My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
3
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2021
>
09-08
>
3
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/1/2021 12:53:27 PM
Creation date
9/1/2021 12:52:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
9/8/2021
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
3_Exhibit A
(Attachment)
Path:
\BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\AGENDA PACKETS\2020 - PRESENT\2021\09-08
3_Exhibit B
(Attachment)
Path:
\BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\AGENDA PACKETS\2020 - PRESENT\2021\09-08
3_Exhibit C
(Attachment)
Path:
\BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\AGENDA PACKETS\2020 - PRESENT\2021\09-08
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
without any discretionary review); and for other types of projects, to the extent the City may <br /> have discretion to approve or deny an application, such approval or denial may only be based <br /> on conformance to objective, uniformly verifiable standards. <br /> As mentioned in the Executive Summary section of this report, the City is undertaking the effort <br /> to modify existing subjective standards into those that are objective, starting with the 2012 <br /> Housing DG, which are anticipated to ultimately include sites that are rezoned as part of the <br /> current (6th Cycle) Housing Element update. Additionally, having applied these existing <br /> Housing DG to a number of projects since adoption of the document, there are areas where <br /> staff and the consultants suggest guidance could be improved or augmented to ensure that the <br /> document is comprehensive. Because additional sites for 6th Cycle Housing Element have not <br /> yet been selected, and because they may warrant some site-specific considerations to be <br /> reflected in the updated Housing DG, staff recommends waiting to adopt the comprehensive <br /> set of revised guidelines until the list of 6th Cycle sites is finalized. <br /> As noted, it is also a key goal of this effort to ensure an appropriate set of objective standards <br /> are in place for smaller-scale multifamily residential development, since similar requirements of <br /> state law limit (or are expected to further limit) the City's discretionary review authority. Thus, in <br /> the near future, staff will be bringing forward to the Commission objective design standards for <br /> other types of residential development, such as two-, three-, and four-plexes. Although staff <br /> believes it would be advisable to develop and adopt a comprehensive set of standards for <br /> smaller-scale projects, along with the above-mentioned larger multifamily project standards, it <br /> may make sense to accelerate some selected standards, such as those applicable to projects <br /> developed under SB 9 if it is passed into law. <br /> Design Training <br /> The Planning Commission participated in a design training led by VMWP in January 2019 that <br /> focused on critical issues and best practices for project review, including site planning, design <br /> concepts and architectural design considerations for both larger-scale and smaller-scale infill <br /> projects. As part of the exercise, VMWP provided a critique of recent projects in Pleasanton. <br /> This critique generally found that most projects had met the goal and intent of the 2012 <br /> Housing DG and were generally well-designed and livable projects, a point of view with which <br /> the Commission concurred. <br /> However, VWMP did note a few areas of possible improvement in some projects, such as <br /> paying more attention to transitions/interface between commercial and residential portions of <br /> mixed-use projects, upholding the hierarchy of streets and thoroughfares that was <br /> compromised in some instances, and recognizing tradeoffs in site planning, vehicular parking, <br /> and range of unit types and densities. <br /> Self-Guided Tour <br /> As noted above, the Planning Commission and members of the public were invited to <br /> participate in a self-guided tour of recently constructed projects of varying size and density, <br /> with the goal of determining key area of interest and concern for the development of the <br /> objective design standards. The tour also provided an opportunity for in-person observations of <br /> the projects and provide both general feedback and respond to specific questions about each <br /> site. <br /> P20-0989, Objective Design Standards Planning Commission <br /> 3 of 14 <br />