Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'm going to call this meeting to order. Um um I'd like roll call, please. Um Commissioner um Deorgio present. Commissioner Mason present. Commissioner Radnich present. I believe Vice Chair Deming is going to be here late, so we'll call him not present yet. And Chair Leange, I'm here. I'm present. Um, can I have a a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? So moved. I'll second. All in favor? I I motion carries 40.

Um, do we have any public comments that are not on tonight's agenda? We have no speakers in the room for items not on the agenda. Checking online. If you would like to speak to the commission for up to three minutes on an item that is not on tonight's agenda, please go ahead and raise your hand. Seeing none, okay, I will close public comments then. Um, uh, for our consent calendars, does anyone have anything they want to amend, adjust, question? And otherwise I'd like motion to um adopt the consent calendar. Please.

I move that we adopt the consent calendar. Second. All in favor? I motion carries 40. Um new public hearing objective design standards says here it will only take about 20 minutes. So I'm excited. So, I'll turn it over to Steph.

I make no claim to the 20 minute notation. Um, hello. My name is Arley Cassidy, senior planner for the city. Um, we're here to talk about objective design standards. And before I turn it over to the consultant for the main presentation, I just wanted to give some background information. Um, I thought I'd start it off with asking what are objective standards and how are they used because that might not be clear to the average user or reader. Um so development standards as differentiated from design standards regulate the general shape of development such as height or setbacks. These are things that are already in our code per uh zoning district. Design standards on the other hand which is what we're talking about tonight regulate the design architecture and layout of a site such as building massing and articulation windows and balconies and colors and materials. These are some of the titles of the boards that are in the back of the room tonight um that talk about these subjects in more detail. State law now requires that certain development applications such as SB35 be reviewed using only objective standards. No discretionary review is required or allowed. These standards will apply to multif family and mixeduse development throughout the city. However, if a project applies for a density bonus, they can use concessions and waiverss to avoid individual standards. The rest of the objective design standards would still apply if they're not using one to avoid using to avoid applying it. With this in mind, the DRC working group had the goal of making the ODS describe good design without being so honor ownerous as to push development towards the density bonus path. So that's kind of the framework that we're in for the document. Um and then just to look briefly at um some background of this thrust, which is phase two of ODS. Um back in uh 2019, the city object adopted objective design

standards phase one for multif family and mixeduse with residential projects. We've been using them since then, but back in um 2024 and 2025, the city adopted its six cycle housing element and immediately updated the general plan land use element and zoning to align with this new housing element. Now, the city is turning to phase two of the objective design standards to expand its functionality um and to comply with state law requiring that only objective standards be applied to ministerial review. implementing this adopting phase two of ODS is in fact one of the programs of the housing element. So phase two the process began in June 2025. There was a joint study session which you likely participated in with the city council planning commission and DRC um where DRC was directed to work with staff and our consultant to develop the draft document. um DRC met as a whole and formed a working group to execute that directive. And that working group met three times this fall with the consultant and staff to develop the draft document you have before you. On November 20th, the DRC held a full meeting and an openhouse to invite the public for comment and feedback and allow the full body of the DRC to review the document and offer its own feedback. DRC did make some minor changes to the document um and also voted to append these display boards in the room to the draft ODS document and it was attached in your staff report for your review or excuse me the board's PDF version were were attached. Um the DRC then voted to forward uh the document to the planning commission uh with the recommendation of approval. Now I do want to note that previously I had communicated that the planning commission may not be reviewing this. We were thinking about taking uh the document from DRC straight to the city council for review. Um but since then we determined that the objective design standards should live in the code

and be adopted formally as part of the municipal code. As such the required review path includes the planning commission and so we're now taking it to you to gain your feedback and input onto the document given that this will be part of our municipal code. So tonight the planning commission will be reviewing the document and the boards um and can offer its feedback and review. If the planning commission feels that the document is ready, you can vote to forward the objective design standards to the city council with a recommendation of approval. If not, we can continue the item to the next available meeting which would be January 5th. I want to note as described further in the staff report that no SQA action is required given that this is implementing the housing element which was already um completely analyzed under SQA. So with that I'd like to introduce Monica Sidlick and Cal Kurtz from Lisa Wise Consulting who will give the presentation tonight. Thank you. Thank you Harley. I'd like to make sure that my um screen is projecting. Okay. Great. Um so thank you Arley. Um Cal and I are glad to be here um before you. Um um as you know we are from Lisa Wise Consulting and we've been working with uh the city of Lafayette for uh a little over a year now. Um and as Ari mentioned we were last here in June. Um and since then have developed this public draft or now hearing draft um objective design

standards. Uh so the team has been Greg and and Arley um David director at Lisa Wise Consulting, myself and Cal. Um and just as a quick reminder, Lisa Wise Consulting is we're a land use economics um and planning implementation firm. Um and Cal and I are both here in the Bay Area and we do a lot of housing elements and a whole lot of objective design standards as well as code updates. So all things zoning. So, we're really glad to have been working with uh Lafayette over the last a little bit more than a year, and we're glad to um present these design standards to you all. So, we have a short presentation here. We'll do a quick um background on this particular project. We'll talk a little bit about the process that led us to the design standards in your packet. We'll go through the standards themselves briefly. um and then we'd love to hear from you about them. So, as I said, we've been working with the city of Lafayette for a little over a year. So, backing up a bit, as you know, we began with some reszoning that was required to implement the housing element that the community worked so hard on. Uh so we did uh we worked on the reszoning primarily to develop zones to support the the 60 dwelling unit per acre zones uh densities required by the housing element. Um and the policies listed here. Um and then after those amendments uh zoning amendments and general plan land use element amendments were adopted in January, we began the second effort which is updating the objective design standards. the design standards that the city already adopted back in 2019, but

understanding that we needed to rethink them to make sure that they would support the uh the new zones, the higher density zones, and also revisit them so that they wouldn't apply just to the downtown specific plan area as the current Oz do, but to any and all zones throughout the city that support multif family and mixeduse development. So, this is um a snapshot of the process that we've gone through since we kicked off this project in April. Um you recall we saw you here in June. We did all of our research, made our findings at your direction. We met with the design review commission working group several times in the fall. We had the openhouse last month and now we're here um at the first hearing. Okay. So, a quick recap on ODS uh which Arley already went through um but just a couple of items to refresh our memory. ODS is really in response to SP330 and the required ministerial pathway that the state that the state requires for multif family and mixeduse projects. So a ministerial pathway is required. ODS aren't required but they're encouraged um so that there are standards by which projects can be reviewed in an object in a a streamlined manner um instead of discretionary review. So the advantages are that ODS removes uncertainty from the review and approval process because applicants know what they're expected to

comply with. And then um the standards encourage developers to follow the ODS in order to achieve that ministerial um predictable streamline pathway. And then most importantly for the community, the objective design standards are an opportunity for for the whole community to identify what it really wants to see instead of hammering it out over a lengthy discretionary review process. So the little flowchart on the right shows the options if a project complies with all the zone standards meaning the basic development standards F height density setback and all the objective design standards. It goes through this ministerial review pathway that we have to provide. If a project complies with all the basic development standards, height, setbacks, F, density, but not the objective design standards, then it still goes to the regular discretionary review path that exists today and always has. If a project doesn't apply doesn't uh comply with any of these, including the basics, meaning height, setback, then it would typically require a variance. So, as I mentioned, these standards will apply all in every zone that supports multif family and mixed use. So, as you can see in this portion of um the updated zoning map, this is basically that the browns and peaches and reds and purples. So, it's it's the downtown, but it's also a few scattered sites that we reszoned at the end of last year, beginning of this year. Okay, we'll talk a little bit about the

