BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

ITEM NO. 2. REPORT DATE: 03/29/2013 MEETING DATE: 04/04/2013 REPORT WRITTEN BY: Felicia N. Wheaton, Comm. Develop. Director/ACM REPORT REVIEWED BY: Mary Neilan, City Manager Emily Longfellow, Deputy City Attorney

SUBJECT: Revised Administrative Policy Regarding Interpretation of Section 20.04.140 of the B.M.C., Materials and LOCATION: Citywide ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Administrative Policy Manual Chapter 324 "Revised Policy on Materials and Colors Used" 2. Belvedere Municipal Code Design Review Section 20.04.140 Materials and Colors Used 3. May 15, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes CEQA STATUS: Exempt- CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3)

BACKGROUND The Belvedere Administrative Policy Manual (APM) is a compilation of official policies adopted by City Council resolution. Planning department policies include, "Removal of Significant Trees," "Fence Repair and Replacement," "Colors and Materials,'' and "Exemptions from Design Review,'' to name a few examples. On May 15, 2012, the Planning Commission considered changes to the Colors and Materials policy. The Commission made several comments, recommended revisions, and directed staff to bring back the draft policy for further discussion at a future meeting. Minutes of the May 15, 2012 meeting are included as Attachment 3.

ANALYSIS This report proposes amendments to the existing Colors and Materials policy, reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on January 20, 2009 and by the City Council on May 11, 2009. A copy of the BMC Design Review Section 20.04.140 Materials and Colors Used is included for reference as Attachment 2.

POLICIES AND LAWS The City's Administrative Policy Manual includes policies to aid in the interpretation of the City's Municipal Code. Planning department policies describe the means by which the objectives of the municipal law will be met. The policies guide decision-making and create a statement of intent to achieve a desired outcome.

The proposed revised colors and materials policy is not changing the law; rather, it helps define objectives for decision-makers when applying the law. Where the law does not specifically speak to a-certain issue, staff is tasked with the job of interpreting the law. As one example, Code Section 20.04.140 Materials and Colors Used states, Staff Report for Revised Policy on Materials and Colors April 4, 2013 Page 2

"Soft and muted colors in the earth tone and wood tone range are preferred and generally should predominate. Other colors and materials are acceptable only if the Planning Commission determines they are appropriate for the building setting, and are compatible with those of other buildings in the vicinity. Trim and window colors should be compatible with and complementary to the other building colors" (bold italics added for emphasis).

The law is specific in its language that planning staff has limited authority in approving colors outside of the "earth tone" and "wood tone" range. The policy provides guidance as to what colors may be considered in the earth tone and wood tone range. The policy describes "sandy beige, and ranges ... and muted ranges." The Materials and Colors policy provides an enhanced definition of "earth tone" and "wood tone" colors so that the Planning Commission, planning staff, and applicants may have a shared understanding of the objectives of the law.

REVISED POLICY Attachment 1 of this report is a Revised Policy on Materials and Colors Used for consideration by the Commission. Proposed deletions are shown crossed out; proposed additions are underlined. In response to comments from the Commission at the May 15, 2012 meeting, the following items are proposed changes Section 324.07 of the policy: Item 1. Delete the words "non-glossy."

Item 2. The second sentence has been deleted. Item 3. The second sentence has been deleted and replaced with " and off-white are considered complementary trim colors and may be used on house trim, including windows and doors, as well as on garage doors, fences, and other architectural elements."

Item 4. The word "vertical" has been added. The phrase "and staff encourages all applicants to limit the use of these materials" has been deleted.

Item 5. The words "window sashes" has been deleted.

Item 6. The word "darker" has been deleted. The phrase "and must be reviewed by the Planning Commission" has been deleted.

CONCLUSION Staff recommends Planning Commission review of the Revised Policy on Materials and Colors Used and to make a recommendation to the City Council for approval. The policy change becomes effective upon adoption by the City Council.

