_Minutes_December 9, 2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Allen requested additional information on the specific legislation to understand where the greatest risk and focus should be. Ms. Clark explained that State law only allowed application of objective standards to housing projects within residentially zoned areas, as a basis for approval. Commissioner Allen inquired if the standard would apply to a once vacant parcel proposed to be built as a single-family residence. Ms. Clark confirmed adding that was in part why it was important to establish standards in addition to the existing regulations. Commissioner Allen asked if Mr. Williams and his team knew of other cities that had addressed the standards and if they could provide an example of best practices in objective design standards as to not reinvent the wheel. Ms. Clark stated that Mr. Williams and his team had worked with many cities, making them a great resource for Pleasanton. Mr. Williams further clarified that his team looked at best practices. He explained that almost every city was considering developing a new set of objective design standards and he wanted to help refine the City's existing standards. He stated they were working with the City of San Jose on its standards and would be able to, over time, share examples of a variety of objective design standards being incorporated into communities all over California. He discussed consideration by other cities of PUD ordinances and the need to ensure PUDs were not used to evade the objective design standards. Chair Ritter asked if there was a template that the City could use when developing its objective design standards. Mr. Williams stated the State originally suggested it would create a template, but it had not yet. He discussed various strategies being used by different cities to comply with state legislation. He stated Pleasanton already had a clear document which would be expanded upon since it was already tailored to the community. He mentioned that seven or eight different communities in Marin County were using the same template, but tailoring it to their specific needs, and though his team would look at it as an example, those communities are much more rural than Pleasanton. Commissioner O'Connor inquired whether the tour referred to during the presentation was what was disseminated earlier that day. Ms. Clark confirmed and acknowledged the late delivery, noting that it was not expected that the Commissioners would have read and digested it all before the meeting, but the intent of providing it was to give a basic familiarity with the format and content of the tour. She stated the online survey for the tour would arrive in the coming week. Commissioner Brown inquired whether, when submitting the online survey, it was spontaneous, or if he could go back and modify it later. Mr. Andrew Faulkner of Van Meter Williams Pollack explained that modifications could be made prior to pressing the "submit" button. Commissioner Brown then asked if the Commission should be thinking in terms of an objective design standard versus opportunity areas. Mr. Williams requested the Commission determine successful developments representing Pleasanton so his team could develop rules around achieving similar successful developments. He explained the proposed process of transitioning the preferences into standards and goal to create quality development that fit the style and feel of Pleasanton. Commissioner Pace inquired if the standards being provided were real life examples relative to the standards that Mr. Williams had judged as successful or not, and whether the Commissioners were to review to see if they were aligned with the designation. Mr. Williams Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 7 December 9, 2020