process that we've gone through. Um, first and foremost, we've got to make sure that we're consistent with all the policies that are on the books. So, we documented and combed through relevant uh land use policies to make sure that we're consistent with what what these guiding principles and policies are that this community has already um established. We looked through all applicable zone uh planning documents. So the downtown specific plan um and all the uh the policies and the design guidance provided within. We looked at the design downtown design guidelines. So of course they're not objective but they provide a lot of good guidance, right? They tell us what the community wants to see and what the community values. So, we carefully documented and combed through the what we saw in the in this um in this document, thinking specifically about how to achieve these guidelines on the sites that we're looking at and in projects that achieve the densities that we're looking at. So this slide just uh identifies a lot of the specific elements that we pulled from that document. Okay. So we looked at existing and recent and proposed projects. We looked at how they were received by the community. We looked at um how um sort of what the design review um process and planning commission review what what came out of those what what were the changes that were required what were the discussions like what came up what's on the community's mind just so we know we could get a sense for what are the priorities what what are people looking at and what do people care about.

Um, and we took a look at all of the specific the uh the details. We looked at how do these buildings come together and what and what are the um the design components that the community is is pointing out or that the community is maybe taking issue with. We looked at the existing design standards and we just picked them apart. So we we measured recent projects up against them. We um started developing our own massing models to see okay now we we see what these standards are. But now if we're looking at 60 dwelling unit per acre buildings, how do they how do they work? How do they where do they perhaps uh pose some constraints? But we saw that they address design of open space and lots of budding creeks and landscape design. In some case it's by points versus simple yes or no. A lot about landscaping, bicycle parking. And then some standards about facade um massing and articulation. Um elevations that face streets. Um and then um shaving down upper stories of buildings. Um and then we we had already looked at these in developing the basic development standards for the new zones. We did so again with an eye towards design and understanding from the community what sort of design features you're looking for. Uh we came here to speak with you in June along with the council and the DRC and we heard a lot of good feedback. Um we've jotted them down on this slide here. We heard that the points aren't

really working well. Um we heard we had some heard some good hints about what to address and what you all would like to see required in the standards. Um we heard that we don't want to overregulate too much. Um perhaps the most uh impactful piece of uh direction that we came out of that meeting with is that you um requested that we work with the with a subcommittee a subgroup working group of the DRC. So we did that um over a series of three meetings that Arley mentioned in the fall. Um and we really talked about everything in those meetings. They were very hands-on. We sketched a lot. We looked at a lot of images. We talked about a lot of projects. We talked about everything in those meetings. Um the focus or perhaps the the bullets that you see on these slides and um the two working group members um Glenn and Richard and Cal and I and the staff were a very collaborative team in um in developing what's Before You. And then on November 20th, we presented these to the community. We went back to the full DRC and we modified a little bit and refined a little bit. So that's the the draft that's before you. Uh now I'll just go through the standards quickly. Um okay, so it starts so this this draft is intended to be inserted as a new chapter in your zoning code, chapter 639. and uh we anticipate it would be called objective design standards for multif family and mixeduse development. Um it starts with purpose statements again pulled from the existing source material that we talked about um and reviewed with the the working group.

Um so starting from big to small essentially uh we looked at massing how do we how do we want to sort of chunk out buildings uh based on site size and building size. So we developed standards for buildings over 100 ft in length. Um it's um maybe wise to point out that this the graphics in the in the document each accompany one standard. Right? So the images are not intended to be here is the building that you can build this and only this. Um it's the opposite really. The standards illustrate concepts. So, for example, these are illustrating that the vertical break in the building once you get a building so long, you've got it's got to step in, right? So, uh the frontage isn't too long and it provides some relief to pedestrians and to um users of the building for buildings over 175 ft in length. Again, we looked at we looked at existing at at new and proposed projects and we looked at the sites and we looked at this the the rights of way that they face and um modified the standards as needed. And then we worked in requirements for open space either publicly accessible or common open space and worked out the required dimensions so that the um the requirements would be feasible would be workable and and would still be flexible enough to provide to allow creativity on the part of the applicant and designer. Um we introduced vertical well this one not so much introduced. This is a lot of this is taken from the the objective

design standards from 2019 but we established vertical building articulation standards but also uh varied them based on based on building height here. Um and horizontal building articulation. Um, we introduced uh options for um for ensuring that the the base versus the middle of the building are distinguished. And um also introduce standards for when a uh a building requires a b a distinguished uh visually distinct base, middle, top versus bas and middle based on height. Um and then the upper story stepbacks, we kept an existing standard in your current ODS which required that the third story be no more than 85% of the um floor area of the ground floor with that reduction along street facing elevations. Uh roof variation, we do want to um encourage uh applicants to incorporate variation in roof design to prevent long and unchanging roof lines. At the same time, we want to allow flexibility um to ensure that the densities can be supported and are feasible and um in given the standards and give applicants um options for for building design. So um we've got a range of building of roof forms and the requirements for specific roof forms when a parapet needs to change um after how many feet. um privacy uh understanding that with um

more dense projects, especially abuing single family um zones or other multif family zones, we want to be conscious of um of sight lines and privacy into primary residential buildings uh rooms. So, we introduced some privacy standards uh within 10 ft of the um aside setback line. Um and then because we're looking at mixed use, we looked at how do we ensure that the nonresidential component of mixeduse buildings encourages an an active street frontage and an inviting pedestrian environment. So we introduced uh standards for transparency and limits on blank walls for all street facing elevations. We looked at windows and worked to um to determine what's the threshold for for um amount of penistration and for window size to really be reflective of what the command is the the character of of Lafayette. Um, and we we tested out a few buildings to figure out the percentage of penistration and use that to develop the standard that's in your in the draft. And then we zoomed in closer to windows and thought about construction and how to ensure that windows look high quality and they look consistent with the buildings that you like in in Lafayette. So, what are we requiring in terms of recess or trim? Um, how to make how to make them look good essentially? Uh we looked carefully at building materials. This um we understand is a is is an important factor in how um how permanent a building looks and how high quality it looks. So we looked at some of the the materials we see in Lafayette and the materials we're seeing in new development projects in in um in

Lafayette and in the region. And we developed some standards uh about materials, permitted materials and also prohibited materials. And we took a close look at at colors and how to regulate colors. And we discussed this at length with um with a working group and developed a system to ensure that the colors um were consistent with the palette that we see and that we like in Lafayette. And we refined that further at the DRC meeting. And then we also stepped back and looked at site looked at site design. When service parking is incorporated into into a project, what do we what are the requirements? How do we want to screen um screen the parking? And where should it be located with respect to the building? And when parking is structured, what sort of standards do we want to introduce to ensure that it's not visually overwhelming um from a budding rights subway? And Luffit is is lucky and that you've got uh creeks and trails through the downtown. So we want to acknowledge that and um ensure that new development capitalizes on this resource and um um and provides continuous pathways and access to these resources. Um and then street facing yards. We pulled this from um from the existing ODS to the the standards for landscaping requirement in the front yard. And that's the summary of the standards before you and we look forward to uh to hearing your thoughts.