RECOMMENDATION MOTION: Recommend City Council approval of a Revised Administrative Policy Manual Chapter 324 Regarding Interpretation of Section 20.04.140 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, Materials and Colors Used. CHAPTER 324. REVISED POLICY ON MATERIALS. AND COLORS USED

324.05 BACKGROUND

On December 16, 2008 and January 20, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed a written interpretation of Belvedere Municipal Code Section 20.04.140, "Materials and Colors Used," which was developed to clarify appropriate direction to applicants regarding administrative Design Review determinations.

On May 15, 2012 and April 4, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed a Revised Appropriate Colors and Materials Policy and recommended changes to the City Council for adoption. The policy maintains applicants' and residents' ability to request Planning Commission approval for any project or material on a case-by-case basis. ·

This policy also addresses long-standing procedures used by the City in the construction of street repairs, park improvements, and utility projects.

324.06 COMMENTS

Staff approvals of new colors and materials are necessarily conservative. The Planning Commission has greater leeway under the Belvedere Municipal Code to review project colors and materials. A succinct policy that defines staffs interpretation of the Code encourages a consistent application of the criteria and provides further guidance to applicants seeking City approvals. Irrespective of this policy, applicants retain the ability to request Planning Commission approval for any project color or material on a case-by­ case basis.

324.07 INTERPRETATION OF BMC §20.04.140 MATERIALS AND COLORS USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS ONLY

This policy direction shall apply to administrative approvals only and not to Design Review applications under consideration by the Planning Commission. By authority of the Belvedere Municipal Code's Architectural artd Environmental Design Review Ordinance, the Planning Commission has greater discretion than City staff to approve, or conditionally approve, Design Review projects.

ATTACHMENT 1 The following policy direction is based on the City's Design Review Ordinance, specifically BMC §20.04.140 Materials and colors used:

1. Earthtone colors appropriate for use on Belvedere structures fall within the ft0ft­ glossy sandy beige, brown and grey ranges. Woodtones include colors in the ft0ft­ glossy brown and muted green ranges. Only the Planning Commission can approve the use of colors outside of the earthtone or woodtone range if they determine "that [the colors/materials] are compatible with the building setting and are compatible with those of other buildings in the vicinity."

2. The predominant color of a structure should not cause a structure to stand out. Large expanses of white and off white are generally contrary to the intent of the ordinance.

3. As the Design Review criteria require, trim colors and window colors should be compatible with the other building colors. Garage doors should generally have a darker color than building trim because white or colored garage doors emphasize these features and detract from the building's setting. White and off­ white are considered complementary trim colors and may be used on house trim, including windows and doors, as well as on garage doors, fences, and other architectural elements.

4. New, vertical large areas of brick, stone, stucco, metal, and concrete must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and staff encourages all applicants to limit the use of these materials.

5. Metals which develop an attractive, naturally-oxidized finish may be left unpainted, but may not be clear-coated to enhance shine. Brushed metal finishes without an oxidized patina may be deemed appropriate for use in certain circumstances. Other exposed metal should be: painted flat , painted to resemble a naturally oxidized finish, or painted a color which minimizes their visibility. This includes window sashes, fences, railings, metal roof vents, flashing, conduit and other appurtenances.

6. Stone pavers and veneers should be primarily dark:ef colors in the grey, brown, or serpentine range. Manufactured stone is discouraged. and must be revie'.ved by the Plar~'ling Commission.

7. Concrete pavement on private property should be colored in grey or brown tones. A set of integral concrete color samples is available at City Hall to use as a standardized and cost-effective method of specifying concrete color for applicants proposing colored concrete features in their projects. Applicants may view the selection of samples and identify the sample that most closely matches their proposed color. Concrete pavement on public property, such as in the right-of­ way or public easement, shall meet Public Works Department standards and specifications. '

ATTACHMENT 1 324.08 PUBLIC PROJECTS

Decorative features, such as streetlights, flagpoles, and permanent park installations, such as stone benches, that are located on public property are subject to Design Review and other Planning approvals. Major Public Works projects, such as the San Rafael Avenue Seawall and Beach Road median improvements, are subject to Design Review and other Planning approvals. Other Public Works projects located in the public right of way are J exempt from Design Review under the following conditions:

1. Incorporate landscape screening whenever possible. 2. Retaining walls are constructed of wood, stone or concrete and generally complement adjacent building and paving materials 3. Existing retaining walls are replaced or repaired in kind. 4. Utilities are placed below grade whenever possible. 5. Minor landscape projects, street furniture and park furniture are reviewed by the Parks and Open Space Committee.

