|
<br />Site Development Standards
<br /> DSP/MU-T-District/
<br />ODS
<br />Proposed Project Conforms?
<br />Height Maximum 30’ per DSP 34’ No
<br />Parking Minimum Not Applicable per AB 2097
<br />
<br />Site Layout, Pedestrian and Vehicular Access
<br />The project would provide all vehicle access, and access to the primary unit from the driveway
<br />on Augustine Street, with the three smaller units having front door entries onto Augustine
<br />Street. Per ODS B1, site circulation should connect and integrate with broader street networks
<br />that serve housing, workplaces, transit, parks, and other facilities essential to the daily lives of
<br />Pleasanton residents. Although the project plans are inconsistent regarding how the three
<br />studio units are accessed (see Comment #2(f)(v) in Exhibit C), none of the iterations include
<br />pedestrian connectivity from the public right-of-way to the unit entrances.
<br />
<br />Setbacks
<br />Per Table 1 above, the project is proposing a nonconforming nine-foot front setback and a six-
<br />foot side setback from the west property line. Further, per ODS C1.3, no structure abutting
<br />existing residential development shall exceed the height of a sloping plane 15 feet in height at
<br />the interior of the minimum required side yard required by the PMC and sloping away from the
<br />side property line five feet for each additional 15 feet in height. ODS C1.3 defers to the PMC
<br />for the District’s minimum side yard, which is 10 feet. Also, per ODS C1.3, the project’s west
<br />side property line setback requirement is 15 feet. Based on the project’s proposed height, the
<br />west side setback is nonconforming by nine feet (see sheet A100 in Exhibit B).
<br />
<br />Building Height, Architecture, and Design
<br />Given the submitted application material, staff finds that the proposed project is nonconforming
<br />to the following ODS regarding height, architecture, and design: B2, B2.4, B7.6, C1, C1.5, C2,
<br />C3.b, C4.1, C4.2, C5.1, C5.2, C5.a, C7.1, C7.2, C7.5, C7.7, C7.6, and C7.9.
<br />
<br />These ODS standards collectively guide building orientation, architectural design, and material
<br />quality. These standards are intended to ensure that development contributes to an active,
<br />pedestrian-oriented environment through features such as active frontages, clearly defined and
<br />visible entries, and building orientations that promote “eyes on the street.” The standards
<br />further regulate site layout and circulation, including required la ndscape buffers, and
<br />emphasize high-quality architectural design by requiring modulation of building massing,
<br />vertically oriented roof forms, and prominent entry features. Additionally, the standards
<br />prescribe specific requirements for façade composition, transparency, and materials, including
<br />minimum glazing percentages, restrictions on cladding materials, and the use of durable, high-
<br />quality finishes such as brick, stone, and tile. Collectively, these Objective Design Standards
<br />apply to the project to ensure consistency with the intended character, safety, and visual
<br />quality of the downtown area.
<br />
<br />As proposed, staff finds the project is nonconforming to the ODS per the specific sections
<br />noted above and reflects a building layout and site design that appears to be principally driven
<br />by building mass and intensity, rather than by a cohesive integration with the surrounding
<br />neighborhood context and visual environment. Exhibit C annotates how each of these
|