Great. Thank you for that presentation. Um uh so what was that chair? I just wonder if I could add one thing. Um I just wanted to call attention to the fact that our uh design review commission vice chair Richard Stanton has joined us and is available for questions if you're curious about why the draft document has a specific regulation in it. he was there in the room as it was developed. Thank you so much and thank you for being here, Richard.

And so unlike uh so we'll discuss or first we'll ask questions if we have any then discuss and then it'll I assume it'll be interactive as opposed to um and then we'll go from there. So does anyone have clarifying questions? Let's start with that first. Or maybe they could just be the same since we're just going to be talking. So if you have questions Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Let's start with clarifying questions and public comment then we'll come back. Is that the Yeah. Okay. Clarifying questions, right?

Yeah. Unless it's a clarifying question. Yes. Uh I mean I guess I meant like we're not discussing. It's a like you didn't understand what something was said.

Um somewhat confused about that. you use for the previous round for the buildings we used objective and subjective. This time you use discretionary instead of subjective but we have objective which may or may not be requirements but for things like sighting and stuff like that we have objective which are hard and fast requirements. And I'm wondering am I reading that right? Go ahead. Um, yeah, there's a lot of a lot of planning terminology. Um, and it because it's in response to recent legislation is changing fast. So maybe it helps to clarify a ministerial pathway is one that's sort of streamlined and only based on objective standards versus a discretionary review process uses guidelines, uses subjective findings.

Well, yeah. And I'm I'm fine with that that whole concept, but where I'm saying is

it seems like you built in a little wiggle room. Okay, we they come in, they meet the intent of these new objective standards, but you know, instead of 10-ft setbacks, they have 8 foot setbacks or something like that. And I'm wondering where is it hard and fast? Is it intended to be hard and fast or is it intended to uh, you know, just kind of meet the intent of what what you're saying, what you want? I'm afraid of essentially a mission creep.

I can I can maybe take that. The intent of creating objective standards is that they are very hard and fast.

The the lynch pin here is objective. Um it needs to be crisp so that any person reading it would come to the same conclusion. Um, we don't want there and you you you use the word intent and there actually shouldn't be intent. There should because that implies that there's some kind of interpretation. There should just be is the building red or not. You know, it it needs every single requirement should be able to be answered with a yes or no. Not mostly. That's that's where we get into trouble. And so, you know, we already do discretionary review with some objective standards like height or setbacks. They're hard numbers that must be complied with. And if they're not, they can apply for a variance. What's different here is if they're not complying with the objective design standards, is they would no longer be allowed to use that pathway.

Okay. Thank you. That's what I was hoping to hear. I was afraid that we're using objective two different ways in two different needs to be very crisp. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate. Okay. Any other qualifying question? All right. Maybe we go to public comment now then. Open this to public comment. You have any questions? Please come on up.

Our first speaker is Elliot Hudson. Good evening, commissioners. Uh before I start, um a lot of meetings there is a um limitation of 3 minutes. Um I'd like to ask for about another minute. Um I'm the only public speaker here. This is a very important topic. So I would like to have about another minute. So four. Okay. I think we could swing that.

All right. Thank you. Uh in evaluating the draft objective design standards, let's start with the basics. The standards single most important purpose is to govern the physical appearance of Lafayette for the future. Based on repeated public comment, the city council set that desired appearance when it unanimously adopted the mission statement in 2022, just a few years ago, and it said, "Make Lafayette a small town community with semi-ural ambiance. Not just nice buildings, a small town, semi-ural ambiance." That is how Lafayette residents want this town to look. measured by these that objective, these standards unquestionably fail. Two examples prove indisputably that that's true. First, if this draft were submitted by a student in an architecture class with an assignment to create a town with a small town or I'm sorry, a semi-ural look, they'd get a D at best and maybe an F. If you just pick them up and read them through, you would never conclude that a small town semi-ural ambiance is their primary objective. Nearly every illustration and photograph in the draft is a modernistic blocky square building. The minimal examples that actually fit the mission statement are presented as hardly noticeable afterthoughts. Nowhere do the standards unambiguously and clearly state that their overriding primary objective is a semi-ural ambiance. Nowhere and the written standards themselves are inadequate. Which brings me to the second proof. Take these standards and drive through Walnut Creek. This draft allows almost every modern stumpy building you will

see that's been put up in the last 10 years with the possible exception of we require a little bit more upper up uh upper floor set uh setbacks. When resident Lafayette residents say repeatedly, we don't want to be Walnut Creek, this is a Walnut Creek design handbook. How did it happen? It's not really the consultant's fault. It happened because the consultant who draft set out to draft these standards was not adequately instructed at the outset to follow the mission statement. Don't let the purpose section they just showed you fool you tonight into thinking that otherwise. They wrote the bullets, but in what they wrote, the one about semi-ural was at the bottom where almost nobody would even bother to read it. What you read was I what I sent to the design review commission three days before their last meeting. They didn't write it and they didn't do it. You want further proof? Where in that presentation did they say semi-ural? You want more proof? Where is it on these boards? Not one word. Not one single word. The consultants failed to carry out the mission statement because they were never they never made semi-roll ambiance the priority that the city council said in the mission statement it should be. So reject these standards until they're fixed which can actually be relatively easy. Too much is at stake. The very future of Lafayette stake is uh Lafayette and what people love about this town is at stake. The flat roofs on these standards are catastrophic. They're modernistic and blocky. They're stumpies. To the contrary, without exception, every semi-roll graphic that they have in here, the few they have, a number of

which I submitted, is constructed with a sloped roof or something other than a flat roof. There's too much glass surface and too many large panes. I'm almost done. The standards present 210 Lafayette Circle as an acceptable example of glass area. If that's true and you build that building more than three stories tall, you might as well be in downtown San Francisco. Okay, I'm out of time. There are other other uh reasons, too. But these standards should not be approved till they're fixed. The purpose section needs to say the primary purpose is a semi-arroll design because that's what the city council said and the design standards themselves need to be written to be true to that directive. Thank you.

Hey, Mr. Hud Hudson. Thank you. Let me ask you a question. Um, I hear what you're saying. I am not a architect. So, this to me is a little bit harder because of the idea that we're going to have a basically a mouse trap. It says if you can get through the mouse trap, you can build. So um but that's also why we outsourced it to technical people including the consultants and DRC who are are more geared to understand let's just say architecture. So here's what I want to ask you because at the beginning of your your question I wasn't hearing it. I did read your email. I did look at your exhibits. Um, do you believe all all of semi-ural the nature that you're asking for could be accomplished while while maintaining the requirements of our new housing element with 20 34 additional units in the next cycle? Do you do you believe that they both can happen?

Yes, absolutely. Semi-ural is just about what the buildings look like and so it's not a density question. It's just more of the uh focus on it being semi-ural versus what you saw today. Do I believe that that it can occur and still meet the housing element? Absolutely. Yes. Absolutely. Yes. You can make the outside of the buildings of the same volume essentially look like you want.

Okay. All right. Well, I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Some other questions. Uh, thank you for your comment. I do have a question. I'm trying to skim as you were wrapping up responding to the chair. You provided a comment and I'm hoping since you didn't speak on it just now. I'm hoping you can expand a little because I wanted to ask staff and I wanted to make the connection um for the record. somewhere in your public comment in print, you said something along the lines of, and this I'm going to ask you to expand on, uh, a recommendation in your opinion that maybe allowing taller buildings to accommodate for different roof um, pitches. Can you please either remind me where in your public comment that was or if you can expand on it in person?

