architectural style or potential district. As such, Staff finds that the nonoriginal balcony doors have not acquired an historic significance in their own right and not elements that are necessary for retaining/preserving on the façade. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. The original American Foursquare style architectural features involving the property s nearly square plan, hipped roof, central hipped dormer, double hung sash windows, front porch and wood clapboard siding are preserved. The two windows are installed within the opening of the second floor balcony doors. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. Staff does not believe the second floor balcony (removed) and associated doors are historic features of the property. The balcony and associated doors are not a part of the original construction nor are they identified as character defining elements/features of the American Foursquare architectural style or Potential South Beach Historic District. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. There is no chemical or physical treatment (sandblasting or alike) occurring in the scope of work. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. There are no archeological resources affected by the proposed work involving a building façade. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 7

8 The proposed exterior alteration does not destroy historic materials that characterize the property since the balcony doors are not considered character defining elements. The proposed windows are compatible with the general character of the building but differentiated to a degree to avoid creating a false historical appearance. This is reflected by the use of a newer window and fenestration pattern that is differentiated from the character defining front elevation. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The proposed windows are in keeping with the character of the building and should the windows be removed in the future, the form and integrity of the history property would not be impaired as the work is limited to the existing opening in the façade and could either be treated to its original condition. Further, the work is located on rear/secondary elevation of the property. DESIGN ELEMENTS Façade Windows PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIAL, FINISH AND COLOR 8 reveal clapboard siding, painted Wood trim, painted Façade exterior, painted (Fashion Gray) with trim details painted (Bleached Linen) Double-hung wood windows (new or newer salvaged) Appeal Statement The appellant s statement objects to the ARB s Findings A and C in the Statement of Official Action and states that the design is architecturally, contextually, and socially incompatible with the immediate neighborhood. The appellant also states design concerns related to public safety, open space, and sustainability. The appellant s statements elaborating on the owner s parking arrangement/plans and the legality of the balcony removal are not a part of the design review and outside of the ARB s purview and that of the Planning Commission on appeal. The appellant states that Findings A and C are unsubstantiated. Specifically, the appellant feels that the proposed project would result in a flat face at the rear of the building and is out of character and incompatible with the existing neighborhood s scale, design, and utility. However, in keeping with the character defining features of an American Four Square style residence and the fact that the second floor doors and deck were not original to the structure, Staff believes that the fenestration as conditioned would not impact the structure as a contributor to a potential district. Further, in reviewing the Historic Resource Inventory description of the potential South Beach Historic District, the dominant physical features of the neighborhood include hipped and gabled roofs, dormer windows or centered vents on the façades, exposed rafters with 8

9 shaped tails in the eaves, wood siding (shingles and clapboard), and the ubiquitous element of front porches. The aforementioned features can be seen on the subject building and the proposed work does not degrade the prominent elements identified in the potential historic district. The appellant also attests that since the rear elevation is visible from Wadsworth Avenue, that the Finding C in the Statement of Official Action is inaccurate and insufficient. In response to the visibility of the rear elevation as it relates to Finding C, Staff has confirmed that a portion of the rear elevation is visible from Wadsworth Avenue (Exhibit 2) but that the view is substantially obscured by existing developments along Wadsworth Avenue. Additionally, the French doors, balcony (removed), and two lower windows on the rear elevation are not original features of the building. As such, Staff considers the rear elevation secondary to the prominent street facing elevation. The installation of two wood windows within the existing second floor door openings would not degrade the quality and/or character defining features of the Structure of Merit. Staff asserts and the ARB concurred that the proposal is in keeping with the documented neighborhood characteristics, scale, design, and utility and that Findings A and C are substantiated. Secondly, the appellant expresses design concerns related to public safety, open space, and sustainability. The appellant attests that by eliminating a second floor deck on the rear façade, fewer eyes and ears are able to observe the back yard. The appellant also states that emergency egress is compromised without the presence of a second floor deck. While general design practice/principles encourage eyes on the street, the proposed windows overlook a private rear yard/parking area for the residents of 140 Hollister Avenue and not the street or public realm. Staff maintains that the design approved by the ARB incorporates operable double hung wood windows with clear glazing and thus provides a comparable line of sight into the rear yard area (no alley). For purposes of exiting, the proposed windows and previous second floor deck are not considered a means of emergency egress for the building by the Building Code. The appellant raises issue with the design concerns related to sustainability and specifically states that the alteration results in a loss in lighting and ventilation and significant loss in passive solar heating. Staff believes that the operable windows with clear glazing provide a similar ability to passively control the interior environment by opening and closing the windows. The proposal does not alter an original or character defining feature of the building or potential district and is an appropriate substitute that would allow for light, ventilation, and rear yard visibility. 9

