03 ATTACHMENT 3 - Laserfiche WebLink

The self-guided site tour consisted of seven locations, two of which consisted of smaller-scale infill sites located downtown and others were larger-scale developments throughout the city. The input provided by three Planning Commissioners that completed the online questionnaire was discussed at the January 13, 2021, meeting, along with feedback provided at the meeting itself. Since the Planning Commission meeting, two members of the public completed the questionnaire. The aggregate of the feedback from the questionnaire is summarized in Exhibit C, which also includes the January 13 approved meeting minutes and agenda report). Generally, as suggested by the discussion of the January 13, 2021, meeting, the Planning Commission and the members of the public found some projects on the site tour to be better projects than others, with responses organized around the following topics as follows. Note that the below list is not exhaustive; please see Exhibit C for a more comprehensive summary of all comments received: •Site Planning: While the use of the alley at the project located at 536 St. John Street received mixed responses, two Commissioners found the circulation for the Irby Ranch project to be confusing and awkward; one Commissioner attributed this to the mix of alleys and streets combined with the positioning of homes along these areas. A Commissioner thought the paseos at the Andares project were particularly helpful in contributing to an easy-to-navigate site plan. •Parking: A question regarding a preference for either single-or double-car driveways downtown received split responses when asked in context of the project at 730 Peters Avenue; one Commissioner commented that the vehicular parking facilities (i.e., driveway and garage) are too prominent and resulted in the loss of significant public street parking. Several members of the Planning Commission and a member of the public liked the underground parking at the Vintage Apartments project located at the intersection of Stanley Boulevard and Bernal and Valley Avenues, and one pointed out that this facilitated a larger common open space area. While a member of the public like the fact that parking spaces were numbered at the Galloway located near the BART station, a Commissioner found that vehicular parking at the project was too visible. •Building Orientation: All questionnaire respondents indicated that they would like homes to face other homes when asked about the Irby Ranch project. A Commissioner liked that garages faced other garages at the Mason Flats located at Township Square. Also, four out of five respondents to the on line questionnaire (including two Planning Commissioners) indicated that homes and entries should be required to face other entries, open spaces, or streets. •Building Articulation, Materials, Detailing, and Design: Commissioners generally liked the architecture and materials used at the Vintage Apartments and Mason Flats at Township Square projects. One member of the public was critical of the Vintage Apartments project, concluding that it lacked architectural detailing and articulation of its rooflines. Both members of the public that commented on the on line questionnaire thought the materials and building articulation for the Andares project to be well-done and effective. The Commissioners and members of the public were most critical of the appearance of the Galloway project, citing that its materials, color palette, lack of P20-0989, Objective Design Standards Planning Commission 4 of 14