Well, I'll I'm happy to expand on it. The the issue when you get to the the roofs and the flat roofs is developers will say we want the flat roofs because we get more building volume and and you know to some extent there may be some truth that I think it's not that much different if you require and I'm not an architect so forgive the terminology but if you require peaks or hips or mansurds or something like that, excuse me, you don't really have to lose a lot of volume to do that, but to the extent that you might, it would be uh in my view a very acceptable tradeoff to measure the allowable height to the top of the wall and then allow a little additional height above that to accommodate a roof that's much more in keeping with the character that Lafayette wants to be. I mean you can you know there are build the mass of buildings with the state requires makes this harder. It also makes it critically important to do everything you can. A thousand doing you know I I was involved in the argument on a thousand doing and opposed it because we didn't want buildings in Lafayette that big. The state says we have to. If you take that and you say, "Okay, we now have to allow those that building a thousand is pretty good." I mean, it does look it is consistent with the uh semi-ural character that Lafayette wants. Byron Park near on Ty Boulevard is the same. Um, you know, the uh so it's you can do it. You just have to put some thought into the exterior and there are a number of good things in this.

I appreciate that. So I think you did answer my question. It was just the clarifying your comment was. So then I guess my question to staff would be is that something if the commission, you know, chose to make a recommendation maybe for a modification, is that something that would be captured in the ODS or is that something that if the city were interested, planning commission were interested for a recommendation, it would actually be maybe in the code or something? Can you speak to that? Thank you, Mr. Hudson. Also, thank you. Well, before we go down, there's some other questions. So, go ahead. Well, first for staff

which is could you given that the state right microphone? Given that the state says we need to have certain volume, could you rank your uh preferences as far as articulation versus height versus just frontal mass so that we could understand better what your what your main goal is. I I'm sorry. I have I have two, but one is my hearing is really bad. Um

Okay. So, it you were talking about your concerns. you want to uh you talked about building height for example as something that is important is that a preferred option to lower but more massing with more articulation I'm I'm trying and more you know upper floor setbacks I'm trying to see where you to get the same amount of volume I'm trying to see where your priorities

um well again you I'm not an architect, but my my sense is that with the amount of articulation that they're talking about here that you're not necessarily giving up a lot of billion volumes. I don't really think it's a tradeoff. I don't think it's an eitheror for the the roof forms. I mean, really, if you drive through Walnut Creek and you look at these blocks after block after block after block of square blocks, it's awful. And that can be built here. There's nothing that says you can't do that. I don't think it's a trade-off of either or. I think you can fix the roofs and still have the other elements, and I don't think it's difficult to do.

Thank you. Yeah. One quick question, Mr. Hudson. One quick question for you. One more. Um, you mentioned I think just now sending in examples, photos or of buildings that you thought were maybe more semi-ural or did I misunderstand that? I I did submit examples from I met with um Commissioner Cass early on in this process and provided him with a number uh of uh examples including Town Center 2. Okay. Thousand doing Byron Park. Okay. That that's so I got it now. So you submitted it to the DRC subcommittee. Thank you. Yep.

Thank you, sir. All right. Do do you want to ask staff that?

Uh yeah. So I guess back to staff. Um, I do appreciate the public comment from Mr. Hudson regarding the roof heights. Uh, so I guess I just want to ask staff, is that something that would be captured in the ODS or is that something that if it were, you know, a recommendation that would be captured somewhere else? Both are possible. It would be staff's recommendation that we provide a different definition than what we currently have for building height within the ODS. And that's because the um issue that u Mr. Hudson is bringing up pertains to how the ODS applies to design and the ODS primarily is applying to the downtown and more developed areas. The definition we have now um measures uh our maximum height from the middle of the tallest roof form. Um so if we were to change that to the lowest end of that roof form, it would I mean we haven't analyzed it, but it could potentially substantially change what can be built in our lower density and single family residential districts. So we would recommend that if the planning commission is interested in carrying this idea forward that a definition to of height uh specific to the ODS and its application to uh projects be added to the ODS document and then that would be something that applies only when following this review path.

Thank you. Um, do we have any more public comments online or other? No more in the room, but checking online. If you would like to speak on this item, please use your raise hand button. We do have one speaker, Robert Lavoy. And Mr. Lavoy, you are able to speak. Uh, looks like you are unmuted. Please, please go ahead. We can hear you. Can you hear me? Yes.

Um, I was just uh like to seed my time to Elliot because I agree with him completely and he's more expert than me on this topic. Um, and I'm also on hold with customer service right now. So, I apologize. So, if you could do that, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lavoy. Good luck.

All right. Uh I mean, so he wanted to s give you his time. Did you need to discuss more, Mr. Hudson? I that would be three additional minutes or two and a half because he spoke for a little bit or but do you feel like you already got your point across? Okay. Thank you. All right. So, we will close public comments here. No more. Bring it back to up here. Um, go ahead.

A question for staff first. Um, so the downtown design guidelines, help me refresh me. Are are those guidelines going to be um updated? And if they're going to be updated, would they have the opportunity to show buildings that are more considered perhaps by some to be semi-ural?

Just for clarity sake, you you're speaking about the downtown design guidelines which for Yes. followed the adoption of it's an old document, right? Okay. Right. I I was I I was wondering whether that document is going to be updated or that's just the way it is. It certainly could, but I don't think that was uh part of this anticipated scope.

I'm I'm asking for the reason of getting to I appreciated Mr. Hudson's letter and he had a lot of good points in it. One of which was concerning the building building illustrations that are actually illustrating specific um uh design elements, right? But his comment was towards if you you put that in that's what people might follow. Now that may or may not be true, but my my question then is given the fact that he said he submitted pictures to the working group. Um, I wondered whether any of these illustrations should be either updated or or we put a a comment in there saying something like these these pictures intentionally illustrate design elements, not the building form or something to that nature. And um, and I was just saying, do we want to update these pictures or is it going to be somewhere else? But that's where I was going with the all that. That was just a a question. I don't know if it you've thought that through or not. We understood Mr. Elliott's comments to relate to the photos that were included in the boards that the DRC was presented with which the DRC request that would be made an appendix to the objective standards. Um, so those are certainly uh modifiable at this point in time to essentially eliminate a photo showing a flat roof building and insert a photo showing a a roof pitch building if it's appropriate to the content of the board. So, um, yes, that can be done and I think the the commission can discuss it.

Um, and hopefully we're able to locate uh and bring up on screen for you photos uh that Mr. uh Hudson spoke to.

Okay. Um then if I can move on um the the issue on the the the amount of concrete 70% figure um and I don't know if Monica or you want to talk about I don't know how much that was discussed in in the groups. I I wouldn't know how to set a percentage, you know, but does staff and or Monica, do you feel like that's too high of a number or is that um reasonable given what new developments are are using?

Monica, do you want to take that? Yeah, it's consistent with um with best practices that we would recommend so that a building doesn't look too just uh monous, monotone. Um we do Yeah, we we would advise that that would um support the amount of sort of um variation in material uh that the community is ultimately ultimately looking for. Okay. All right. Thank you.