10 Other issues related to disputes about building conditions, code compliance, and parking are also raised; however, such issues are not before the Planning Commission in the de novo hearing of the design, colors, and materials of the rehabilitation of a residential facade. Public Input There has been no public input provided to Staff at the time of publishing this report. Alternative Actions: In addition to the recommended action, the Planning Commission could consider the following with respect to the project if supported by the evidentiary record and consistent with applicable legal principles. A1. Articulate revised findings and/or conditions to Approve or Deny, with or without prejudice, the subject application. Conclusion The applicant proposes a new paint scheme and an alteration to the rear façade of a residence that is a Structure of Merit. Staff supports the applicant s request, as it is proposed with a design that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and potential South Beach District. The ARB approved the application with revised conditions, and an appeal was subsequently filed in a timely manner. The appellant is concerned with neighborhood compatibility and context. Staff supports the ARB approved application and recommends denial of the appeal. Prepared by: Grace Page, Associate Planner Attachments A. Draft Statement of Official Action B. Public Notification & Comment Material C. Appeal Statement D. Structure of Merit Evaluation and South Beach Historic Resource Information E. The Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation F. Architectural Review Board Statement of Official Action G. Project Plans F:\CityPlanning\Share\PC\STRPT\2015\15ENT-0077 (Appeal of 14ARB Hollister).doc 10

11 ATTACHMENT A DRAFT STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION City of Santa Monica City Planning Division PLANNING COMMISSION STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION PROJECT INFORMATION CASE NUMBER: LOCATION: APPLICANT: APPELLANT: CASE PLANNER: REQUEST: CEQA STATUS: 15ENT-0077 of Architectural Review Board 14ARB Hollister Avenue Horatio West Court Homeowners Association (HWCHA) Michael Feinstein Grace Page, Associate Planner 15ENT-0077 Appeal of Architectural Review Board 14ARB- 326 approval of building design, colors, and materials for the painting and rehabilitation of a rear façade on an existing residential building. The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15331, Class 31 in that the building is considered an historic resource, for purposes of CEQA, and that the project scope will be carried out in a manner that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. As proposed, the project scope would not alter the character defining features of the building and thus be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION September 16, 2015 X Determination Date Approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below. Denied. Other: 11 Attachment A Draft Statement of Official Action

12 EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTIONS IF September 16, 2015 NOT APPEALED: EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY PERMITS NA GRANTED: LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE NA EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES*: * Any request for an extension of the expiration date must be received in the City Planning Division prior to expiration of this permit. Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. FINDINGS A. The plan for the proposed building or structure is expressive of good taste, good design, and in general contributes to the image of Santa Monica as a place of beauty, creativity and individuality in that the rear façade rehabilitation involving the installation of two windows in the existing openings of the upper level doors yields a reversible condition and conforms to the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation and provides an aesthetic that is appropriate for the Structure of Merit. Specifically, the new windows are compatible with the general character of the building and designed in a manner that does not damage or destroy historic materials that characterize the property. B. The proposed building or structure is not of inferior quality such as to cause the nature of the local neighborhood or environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value in that high quality materials such as double hung wood windows, clapboard siding, wood trim, and exterior grade paint as detailed in the application submittal and as presented to the Architectural Review Board will be used for the rehabilitation. C. The proposed design of the building or structure is compatible with developments on land in the general area in that the window installation utilizes the existing openings of the upper level doors located on a secondary façade of the building that is substantially obscured from view along public streets. The proposed removal of two non-original doors, installation of two windows in the existing door openings, and new paint palette would not affect the property s suitability as a contributor to the potential South Beach Historic District. Specifically, the dominant physical features of the neighborhood include hipped and gabled roofs, dormer windows or centered vents on the façades, exposed rafters with shaped tails in the eaves, wood siding (shingles and clapboard), and the ubiquitous 12 Attachment A Draft Statement of Official Action