ATTACHMENT 1

Title 20-Architectural & Environmental Design Review 20.04.110 • 20.04.140

review has been submitted, the Planning Consultant shall review the accompanying materials to make certain that all necessary items have been submitted and found complete before the application will be placed on an agenda for consideration. Applications which are not determined to be complete shall not be placed on an agenda for consideration. (Ord .. 90-5 § 2 (part), 1990.)

20.04.l 00 Design review criteria and standards. The Planning Commission shall be guided by the criteria set forth in Sections 20.04.005 and 20.04.110 through 20.04.210 in considering design review applications and in making its determination whether to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove each application. The Planning Commission must find an application to be in substantial conformance with these criteria in order to be approved, and may deny an application for failure to conform to any single criterion. (Ord. 90-5 § 2 (part), 1990; Ord. 75-1§6(part),1975; prior code§ 25 -12 (part); Ord. 181NS§1(part),1972.)

20.04.110 Preservation of existing-site conditions. To preserve the landscape in its natural state, the removal of trees, vegetation, rock, and soil should be kept to a minimum. Projects should be designed to minimize cut and fill areas, and grade changes should be minimized and kept in harmony with the general appearance of the neighboring landscape. All disturbed areas should be finished to a natural appearing configuration -· and planted or seeded to prevent erosion. (Ord. 90-5 § 2 (part), 1990; Ord. 80-1 § 48, 1980.)

20.04.120 Relationship between structures and the site. There should be a ·balanced and harmonious relationship among the structures on the site, between the structures and the site itself, and between the structures and those on adjoining properties. All new buildings or additions constructed on sloping land should be designed to relate to the natural land forms and step with the slope in order to minimize the building mass and bulk and to integrate the structure with the site. (Ord. 90-5 § 2 (part), 1990; prior code § 25-12(c); Ord. 181 NS§ 1 (part), 1972.)

20.04.130 Minimizing bulk and mass. A. All new structures and additions should be designed to avoid monumental or excessively-large dwellings which are out of character with their setting or with other dwellings in the neighborhood. All buildings should be designed to relate to and fit in with others in the neighborhood and not designed to attract attention to themselves. B. To avoid monotony or an impression of bulk, large expanses of any

20.04.140 Materials and colors used. A. Building designs should incorporate materials and colors that minimize the structures' visual impact, that blend with the existing land form and vegetative cover, th~t relate to and fit in with structures in the neighborhood, and that do not attract attention to the structures themselves. B. Materials which blend easily with the landscape, such as natural wood

20-15 ATTACHMENT 2 20.04.150 • 20.04.180 Title 20-Architectural & Environmental Design Review

shingles and siding, are preferred. Other materials, such as metaIS which develop an attractive, naturally-oxidized finish, used brick, stone, stucco, and concrete should be used in moderation. Use of concrete block, manufactured stone or brick, unpainted metal, galvanized metal or metal subject to ordinary rusting is discouraged. C. Soft and muted colors in the earth tone and wood tone range are preferred and generally should predominate. Other colors and materials are acceptable only if the Planning Comniission determines they are appropriate for the building setting, and are compatible with those of other buildings in the vicinity. Trim and window colors should be compatible with and complementary to the other building colors. D. All roof materials and colors (including equipment, but excluding . skylights) should have nonglossy, earth tone or wood tone finisl)es that minimize glare and are compatible with their environment and surroundings. All exposed metals, such as roof vents, chimneys and spark arrestors, should be painted flat black or painted a color which minimizes their visibility, or should be of natural or -finished aluminum. E. Retaining walls should be wood, stone, or concrete. Concrete walls and other concrete surfaces should be textured, colored to match adjacent soil or plant color, or faced with wood, brick, or stone. (Ord. 90-5 § 2 (part), 1990; prior code § 25-12( d); Ord. 181 § 1 (part), 1972.)