If I could also add um I don't remember if this specific um regulation or number was part of this, but um the DRC chair Glen Cass um did take it upon himself to reach out to a number of developers before we began our meetings to understand what their perspective was. Um and uh they uh did give very valuable feedback um which of course we took with a grain of salt. um we're not going to just take their information and codify it. Um but it's very good to understand their perspective in the making of this especially given as I mentioned earlier that we're trying to make this an attractive path for developers. Um and so I think I believe that this was one of the numbers um that they uh provided feedback on that they um it's it comes down to cost um and and what they can kind of afford more easily versus what becomes more expensive. Thank you.

Let me ask a question. I think and I I feel that we're all similar here in that we're I said it earlier. I'm not a design expert. Uh I don't think anyone up here is per se, but um and that was an interesting point brought up. Um before this meeting I really struggled with how what was I going to say here because I have this feeling we're going to do it and then in 10 years we're going to say oh we made some mistakes on this aspect and maybe not on that. So that's probably going to happen no matter what. So I just had this idea because I've been trying to learn about AI more and I realize it has to do with the prompt that you asked gives you the best answer. So, I'm going to treat you like chat GPT for a second and say, if I wanted to come up with a solution that gave me a more semi-ural feeling in 10 years, what would you modify with what we have so far to get that? Now, that might not do with what was just brought up about developers wanting to get right there, but it might give us the ability to say we're with within the ability of our control at the city level telling the world what we want. If a developer comes in and says, "I want a concession. I'm doing a flat roof because that's the only way I can do it." That's beyond our control. But at least we would tell them what we want. So, back to that question, if you could answer it. So, so there's always trade-offs, right? I'd like to think that maybe chat GPT doesn't uh isn't well versed in the nuances of of the tradeoffs that a community versus developer is is uh the trade-offs they're weighing in order to ensure that development at these densities is really feasible. So, it may

come down to the details and that's um really why these standards focus on materials and colors and window construction. Um, we're looking for we're we're picking up on what we see in the community and what we've read in design review and what we've discussed with Glenn and Richard and this the city staff to um to to describe details that give buildings a a look and feel that that is familiar and that hopefully gets at what we understand as semi-ural. At the same time, the bigger picture uh or larger scale I should say building massing and the flexibility that we want to allow developers when it comes to volumes and floor plates and plate height of um ceilings, right? We and and roof form really because we know that adds cost. We want to be able to say in all honesty that we're not demanding uh design elements that that really reasonably could be considered would be considered to be constraints to achieving these densities.

Okay. But but um there's always a balance like you said and maybe let me frame it this way. I I don't know where W and just choosing Walnut Creek. I have nothing against Walnut Creek's architecture, but just using that as the example. Do they already have design standards? Like, do you guys know where they are in this process? I don't know. I can tell you Lisa Wise Consulting has not prepared ODS for Walnut Creek

because I I if you had known that, I would say, how would you rate ours relative to theirs? Like, are we are we going down the same path or are we going down a more semi-ural path? I I do think it's something that's an interesting thought like because we could just say hey you can do a 10-story building and it could be 100% you know plaster or whatever because that's the cheapest to build but we don't want to do that and you've done that right you've kind of looked at what we have here so I I I'm just trying to figure out this just knowing that in the absence we are going to 10 years from now or five years from now have to course correct. So, um I'm hoping someone has a good idea of how if there's anything we could do light adjustments. I I think what you guys have done it looks really great and I know you have experts who are advising for the city both DRC and staff. So, I'm relying on your expertise, their expertise because we all want the same thing. But putting our stamp on it, is there anything we should be looking at that could move the needle a little towards semi-ural aspects which I mean and I'll shut up after this. Uh what the state's done is going to take that away. The densities are going to take away semi-ural. You can't have semi-ural with 60 acre 60 units per acre. I don't think those are congruent. So we can't have everything. So anyways, anything we can do? I don't have anything I I suppose to add um that we that I would say we should do additionally. Um again, if there's if there's something specific um that comes to mind that you would like to see that that can be very helpful for us. Um but I will just say just kind of echoing what Monica said, so much of our standards were based on for example the windows. We know that okay, what do cheap windows look like? They're they're flush to, you know, the exterior. they look awful after a handful of years. So,

we wanted to allow flexibility while still, you know, echoing a lot of that traditional architectural character that we see within the city, which is why you see those standards written that way. Um, in a similar way, we know, of course, Stucco is the cheapest thing we can do materials wise, but we want to see many other more traditional materials as well, which is why Stuckco is limited to 70%. So, um, you know, many of our standards that care was taken, um, those the colors that are allowed. That was that was a really big discussion point because we wanted to be sure that we don't have those garish modern colors. We want to make sure that we're being, you know, we we looked at historical pallets when we were developing those colors just to be absolutely sure that we are encouraging those architectural styles to be built. Thank you.

Want toss out one thing for the four of us to talk about. Um I grew up in this town. I've been here since ' 68. Okay. It's not come the the town I grew up in is not coming back. But when you talk about semi-ural, I think about back to when I was a kid and I just loved all being outside, all the running around, stuff like that. With the density, it's hard to get. One of the places we can get it is encourage roof decks. You know, big flat areas, uh, barbecues on them, you've got views of Mount Diablo, you have a little clubhouse up there or something like that. And I was wondering what everybody else thought about that because we really, and I use it two examples is compare the in in Walnut Creek there's the big monoliths over by the Pleasant Hill bard which are ugly. They look like a prison. Then you look at compare those to the two projects that are Kitty Corner from Target. They have roof decks up there. They're architectural features on the roof. And you know, to me, those look pretty good. I wouldn't mind having those downtown. I wouldn't want the stuff around W Pleasantel Bart downtown. Anyway, that's just my thoughts. comments, questions.

I don't have anything directly in response to that, but I have a couple thoughts to share.

Um, so first, thank you to everybody who has been involved. I was present at the June session and this is miles past where we were in June. So clearly a lot of effort has gone into this. I do appreciate that a DRC subcommittee or with you subcommittee with DRC was involved prior to it coming to planning commission. Um as many planning commissioners have already said and even public speakers that were not design experts. So I do really appreciate the time to spend with the subcommittee before it came to us. Um, just a couple things I want to half ask, half discuss. When, so let's just say tonight planning commission, we make a recommendation and then it's going to go to city council. When would that happen? Like would that be January? Would that

Yeah, we've tenatively scoped out the January 12th city council date if this moves forward.

Okay. So, one thing I would hopefully I'd like to respectfully ask um staff if there's any way for that staff report to city council to come out a couple days early. I think that would be a huge benefit. I know it's coming off of the holidays, a lot of people traveling just to make sure members of the public and the city council have enough time to review. I think just a couple extra days would be nice if that's possible. Um, just go through my notes here. I guess for me, this is just back to the commission. I do hear your comment, uh, Commissioner Mason, about the rooftop, you know, parks or, you know, um, barbecues, that sort of thing. We do have that. I'm thinking of one building on the corner of Brown in Mount Dabau in Lafayette. To me, it still looks like a flat big heavy building. I personally really do support um Mr. Hudson's comment and I would recommend if possible if others agreed that we consider adding the varied or not the varied the other definition of height to the objective design standards because that could kind of go either towards the um in my mind it's a way of doing a variation of a flat rooftop. It could be a park. It could be a little bit extra, you know, slant to a roof to give maybe more of a semi-ural feel, not just a box. Um,

let me ask you something about that. Yeah. If it's an option to a developer, and I have no problem doing that, channeling what I heard up there, you know, if it's an option, then it may or may not happen. And I'm not advocating that it not be an option. I think they should be options.