13 element of front porches. Such dominant features are located on the subject building and the proposed work does not degrade the prominent elements identified in the potential historic district. D. The proposed development conforms to the effective guidelines and standards adopted pursuant to Chapter 9.32 Architectural Review Board, and all other applicable ordinances insofar as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved. Specifically, the proposed windows relate with the existing architecture and that the alteration maintains a relationship with the neighborhood by maintaining the qualities that the structure possesses as a contributor to the potential South Beach District. The location and appearance of the rehabilitation comply with required findings set forth in Chapter 9.55, as documented by the Architectural Review Board, and as conditioned, the plans will fully comply with all applicable regulations prior to the issuance of a building permit. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. This approval shall expire when the administrative or discretionary entitlements previously granted by an associated approval have lapsed. If no such permit has been issued, this approval shall expire one year from its effective date, unless appealed or otherwise implemented pursuant to applicable municipal regulations. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall revise the plans to ensure that the installation of new windows and the filling-in of any remaining void space occur within the existing door openings of the rear façade. The applicant shall submit window and header details for Staff review and approval. All work shall conform to the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, demonstrate that the plans comply with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Significant changes to a project s design shall require review and approval of the Architectural Review Board. Minor changes may be approved administratively pursuant to all applicable guidelines. VOTE Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Absent: 13 Attachment A Draft Statement of Official Action

14 NOTICE If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section , which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica. Richard McKinnon, Chairperson Date Acknowledgement by Permit Holder I hereby agree to the above conditions of approval and acknowledge that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. Print Name and Title Date Applicant s Signature 14 Attachment A Draft Statement of Official Action

15 ATTACHMENT B PUBLIC NOTIFICATION INFORMATION AND PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to Municipal Code Section and in accordance with the posting requirements set forth by the Zoning Administrator, prior to application filing the applicant posted a sign on the property regarding the subject application. At least 4 weeks prior to the public hearing date, the applicant submitted a photograph to verify the site posting and to demonstrate that the sign provides the following information: Project case number, brief project description, name and telephone number of applicant, site address, date, time and location of public hearing, and the City Planning Division phone number. It is the applicant's responsibility to update the hearing date if it is changed after posting. The applicant provided the following information regarding attempts to contact area property owners, residents, and recognized neighborhood associations: Neighborhood Group None provided. Adjacent Neighbors None provided. Community Meetings None provided. Other: None provided. 15 Attachment B Public Notification and Public Notice

16 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Appeal 15ENT Hollister Avenue APPLICANT: Horatio West Court Homeowners Association Appellant: Michael Feinstein A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission to consider the following request: 15ENT-0077 Appeal of Architectural Review Board 14ARB-326 approval building design, colors, and materials for the painting and rehabilitation of a rear façade on an existing residential building. DATE/TIME: LOCATION: WEDNESDAY, September 16, 2015, AT 7:00 PM City Council Chambers, Second Floor Santa Monica City Hall 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California HOW TO COMMENT The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the Planning Commission public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the Planning Commission at the meeting. Address your letters to: Grace Page, Associate Planner Re: 15ENT-0077 (Appeal of 14ARB326) City Planning Division 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA MORE INFORMATION If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please contact Grace Page at (310) , or by at grace.page@smgov.net. The Zoning Ordinance is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City s web site at The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310) or (310) TTY at least 72 hours in advance. Every attempt will made to provide the requested accommodation. All written materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines #2, #3, Rapid 3, #7 and #9 service the City Hall and Civic Center. Big Blue Bus Lines #2 and #8 now run on Ocean Avenue instead of Main Street due to Colorado Esplanade construction. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing. ESPAÑOL Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División de Planificación al número (310) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Amanda Schachter Planning Manager 16 Attachment B Public Notification and Public Notice

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74