20.04.150 Fences and screening. A. Fences and physical screening should be located so as to be compatible with the design of the site and structures as a whole, should conceal and screen garbage areas, mechanical equipment, and structural elements from public view, and should preserve privacy between adjoining dwellings, where practical. B. Fences should be designed and located so that they are architecturally compatible with the design of the building, are aesthetically attractive, and do not significantly block views. Wire or chain link fences are discouraged, except as temporary barriers on construction sites. (Ord. 90-5§2(part),1990; prior code§ 25-12(e); Ord. 181 NS § 1 (part), 1972.)

20.04.160 Privacy. Building placement and window size and placement should be selected to give consideration to the privacy of adjacent buildings. (Ord. 90-5 § 2 (part), 1990.)

20.04.170 Drives, parking and circulation. Walkways, driveways, curb cuts and off-street parking should be planned and designed so as to minimize interference with smooth traffic flow, to encourage separation of pedestrian from vehicular traffic, and to be as safe and convenient as is practical. They should not be out of relationship with the design of the proposed buildings and structures on the site, and should not intrude on the privacy of, or conflict with the appearance of neighboring properties. (Ord. 90-5 § 2 (part), 1990; prior code § 25-l 2(g); Ord. 181 NS § 1 (part), 1972.)

20.04.180 Exterior , skylights and reflectivity. A. Exterior lighting should not create glare, hazard, or annoyance to neighboring property owners or to passers-by. Lighting should be shielded and directed downward, with location oflights

0112012 20.-16 Minutes of the Regular Planning Conm1ission meeting May 15,2012 Page 12of16

7. Consideration of an Administrative Policy for permitted design changes once a project · bas received Plaiming Commission approval and before a building permit has been issued. Recommendation to the City Cotmcil regarding circumstances of the approval, the appropriate procedure, and direction to pla1ming staff reviewing the changes; and, Consideration of a Revised Administrative Policy regarding interpretation of Section 20.04.140 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, Materials and . Colors Used. Recommendation to the City Council to adopt revised policy. CEQA status: not a "project" pursuarit to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines. Applicant and property owner: Citywide. Planning Manager Macdonald stated that the Agenda for this item was amended, pursuant to the Brown Act, to now include two pai1s. The first is the discussion of the Administrative Policy for the process for handling of design changes after a project is approved by the Plaiming Commission, and before the building permit is issued. CmT~ntly, a stai1dard condition of approval is that the plans submitted for the building permit must be approved by the Planning Manager ai1d the Chairman of the Planning Commission for conformance with the plai1S approved by the Plaiming Commission. This has created difficulties for staff and applicants when there are inconsistencies or there are additional changes that the applicant would like to make, such as retaining walls, landscaping changes, new skylights, lighting and other items that require Design Review. Staff is seeking a process to allow for applicants to apply for administrative Design Review for noncontroversial changes prior to the permit issuance, with the requisite neighbor noticing. Staff believes this would make the process much less burdensome for applicai1ts and staff Chairman Johnson asked what fees would be required for these interim staff level Design Review Exception applications? Planning Manager Macdonald replied those would be the stai1dard fee of $175 ($150 plus a $25 tech fee). Commissioner Kenmitzer asked are these limited in number for a project? Plmming Manager Macdonald replied that currently in the Belvedere Municipal Code, there is a limit of four such staff level Design Review approvals in the life of the project. The only change to · the Administrative Policy proposed here has to do with the timing of the staff level Design Review applications, such that they may be allowed to be processed between the approval by the Planning Conm1ission and the issuance of the building permit. Chairman Johnson asked what is the difference from the free Design Review Exemptions? Are those still available to the applicants? Planning Manager Macdonald replied that Exemptions are always available at any time during the project. There is no charge for such items. An example would be a reduction in the size of a window, or similar minor items. However the Administrative Policy under discussion here is in regards to those items that are subject to Design Review, so they could be reviewed at a staff level before the building permit is issued. This should save applicant time and rechecks by the Building Department as well.