I I I'm I I like that idea. think I thought there was a question in there for me, but it also tied with yours because I think on both of those like some kind of slanted roof or a rooftop tends to go with max height and I think that brown one actually if I remember it had skylights and they they couldn't do much more because they were coming up against their max height and I was it would have been nice if they could have but they couldn't. So that flexibility I think would be good. But I think nowadays with waiverss and concessions if they're a um if their density bonus

their density bonus they can do whatever they want then it really but it it tends in my opinion to be a less expensive development. You know whatever they're whatever they're asking for is either like the third floor setback. I I hate that concession, but it get comes up a lot because I think it ruins a beautiful design aspect that is writing these objective standards. So, I'm all for it. I just don't know what it's going to do.

Yeah, I don't know if if it would do anything. I do like it personally as an option though. I I agree with the public comment. I personally do not care for block design. Like if you are down near the Walnut Creek BART that works for Walnut Creek, I personally don't care for it. And so in hopes that it would open up a developer to consider a pitched roof even if it was slight in order to do a different type of design. I realized it might not pencil out for them and maybe nobody would take advantage of it. I like I think it was a good suggestion. I mean maybe I mean ultimately from my knowledge of development uh putting the code in that just assuming that's all equal it's going to be what's going to bring the most revenue. There are very few we've had a couple who come to the city who want to do something for the city but so give we maybe people like you and Mr. Hudson will will want to pay for that in their apartment or their their condo and so they would like that. So, I'm all for giving it. I maybe it's just some additional words. Is that something you guys could give us guidance if we were trying to not let the roof height get impacted by the fact that someone did, you know, a different roof that would measure otherwise would preclude? Yes, we can we can help with that. So, I think what we've heard and agree with is that often developers will use a flat roof design because it allows the maximum volume beneath that upper height limit. and adding a pitched roof would increase the height of the building, potentially violating the the height

limit or just making it taller by definition by the way the Lafayette measures height. And so if the for the purposes of objective design standards, we eliminate that penalty, that measured penalty for a pitched roof and even require pitched roofs, which they can always wave out of if if their density bonus. But um the height would then be measured to the eve line of the roof and the expectation would be to have a pitched roof. Now I I will say it is absolutely achievable to have both that aesthetic and have the pitched roof at the perimeter of the building that everyone would see from human scale um but also accommodate wells in that for AC condensers. HVAC um or uh outdoor living up a deck up above to take in the the views etc. So, I think both are achievable, but it is I'm I'm sure you're familiar with Mansard roofs that have a pitch to them at the perimeter and then interior, but um so I that that can be accommodated.

I know. Well, because you can't see because I'm making eye contact with Commissioner Mason. Does that um kind of answer or No. Are you you're thinking something different? You know, I I I'm laughing because I bring this up every couple years or so. Commissioner Deorg has it. Um, we talk about height all the time, but the problem, one of my things that always bugs me is we define height differently than the state codes, the CBC does. And so to me, you just define height the same way the state does, then a lot of these problems go away. I realize brought up before it's never gone anywhere. Never will go anywhere but still uh we had that one over on the east end of the town up against the freeway and they complained that it was too tall. There's a parking garage and the top of the the proposed project was lower than the twotory house that it was replacing. And so you you avoid things like like that in the downtown mostly level. wouldn't make that much of a difference in other places. Yeah, it would.

What about the idea though? Do you like the idea? Oh, yeah. Yeah.

I I think But I think you need to clarify it for uh uh rooftop pen houses and other things because you can get so much up there that uh you know it might just wave wave the uh uh make it redundant. Also, some places though, you have to be far enough away to see it. If I've got something that's four stories on a little slope roof or something like that, two and 12 to give it some articulation and it's downtown, you're not going to be anywhere far enough away to actually see that unless you're up on a roof deck of somebody adjacent property.

But I do like and I I generally agree with that. However, the one um I guess on Oak Hill that we have seen multiple times that is, you know, an approved project. I think of that like the blockbuster site like right there where you are coming into town. That one's I don't even remember four or six stories. It's multiple stories. I think that would be a perfect example if there wasn't anything already proposed there, right? Like you would see that coming into town or you would see the one that's going to be across from the library. So I do agree with you though. Sometimes you wouldn't be able to tell but yeah I I'm only think my comar is only really thinking about just right on Mount Dav. Yeah. If you're walking along Mount,

if you're walking along there, you know, the interest ones, the far western, far eastern sides of the town, but the core downtown, I don't think it I' I'd rather, if it's a trade-off, I'd rather go for higher density, let's just say uglier there and really nice someplace else in town than stuff which is just that everywhere. Well, the great thing is this applies everywhere, right?

I I I'm I'm supportive of it being an option, not the mandate, though. Just so that's clear. like that. That could also and maybe to that is it possible just to have in one of the visuals a another roof type but still can do the single attempt that you were demonstrating by the visual just just so that people at least could look at them and maybe think, "Oh, that's what you want." Yeah, that's certainly possible. Okay. Um, I have something else I want to talk about, but before I do,

I do I'm agreeing with with you on on the idea of flexibility on height. Um, to allow say say differently, allow flexibility in roof design to to present a what might be construed as semi-ural. So up on screen you you'll you're seeing my screen which is uh Google Earth uh and this is the Byron Park project in on Ty Valley Road in Walnut Creek and staff very much supports we we can include an image an appropriate image of this. Um it's got pitch roofs. It's a certainly a big building. I think it does it very successfully. um breaks down the larger masses into smaller masses and the pitched roof absolutely helps. And then um the we also I'm I'm sure you're familiar with uh 1000 doing actually this is ground level views of Byron Park. Um,

why don't you pull up the Lafayette Park Hotel Motel? That's another good one. Yep. So, this is 10,000 doing or town center phase three. So, also pitch roofs, Mr. Hudson spoke to it. totally support including this in the the image boards. Um, and we'll Yeah, as Commissioner Mason requested.

And just one minor minor comment uh regarding the um the 6-391 purpose section. Um I didn't see it mention open spaces and I know that there's there's substantial amount in the in the design of the objective designs about open space and I wonder if that might be included in item D or somewhere else. Yeah. Purpose and and maybe it's not necessary. I just that's something that I had thought about before the discussion on you know open spaces.

Is there any specific language that you were thinking of just No, just a mention and nod to. Yeah. Great. Thank you.

Uh can I uh one question on the non-residential ground floor design. Uh has Um I know uh the the the the development you said by Pleasant Hill which was built by the BART they for years had no residential in there. It was not it was not designed for residential I'm sorry retail in the ground floor and so my question and I'm not even though I'm in retail I'm not in ground floor retail so I don't quite understand did you guys talk to like a retail brokers who do ground retail because sometimes there's certain things like you know you have to have a a hood you know ventilation so you can put a little coffee shop in there or something like that and sometimes those get missed and they don't get designed and then they never get used for that and then they sit vacant and it's just kind of this bad. So, was that thought of or incorporated with some of these requirements?

