Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Design Guidelines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission hears staff plan to finish Residential Design Guidelines 1.5; commissioners press for technical sign‑offs
Summary
City staff and a contracted project manager presented a four‑month sprint plan to finalize the Residential Design Guidelines 1.5, asking the Planning Commission to endorse the timeline; commissioners pressed for objective language, technical certifications for material lists and clearer treatment of ADUs and roof decks.
Tom Ford, project manager for the residential design guidelines update, asked the Planning Commission to endorse a four‑month work plan to finish Residential Design Guidelines 1.5 so staff and the production team can proceed with weekly editing sprints and monthly public review. Anna Janette of Community Planning and Building introduced the item and noted councilmembers Baron and Delves are serving as ad hoc sponsors for the project.
Ford outlined a production team made up of staff, commissioners and resident stakeholders, described a color‑coded month‑by‑month sprint approach, and said the schedule is intended to produce a draft the commission can forward to City Council for adoption later this year. He said staff will meet early with California Coastal Commission representatives to ensure the format will be acceptable for Coastal Act review.
Commissioners focused their questions on process and substance. Several asked that staff break the work into discrete content packages so commissioners can review wording, not the whole document each month. Commissioner Alurn and others urged removing subjective language and making the guidelines more “objective” where possible. Commissioners repeatedly asked that technical lists — preferred plant species, “preferred building materials” and visual‑history statements — carry endorsements from the appropriate technical authorities (Historic Resources Board, city forester, building official) before being included in a regulatory‑style guide.
The commission flagged several recurring substance issues for the team: updating guidance on fire resilience and materials consistent with 2026 building practices; clearer direction on windows and glazing; guidance on roof decks and flat roofs; and explicit direction on where utilities, electrical panels and EV chargers should be sited so they do not undermine approved designs. Commissioners also asked staff to produce redline summaries showing only the language changed between meetings.
No final action was taken other than the commission’s request for the work plan to return with the clarifications requested. Staff said it will incorporate commissioners’ direction into the monthly sprint structure and return work products to the commission as the production team advances them.