ATTACHMENT 3 Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting May 15, 2012 Page 13of16

Planning Manager Macdonald stated that Community Development Director/ACM Wheaton will present the second part of this item regarding the revision of the Administrative Policy regarding the interpretation of Section 20.04.140. Materials and Colors Used. Ms. Wheaton presented the staff report. She stated that this Administrative Policy, Chapter 324. Appropriate Colors and Materials was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council in 2009. The proposed revised policy tonight makes one change to that policy as included in Attachment 5 to the staff report for Item 7b. She called to the Commission's attention the deletion of the cunent language in section 3: "Garage doors should generally have a darker color than building trim because white or light colored garage doors emphasize these feature and detract from the building's setting." The proposed replacement language is: "White and off-white are considered complementarv trim colors and may be used on house trim. including windows and doors. as well as on garage doors. fences. and other architectural elements." Ms. Wheaton stated that this change to the Administrative Policy is presented in response to requests by conununity members who · desire to have such white architectural elements on their homes. Staff finds that this policy amendment would be consistent with the Belvedere Municipal Code regarding Colors and Materials, as well as with the policy statements in the Belvedere General Plan. · Ms. Wheaton stated that the entire section of the Belvedere Administrative Policy Manual, Planning Department Policies, has been included in the staff report in Attaclunent 2 for the Conunission' s comment if they so desire. Chairman Jolmson asked how shall the Conm1ission proceed? There are eight items in the Colors and Materials policy. Ms. Wheaton replied that the Colors and Materials Administrative Policy is open to modification tonight as long as such changes are consistent with the Belvedere Municipal Code and the City's General Plan. Policies are interpretations of the laws, but not the laws themselves. Chairman Jolmson stated that there has been discussion about language restricting the use of glossy paint. In the Policy, number 1) the word 'non-glossy' might be deleted. She agrees with Commissioner Hart that trim areas should not be limited to flat paint. Plaiming Manager Macdonald replied that in BMC Section 20.04.140(d) the only restriction on glossy paint is in regards to paints used on the roof$ and roof vents of homes. This change could be made in the Administrative Policy for areas other than roof vents and roofs. Commissioner Rosenlund stated that he is glad that the periodic review of the Administrative Policies is on-going. He would encourage the public to become aware of the policies and to have input. He stated that in the General Plai1 there is a reference to approved colors and that might also be added in this Administrative Policy. One such area that conunonly comes up is the color of the front door of a home. Often those are painted a contrasting color to the color of the house or trim. A change to the Policy might enable people to get their front doors painted without having to go to the Plmming Conunission, simply because the chosen color is not consistent with the allowed 'emthtone' colors. Minutes of the Regular Plaiming Commission meeting May 15, 2012 Page 14ofl6

Commissioner Kenmitzer stated that in number 2) she would like stricken "Large expanses of white and off-white are generally contrary to the intent of the ordinance." She stated that language is difficult to interpret clearly. She stated that the City does not want to encourage large white mans~ons, or highly reflective buildings. However, the first sentence of number 2) should take care of this concern. · Vice-Chariman Lenzen stated that the introductory sentence of Administrative Policy 324.07 is garbled and may need some correction. Chairman Johnson stated that number 4) needs to be revised. The Plruming Commission has approved many stucco homes, as well as the use of brick and stone. Perhaps that should be reduced to only limit large areas of metal or concrete. Vice-Chairman Lenzen stated he believes that there is a section in the BMC that discourages the use of stucco. ·Planning Manager Macdonald stated that she would like to clarify that Administrative Policies do not pertain to decisions and considerations by the Pla1ming Commission. Administrative Policies are strictly directives to staff as how to characterize projects as minor or major. The findings for Design Review give the Plruming Commission the discretion to look at a wide pallete of colors and materials. What is sought here is to clarify the distinction between what may be reviewed at the staff level and what must be considered by the Commission. Deputy City Attorney Longfellow stated that BMC Section 20.040. l 40(b) states that materials such as stucco must be used in moderation. The Planning Commission would still be required to review applications that exceed nioderate use of those materials. Planning Manager Macdonald replied that in the Policy, number 4) refers to walls, riot patios. Chairman Johnson stated that number 6) refers to the colors of stone pavers and veneers being "primarily darker colors." Currently there are many lighter colors being requested, such as light travertine materials. Perhaps reference to 'darker colors' should be deleted. Conunissioner Hart stated that street should require Design Review . . Commissioner Rosenlund stated that the Plruming Conunission has already reviewed street light designs several times in the past. Commissioner Campbell asked ru·e the restrictions on brick ru1d stone as building materials related to the policies in the General Plan? Plmming Manager Macdonald replied those specifications have been in the Design Review Ordinance since 1989. During the General Plan amendment process, a Visual Preference Survey was conducted with the community. Photographs of homes in adjacent communities were presented for comment and were rru1ked. Generally, the brick Georgian mansion style of building was not found to be appropriate to the Belvedere streetscape and lru1dscape. Commissioner Campbell stated that if the stone in the Heidelberger homes had been discouraged that would not have been good. Plaiming Mru1ager Macdonald replied that the Planning Commission would have had wider discretion in that case had that been under discussion. Open public hearing. Minutes of the Regular Planning Conu11ission meeting May 15, 2012 Page 15of16