Yeah, we understand absolutely that um taller interior ground flooror retail spaces are um provide flexibility for a range of tenants and food service. Um so no we didn't um because we we're not um getting to the interior spaces and we're also not and I understand this may change um but the height is really already in the code the development st the basic development standards not the design standards so we're not looking at height okay

because if we were to require a minimum plate height for ground floor non-residential that would have implications for the remainder of the space for the upper stories and we're not so you're not changing anything here for that. This is more transparency and blank walls. Yeah. Okay. Okay. And then I I had a question about vacancies, but that wouldn't matter here either because that's more operational. Okay. Yeah.

Um Okay. Thank you. Another one was so if someone didn't want to do the objective standards, they could do a discretionary uh request. So, um, and then it would be like it's always been would, um, is there anything that happens if somebody has a bon bo bonus density bonus project and they have access to concessions and waiverss that changes it from um, ODS to discretionary and then I guess that discretionary go under the density bonus discretionary or is it's a little unclear what happens when they start if let's start this question. If you have a ODS project but you're asking for a concession because you have density bonus does it stay in that category or does it can it maybe that's an overlapping question. I'm not sure. The only thing that would put a project into discretionary review would be the developer's choice to do that to get some uh so if a project is doing density bonus, they

by law are entitled to request concessions and waiverss and um stay law as that cities can only apply objective standards. Okay, then let me ask another question. Is there any I I I'm well a prequestion is has anyone including you guys ever seen a city challenge a concession or waiver? I've asked before and I've the answer has been no basically. I'm just wondering if that's changed yet. Not recently, but I know there is case law on on it. How about you guys? Have you seen that at all?

No, I can't think of of an example. Um, but I do know that the the concessions the the waiverss that are requested can't really just be anything that that the applicant doesn't want to comply with, right? It's got to be demonstrated that that is what is prohibiting achieving the density that the applicant otherwise would achieve, right? That that's a it's a limiting it's a constraint that that's what's keeping them from from the capacity that they want. Um but I know I know this is changing, right? So, uh, it might be a good question for the city attorney, but, um, as far as who's required to to demonstrate that connection, that may actually be the city,

right? I And where this question is going is, would there be an appropriate ODS standard that kicks in if there's a concession and waiver? For instance, if the third floor setback was requested as a and I'm not sure if that's a concession or a waiver to not set it back. That's a waiver. Concession. I don't the step back. No, but if they asked to not have the step back, whatever that is, a concession or a waiver.

Yeah. that we we would say okay well in that case uh by our standards that we've already put in place you would have to your ODS standards would require something else you know so I don't think state law would allow us to put contingencies on density bonus behaviors like if if they by state law get the concession or the waiver I don't think we could put an additional requirement based on them getting that.

Okay. I'm just trying because I think the setback is a good example of one that gets blown up a lot and it's a good design and it gets and we we can't really challenge it because we would have to prove the affirmative that they can't do it which we can't do. Well, what I was thinking with project at least three of us know is what about the project right across the street? They they got the ex they eliminated the setbacks and got the extra story. Could they still go in on ODS? You mean the one? The one up against the creek. Yeah, that way. No, sorry. That's that way. Okay, you're right. You're messing me up. Yes,

right. Could that could that one go in still go in under ODS if it was coming before us? So every project that's have proposing multif family is required to comply with the objective design standards

and if they don't then they have to go through a discretionary review which could potentially allow the reviewing body to ask for additional design um requirements. So from a developer's point of view, the objective design standards is the best path forward because it's a known quantity. They know exactly what's required of them. Um it's a ministerial process. So even if there were a public hearing, there's a very limited scope of what can be changed to the project because it just has to require has to meet the requirements listed and if it does, it must be approved. It's that straightforward.

Okay? So they can choose to take a discretionary path, but I don't know why they would. Well, they've already gone through the density bonus path. Yeah, that's why I was asking you to think if it came today. Yeah. Can you do density bonus? No ODS. If if the only change is adding a story to get your which to get a

if they're proposing a project that that requires ODS, that would still apply. if their density if their project also is density bonus um they have concessions and waivers that they can use to excuse certain specific development standards and if for some reason those concessions and waivers didn't cover all the things in ODS that they didn't comply with then they would be kicked out of ODS and go through a discretionary review process. Okay. But it's highly unlikely that that would happen.

Thank you. Just so chair to your question of um conditional standards, I I agree that we would not want to nor do I think it would be permitted to um treat density projects differently than any other project. I do think just like in Excel you can do conditional formatting on a cell that if it is a positive number the number the text is black and if it is a negative number the text is red. I think that if a certain condition is proposed then the following shall apply. I think that is perfectly legal because it is applicable to any and all projects irrespective of their invocation of uh density bonus.

Okay. But the the secondary condition would also need to be objective, right? Like if there's no third story setback, then the building has to be blue. That that would be or a specific shade of blue. Perhaps color is not the best, but then they could do a waiver on that. All right. Anything else you guys? I'm I'm I'm getting good.

Just a very very quick on the the ODS forms that you're removing the point system on is so then it'll be a yes no right for all the items and if one of the items is no then it has to go it won't be ministerially approved. it has to then go over and will will the city council approve that form or is that just something that you modify as needed? Typically the form would not need city council approval, it would implement the code that is approved and adopted by the city council. So, um t typical of our application forms online, there's things that staff have created based on what was approved in the code. Thank you.

That just reminded me of one question. Do you think the natural revision of the ODS code would follow the housing element cycle or would it be on its own? You know, every year it could be updated because oh, we realized there was a mistake. We should have done it this way. It would not need to follow the housing element cycle. So, it could just be at will basically. Correct. Yeah. If there is a epiphany or a desire even a few months after it is in effect we can process that

and that doesn't require any additional SQL work because it's all all been already covered and as long as someone hasn't submitted as soon as you know it's just like any other code change once it comes in then whoever applies after that would be that would be their process. I would say it is just like any other municipal code change. Um yes, just asking mainly if you know we have a aha moment in a few years, you know, how would we deal with this? Okay. Yeah. And I would imagine that aha moment would come from additional state law that's trickling through

uh moment. Yeah. All right. Well, um it sounds like we've talked about maybe changing some of the uh graphics to be more semi-ural looking and then we've also talked about this roof pitch roof idea. Um I'm unless you guys want to keep talking, I'm okay with hearing a motion to modify or or whatever anyone wants to motion. So, chair, my my notes are that we will add the images, photographs of Byron Park and Town Center 3 into the um boards that are part of the annex or the appendix to the ODS um and eliminate the height penalty for pitched roof um on ODS buildings. And then the third question was whether or not the commission wanted to require pitched roofs disallowing just flat roofs. And so I think that's still an open question. I don't particularly want to require it. Does it where you guys just draw a poll? I don't want to require it. Um, and then just one question on the eliminating the the height that that to allow them to do the pitch truth, but it doesn't just blow the height to anything now, right? There's still a limiting factor.

