5_Exhibit C - Laserfiche WebLink

Excerpt: Approved Planning Commission Minutes, September 8, 2021 Page 2 of 9 Commissioner Pace thanked staff for its work and expressed appreciation for the analysis. He questioned what happened if certain standards were not specified. Ms. Clark explained the State was removing cities’ discretion regarding aesthetics and compatibility in its streamlining efforts. She stated the standards scope and level of detail should provide comprehensive guidelines while not overregulating each aspect. Commissioner Pace expressed concern with being overly prescriptive with the State mandating regulations to require building. He discussed the need to balance between too much detail without losing control as a city. Ms. Clark discussed the need for practical standards without being overly restrictive and precluding construction. Commissioner Allen thanked the team for its work and thoughtful approach. She stated she believed the standards were stronger than before but wanted to be reasonable and consistent with other cities. She asked if the 10-foot setback allowed for a five-foot porch with a five-foot setback. Mr. Williams confirmed that to be correct. Commissioner Allen asked if a tiered setback had been considered. Mr. Williams explained the need to consider the street design and width. He stated taller buildings were most frequently adjacent to larger streets with street tree canopies that provided a buffer. He explained the setback on taller buildings would reduce the overall visual height. Commissioner Allen expressed concern about having taller buildings on streets where it was not appropriate. She asked about parking requirements and suggested consideration of building density. Mr. Williams explained the 1.5 parking space per unit requirement as a blended ratio, reflecting a range of unit sizes, and that fewer studios were being built in market rate projects. He stated a caveat could be created to address a lesser parking ratio for a project with a larger proportion of studios or smaller units. Commissioner Allen asked if the standards were designed for market rate housing rather than affordable housing. Mr. Williams explained the reduced parking ratio was based on market rate housing, since different parking standards were specified by the State for certain affordable projects. Commissioner Morgan asked about the desire for architectural features to reflect other 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. Chair Brown commended staff and the consultant on developing specific standards. He referenced Part 3 development standards and design guidelines and asked if the standards provided a minimum feasible site size for high density housing. Mr. Williams