Sharon Winslow, 337 Belvedere Avenue, stated that there are homes with colors outside of these policies all over Belvedere. There are Victorians, and the big Mission style house on the top of Belvedere Island. Does the City want staff, on a blanket basis, discouraging people from considering anything outside gray or brown earthtone or woodtone colors? Commissioner Wilson .stated that he once had a discussion with a neighbor who wanted to paint . their home white. They were unable to take the time to go to the Plaiming Commission in order to request this, so they did not paint the house that color. He stated that we should not want to create a situation that discourages people from requesting their first choices, that they believe are best for the architecture of their projects, because they do not want to have to go to the Planning Commission to make such a request. On the other hand, there is an appropriate need to have the Conu11ission have the discretion to review some choices that could not be easily handled at a staff level. Conunissioner Kenmitzer stated she is hopeful that perhaps by continuing to work on increasing the kinds of applications that staff can approve, the number of projects that are not within that newly formulated staff approval mea will be reduced. If successful in this effort, then there may be a reduced number of applications before the Commission, ai1d thereby a faster process for those applicants whose projects may need to come to the O:nnmission: Deputy City Attorney Longfellow stated that the Ordinance currently states that aiiy colors outside the "soft and muted colors in earthtone and woodtone rai1ge" are only acceptabie if the Planning Commission makes that determination. The Ordinai1ce would have to be modified if that is the direction that the Conunission wai1ts to pursue. Conunissioner Wilson stated that he believes that the streai11 ·of projects being considered by the Commission might be reduced with some modifications to this Administrative Policy. Harry Somerfield, 339 San Rafael Avenue, stated that the color issue is one of the sticky wickets. He painted his home 'terra cotta' and that color was controversial. The approved pallete needs to be specific. There should be an official color chip book that shows the spectrum of colors that may be allowed by the City. Ms. Wheaton asked would the Conunission like to malce a recommendation to the City Council for changes to the Administrative Policy for Colors and Materials as discussed tonight? The Conunission discussed, and lll1ai1imously agreed that they would like to continue to discuss Item 7b at the next meeting, to review revisions as discussed tonight. Plruming Manager Macdonald requested that the Conunission make a motion regarding Item 7 Administrative Procedure for Permitted Design Review Chai1ges. MOTION: To recommend the adoption of a new Procedure (to be implemented inm1ediately) to allow Design Review Changes Prior to Building Permit per tonight's discussion. MOVED BY: Rosenlund, seconded by Kenmitzer

VOTE: Ayes: Johnson, Wilson, Hart, Campbell, Len~en, Rosenlund, Kemnitzer Noes: None Recused: None Abstain: None Absent: None Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting May 15, 2012 Page 16of16

Chairman Johnson stated that at the next meeting, the Conunission will be electing a Chairman and Vice-Chairman. If aii.y Commissioners wish to discuss the time requirements and the duties with her she would be available to ailSwer questions.

G. A.DJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. APPROVED :/~ /::in ,01P1 ( Maureen J olmson, Chairman ATTEST:~~ · L,eslie Carpentiers, City Clerk