Correct. So the the square or rectangular part of the building would still be the same subject to the same height limit. you would just not if you put a triangle on top for a pitch roof form that would not count against your height. Um okay. And I suppose we should incorporate that that would not be living space, right? Yeah. And then I I think we would also add the the outdoor deck to that. I personally would like to do that too because I think that livens buildings up and

but sometimes there that's what we had on the Brown Street one, right, where they had to all they could do is just like articulating door and the stairs came out because anything above that meant they had to lower the building. So I think that would be a good one. I don't know if you guys are on board with that to allow flexibility there if it's just used to make outdoor deck space more habitable but not livable. I think maybe what you do there is you have minimum square foot if the intent is to get people outside 60 square foot roof deck isn't going to do it but on the two kitty corner from across the street from Target they're both 1 1200500 square foot decks with an outdoor barbecue and sitting places so people can congregate that

that's interesting I don't really like to tell people they have to do something. But what were you asking earlier about open space? Yeah, because that sounds like that's being taken care of. Open space requirements. Yeah, that's that's how I was looked at. I don't know. I'm I don't really like to tell people what I don't like to tell people, but as an could be an alternate to a pitch drill. Yeah. I mean, I think it could and we can allow it without telling them to do it, though. Yes, that's what I'm saying. I I wouldn't want to

Okay. Okay. So, we're back to just pitch roof with the square and then uh the ability to do uh outdoor space with the same aspect of not having to lose height to do that. Are you guys Does that sound reasonable? Well, that implies that you have to build walls and uh you know safety structure. You don't have to do it. Wouldn't that increase the the height also? Not so with a pitch roof, right? Yeah. Well, I think we would craft it so that the

deck would be within it. It it'd be functionally the same as a a a well for HVAC equipment, etc. So, at the perimeter, you would see a pitch roof and then within the volume of the building, the footprint of the building um would be occupiable outdoor space. So, not conditioned living space and you could do that in a pitched condition, pitched roof condition or in a flat roof condition. If I could just comment, um, just to be 100% clear, the way that the standards are written right now, um, nothing is preventing any sort of rooftop open, excuse me, open space. Um and as far as a parapit um just from a building code perspective, you wouldn't be able to have any rooftop open space without um a parapit. So as the standards are written, if you just want to allow the option, that option is there. If there is something additional that you would like to see that would be helpful

because none of these have a height limit as a condition ODS standard, right? Did I is that right? I don't think I correct it. It is silent on height. Okay. So, is that coming under something else then if we do that or isn't it just red? It's just defining what height is for the ODS. Right.

Correct. We would add a definition of height specific to ODS and ODS projects. um that would change such that height is measured basically to the top of the building wall or the bottom of the eve. So we can decide exactly what wording such that anything above the top plate height of the top floor would be not counted towards height whether it's a pitched roof or a roof deck or okay without that then they would be limited by that in our code not in the ODS even if they used an ODS okay so this will allow this is a conditional statement quite frankly yeah

what do you mean it's saying if you want to do in the because we're putting this in the ODS, right? Say if you want to do a pitched roof, here's how you measure the height of your of your property. Here's how the development. But if you're not doing an ODS, your roof height will be dictated by the discretionary code that you go under, which might not measure it the same way. I think

we have a number of code sections that have definitions specific to that code section. The ADU ordinance has a number of definitions that apply only there. Um, so anytime a definition is listed within a code section versus in our general definitions, that means it only applies within the scope of that ordinance, that specific code section. Okay, I think I understand because you just got more. Well, natural question since we're look talking about game one. What about, you know, little vertical popups to get a small vaulted area? You see them typically in the corners of buildings that are, you know, public facing to give it an architectural out. It's all part of it, right?

It's all the same. What if But you're talking But we're saying if we're talking pitched, we're immediately talking like this. I'm talking about, hey, you know, the the project over the old uh uh video place that we're just talking about. Probably want a marquee element there because it's visible as you're entering the town little or the the tower over by uh behind pizza, which looks nice. That's the element there. But how would that or are we just saying hey if you want to put that there you can't go through ODS but we can allow a slope there.

I don't think we're addressing that and I don't think we need should because that's a different element. I mean what we're trying to do is address the fact that you won't get penalized for doing a sloped roof and that was kind of going back to the semi-ural nature. So that was the point of that and then it evolved a little into the rooftop deck kind of some of your comments. Yeah. But if you looked like those pictures of uh the project in Walnut Creek, you know, they had pitched roofs, but they also had right vertical elements, you know, are we treating them the same? Is the vertical element the same? Okay, as long as it's below the pitch.

We're not we're not we're not we haven't directed anyone to do that yet. I mean, you you're bringing it up, but we haven't we haven't said yes, we're doing that. Oh, no. I I know. I'm just trying to say what your definition of pitch entails. Is it everything below the maximum roof height is acceptable? Is it only the pitch but not anything else is not little dormers sticking out or or whatever? I guess I was hoping staff would take our intent and make it something that seemed reasonable from there. So, I don't know the exact answer. Okay. Yeah.

So, we can provide language um that would clarify that what we're allowing are roofs and outdoor use of the roof. That's Thank you. not habitable space, not additional architectural elements, things like so just to to capture you're talking about I think maybe a a faux bell tower or something like that would that would not be something that's permitted. But would like for example dormers be included. Sorry. Would a dormer be would a dormer be in uh acceptable on a pitched roof? I think that would be considered part of the roof form. Yeah. Yes. Thank you. Do do the will this need to come back or can we do this with the It's up to us. Okay. So, what do you guys want? I don't need it to come back.

I don't need it to come back either. No, I agree with that. So, we're we're mindmeldding. So, we're on the same point page. Okay. Good. All right. Anything else? Otherwise, let's get a um amendment going to let everyone go home. Everyone's looking at Carl. Yeah. Um I'm going to need to practice in a couple weeks, but not tonight. Then I'll You want me to make a a prop recommendation? Yes, please.

All right. I move that we um ask staff to update the ODS as discussed tonight uh including graphics and other other items discussed and forward it to the city council uh with a recommendation of approval. Is that enough direction? Okay. Second. Um we'll do roll call. Um, uh, Commissioner Mason, I, Commissioner Deorgio, I, Commissioner Radnich, I, Chair Leange, I Okay, that motion passes 40. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you both. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Also, everyone, thank you everyone. Everyone in the room. Thank you. And and if I can just quickly for the record say thank you to the DRC um sub uh the subcommittee for all their hard work along with staff and and um the the Lisa Wise um consultants. Thank you and their expertise. Yes. That we clearly don't have. Thank you for all your hard work on this. Yes. Thank you.

All right. All right. Um that is it. Um, n let me get to the agenda. I think we're done. Okay. Other business. Anyone? No. All right. Commissioner's reports. I don't think we have any. No. Planning director's report. A friendly reminder to reach out to your networks to see uh if anyone in your network would be interested in serving on the planning commission. We currently have two vacancies. Um staff has internally discussed with the city manager and uh council liaison. So we we're um going out and reaching out to members of the community as well. So asking you if you can um and just wanted to say thank you for a a good productive year on the planning commission and wish you happy holidays.

Thank you. All right. Oh gosh. And this is for staff. That's why I didn't say anything. Um I I was reading about uh next year being um new California building standards um being released. And I assume that you're going to brief I I didn't see anything that's going to affect what we're doing, but if I assume you'll just bring it you'll highlight changes if necessary.

Correct. We we don't anticipate any significant uh effect. We we have this is a known uh update. The state does it every 3 years notwithstanding recent legislation which paused updates until 2031 but not for the building code just for local amendments. So the incremental or uh periodic creep and expansion of requirements to build um continue and so effective January 1 the the new code will go into effect. uh contemporaneously the fire code will will be updated and go into effect and so early next year will bring to you for adoption for formal adoption um the the both of those I believe.

All right, we're ajourned. Thank you.