03 ATTACHMENT 3 - Laserfiche WebLink

detailing, and no significant changes in plane to its fa9ades contributed to a less than desirable appearance. •Way Finding: A Commissioner commented that the Mason Flats at Township Square project was easy to navigate, and that it felt safe and comfortable as a pedestrian. While most participants of the self-guided tour found the Vintage Apartments project to have sufficient landmark features for wayfinding, one Commissioner and one member of the public found it easy to get lost in the project. •Utility Equipment: Most participants of the self-guided tour indicated that utility equipment (such as AC units) had an intrusive impact at the Andares project, as was also the case at the project located at 536 St. John Street. •Public Spaces/Plazas: None of the participants of the self-guided tour thought the plaza at the Galloway project, located adjacent to the crossing at the BART station, provided an active and usable space; instead, the consensus was that the area is not successfully designed and is a missed opportunity near a major transit stop. •Successful Project Elements: Generally, the use of high-quality materials contributed to the success of some projects (e.g., Andares, use of brick at Mason Flats). Also, as was discussed regarding the Vintage Apartments, the density from the public right-of-way appears less than actual density of project, either because of good quality design or because the density is "tiered," where the buildings with greater density are located farther away from the street, allowing less dense buildings to front public-facing areas. Less prominent garages were thought to be successful, as was quality architecture and streetscape. •Least Successful Project Elements: Projects that have prominent garages facing street/public right-of-way, reducing emphasis to pedestrian entries, were thought of to be less successful. The Commission liked the concept of increasing the size of open space by placing vehicular parking underground. For some projects, such as three story units located at 730 Peters Avenue and the Galloway project near BART, the building colors were not found to be compatible with surroundings. The concept of consistent and detailed design treatment on all four sides of a building was a comment raised after visiting the project at 536 St. John Street. •Other Comments: Comments related to the usability of balconies and other private open space areas were raised regarding several projects, as was the concept of maximizing outdoor living. The Commission also thought that streetscape and public views of projects are of most importance and should be prioritized over internal site design. DISCUSSION As noted, the process of developing objective design standards will be completed in several steps. The first of these is to prepare draft revisions to the existing Housing Site Development Standards and Design Guidelines -the review of these initial red line revisions is the purpose of this meeting. Then, at a later date, and utilizing the revised existing document as a starting point, the revisions will ultimately be expanded/adjusted to address all of the housing sites identified in the 6th Cycle update, and to cover smaller-scale multifamily infill projects. P20-0989, Objective Design Standards Planning Commission 5 of 14