PC 090821 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Allen suggested the standard require greater than two percent of high-quality materials, particularly for market-based housing. She stated she wanted to ensure quality materials on the upper floors. Chair Brown clarified that the standard read two percent of total exterior and 20 percent of ground floor exterior facades. Chair Brown asked if color palette could be specified. Ms. Clark suggested a limit on over-use of bright accent colors. Mr. Williams stated he could provide an suggestion for a standard or guideline on special materials and colors as a percentage of an overall building. Commissioner Morgan discussed the requirements for objective standards and asked if there was some opportunity for subjective review in the context of building colors. Ms. Clark stated it would be difficult to have an enforceable standard, but suggested a guideline could be effective; in her experience developers were generally willing to implement color changes since they do not greatly impact design or cost. Commissioner Allen referenced the recent high density residential project near the east BART station, and prior Commission comments on lack of high-quality materials. She questioned whether the two percent should be higher. Mr. Williams stated he would review that suggestion. Ms. Clark mentioned a conversation she had with Commissioner Morgan about making the language related to Significant Architectural Elements on page 39 more clear, and that she agreed the wording could be improved. Commissioner Nibert mentioned photographs of gateway corners in the previous guidelines on Page 50, which were not shown in the new standards. Mr. Williams stated he would look for the photographs. Ms. Clark stated Commissioner Morgan had also pointed out confusion with parking screening and indicated staff would clarify the three treatments. Chair Brown questioned the wall height and landscape screening. Ms. Clark explained that either a wall or dense screening could be used. Chair Brown asked if the 25 percent screening would scale down for small projects. Mr. Williams clarified the intent to limit parking to 25 percent along the frontage of a development. He indicated it was a typical standard and not difficult for a developer to meet. Commissioner Nibert discussed the requirement for photovoltaic shade structures for vehicular and bicycle parking. Mr. Williams stated it was somewhat unique but he had seen it being added in conjunction with the Building Reach Codes. Commissioner Nibert suggested defining Class I, Class II, and the APBP Bicycle Parking Guidelines. Commissioner Nibert also pointed out that the reference in A7.4 regarding minimum depths should be to A2.5. Mr. Williams stated he would review and correct if necessary. Commissioner Gaidos stated he viewed the January 13, 2021 Work Session and agreed that utility screening was important. Commissioner Allen concurred. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 10 September 8, 2021 buildings and properties in the area. Ms. Clark explained these were guidelines rather than standards, since the City might not always want to emulate the surrounding vicinity, depending on the type of uses that were adjacent. She stated the guideline allowed flexibility to consider each project in context. Commissioner Morgan asked if other cities had come up with good standards or if they were scrambling to meet State's requirements. Mr. Williams stated most communities were in the same situation as Pleasanton, scrambling to develop standards to meet the State's requirements by developing objective design standards and procedures. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 10 September 8, 2021