_Minutes_July 27, 2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 July 27, 2022 Commissioner Nibert asked the driver behind consideration of modifications. Ms. Clark noted a project built a several years ago where a disabled resident faced challenges in the useability of a unit, therefore, the condition was developed in an effort to have the developer include enhanced accessibility (versus adaptability) upfront. She stated the standard condition of approval had been in place since 2017, and the City Council was seeking improvements. In response to Commissioner Nibert’s questions, Mr. Queirolo explained the uniform checklist for single family; definition of accessible showers and tubs; negotiating conditions of approval to address features for hearing-impaired persons; and “mandatory to install” versus “mandatory to offer” items. Ms. Clark explained the 15-unit threshold for multi-family projects (aligned to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance), and the number of disabled residents in Pleasanton per the 2020 Census. Commissioner Allen asked about the design of bathtubs and mandatory to offer items. Mr. Queirolo explained the intent of the standard to facilitate transferring into bathtubs. He confirmed the requirement for accessible showers and bathtubs. Ms. Clark stated the Planning Commission was to determine the range of accessibility features and could propose an alternative to that suggested by staff. Chair Pace asked the definition of custom home. Mr. Queirolo explained the definition of custom home and exemption from the Universal Design ordinance pursuant to State code. Chair Pace stated he was reluctant to propose something that would create potential litigation. Ms. Clark explained the opportunity to negotiate with developers and encourage additional accessibility options. She stated the risk was reduced because both the City and developer would have mutually agreed on the condition of approval, versus its imposition by the City. Vice Chair Gaidos asked how often units were sold before construction. He suggested erring on the side of less restrictive requirements on developers. Ms. Clark stated subdivisions currently under construction had been securing buyers prior to the determining point for accessibility options. She discussed the model ordinance which was written to allow jurisdictions to determine the level of requirements. Mr. Queirolo discussed the 2022 Code requirements. In response to Commissioner Morgan, Mr. Que irolo explained the components of accessible tubs including dimensions, grab bars, removable seat, and handheld shower head. Commissioner Nibert suggested a higher percentage of adaptable units and modifications to the checklist for included and optional items. Commissioner Allen proposed modifications to the mandatory and optional bathtub components. Mr. Queirolo suggested a developer would probably install standard tubs with the ability to add features such as grab bars. Commissioner Allen proposed requiring 5% adaptable units to include roll in showers, with the other 5% optional. Commissioner Nibert con curred but suggested requiring 10% adaptable units. Commissioner Allen stated she was open to up to 15% but sensitive that it could drive up costs. Vice Chair Gaidos discussed the difficulty with installing a recessed shower pan after the fact and suggested requiring a percentage on ground floor units. Chair Pace confirmed that only ground floor units of non-elevator buildings were considered “covered” units.