HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachmt 6 PC Study Session Minutes 07-29-2008DRAFT
t J a' `
~. ;~
CALL TO ORDER
DRAFT
A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 29,
2008, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to
order at 5:35 p.m.
ATTENDEES
Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioner;; Biddle, King, and Wehrenberg;
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Jeff Baker, Senior PlannE~r; and Debra LeClair, Recording
Secretary.
1.1 Study Session - PA 07-038 -General Plan Community Design Element.
Mr. Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff
Report.
Mr. Baker introduced Mr. Bill Wiseman, RBF Consultants who spoke regarding the project.
Chair Schaub asked if the TownScan data is available to the Commission. Mr. Wiseman
indicated he would make the data available to the Commission.
Mr. Wiseman presented the Cormunity Design Element. He stated the Community Design
Element is an overarching document that provides Community Design Guidelines which
addresses the City as a whole. The document will not look at ;~ specific type of development or
specific area of development, but demonstrate how to create a consistent image of the City. He
continued the document will serve within the context of the General Plan in conjunction with
other documents under the General Plan such as Specific Plans,. Streetscape Master Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, Bikeways Master Plan, etc. The Community Desi;;n Element is a broad document
that looks at the entire "cityscape".
Chair Schaub asked Mr. Wiseman to explain the difference between a Community Design
Element to the General Plan and Design Guidelines. Mr. Wi;;eman responded a General Plan
has 7 elements that are required by State law but a Communi~~.y Design Element is an optional
element of the General Plan. He continued the General flan is the highest level policy
document and a Specific Plan provides guidelines for a specific area, and is a higher level policy
document than the Zoning Code ~~r PUD.
Cm. Tomlinson wanted to ensures that the document was not so generic that it does not cover
large sections of the City that do not fall under any Specific Pl~~n and, therefore, would have no
guiding principles of design. Mr. Wiseman answered that the Community Design Element
covers the entire City, and there must be consistency with the other Master and Specific Plans; if
~~~t:fi r1 t , , ,f3rri;?2 .5.4?LJ*1 1 ;.'r ~' ~ ?iL?:Y
Attachment 6
DRAFT DRAFT
the specificity is in the Community Design Element, then Staff will ensure that the Community
Design Element is consistent with all the other Specific and M~:ster Plans.
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager stated the Community Design Element should not conflict
with the General Plan. For those areas not covered by a Spec ific Plan, an Overlay District with
Design Guidelines could include those areas.
Chair Schaub stated the Planning Commission has approved Specific Plans and Design
Guidelines from the least specific (Eastern Dublin), to the rr~ost specific (Scarlett Court). He
continued the Planning Commission will work with RBF regarding Design Guidelines for the
Downtown Specific Plan and, ai: that point, the Commission could decide if they support the
Downtown Specific Plan enough that they would want thou e Design Guidelines to apply to
areas that are not currently within a Specific Plan. He felt that was one way to minimize the
specificity of the Element and still be specific in regards to same of the items the Commission
has wanted to address. He felt the Commission could wait ~~n specific issues until they have
done some research and, over time, understand more about the Guidelines. He felt the
Commission will wants to address certain issues and it could be easier to apply while creating
the Downtown Specific Plan anti then decide if they want to apply those Guidelines to areas
that areri t in a Specific Plan. The Commission may want to crE~ate Citywide Design Guidelines.
Ms. Wilson described the General Plan as a policy document <<nd while the Downtown Specific
Plan will have Design Guidelines, it may not be appropriate to be applied to other areas of the
City. She felt the Community Design Element and the Downtown Specific Plan would be
another tool in reviewing applications. She commented that the Community Design Element
will build the framework to be able to tie the plans together.
Cm. Biddle felt the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is a large document and it may be appropriate
to break out a portion and create a separate Specific Plan for t]Zat area as well as for other areas
in the City that are not covered by a Specific Plan.
Cm. King agreed with the Chairman's point that, at some point, the Commission will want to
address specific things, like chain link fences and cinderblock construction, and felt that some of
the issues could be applied Citywide. He felt it would be helpful to have specifics in writing
before the developer submits their application for review.
Chair Schaub felt there was no vocabulary for different types of building designs and felt that
having more Study Sessions could help the Commission learn about commercial development
and, in that process, develop a vocabulary for Design Guidelines.
Ms. Wilson suggested that Staff could plan more general Study Sessions to learn terminology.
Chair Schaub asked Mr. Wiseman how the Community Design Element will change the General
Plan and what outcomes will result.
Mr. Wiseman answered the Community Design Element will provide the City with policy level
intent as to what the City should look like. He stated it addresses roadways, buildings, fences,
~r,K ~.;;r.=rr
DRAFT DRAFT
signage, architecture or landscaping. He stated it should nct be too defined but should set a
standard for projects within the City.
Chair Schaub asked if the Community Design Element will go too far.
Ms. Wilson mentioned the previous Study Session where the City Council and Planning
Commission had the opportunity to review slides and comrr.ent on their likes and dislikes of
different roadways, architecture and landscaping. She felt the Community Design Element will
deal with policy and not specific Design Guidelines.
Chair Schaub stated the Planning Commission has never ha~~ a discussion regarding specific
types of architecture.
Cm. Tomlinson felt it was a matter of language and that by using "encouraged or discouraged"
instead of "shall or shall not", for example "cinderblock walls are discouraged"; however if an
Applicant comes to the Commission with a compelling reaso~i to allow them, the Commission
can be flexible.
Ms. Wilson agreed and pointed out the document is written positively using words like
"encourage, create, enhance" rather than "shall or shall not."
Cm. Wehrenberg felt the information should not be too specific so that it doesri t become dated
over time. She also commented on page 95 of the draft CorYUnunity Design Element, where it
states, "encourage semi-transparent fencing in distinctively articulated masonry walls with
landscaping"; she felt the excerpt does not say "no chain link fc>nces" but gives a guideline as to
what the Planning Commission would support without being; too specific. She asked if this
would be the period in the process where Staff would interpret the Design Element for the
Applicant and let them know the Planning Commission would not support a chain link fence.
Ms. Wilson answered there are many elements already in place that are used frequently in the
planning process, and sometimes the policies can conflict with one another because they are not
exact. She continued there are many things to consider but it is Staff's goal to know which
element to refer to and it is the authority that approves the project, which determines its
consistency with the General Plan.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated the Community Design Element should not be contradictory and
mentioned the problem when there was a 21-story project submitted as a "gateway' into
Dublin; however, the term "gateway' had never been defiled, but is now defined in the
Community Design Element document.
Chair Schaub stated the term "gai:eway" was only defined in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Cm. Tomlinson felt the Design Element fits between the General Plan and the various Specific
Plans. He stated that Specific Plans, which consist of more detailed analysis and information,
should prevail in the event of a conflict with the General Plan znd felt that any area not covered
by a Specific Plan would then be covered by the Design Element.
r,.,,°, .z„e3j :.:;~+rr>rr: s.,'c;°t 3 ~rcly ~"1. 1(If7tY
~..z ,r~
DRAFT DRAFT
Chair Schaub stated he would like to discuss the "taxonomy" (which is a classification system)
that is in place and stated he would point out where he felt it ~~as inconsistent.
There was a brief discussion regarding taxonomy and its meaning.
Mr. Wiseman referred to the book, Image of the City, by Ke~~in Lynch and how he used that
model in drafting the framework for the document. He continued the document includes broad
goals, specific policies, and implementation measures which are specific paths the City will take
that will support the goals and policies.
Mr. Wiseman stated the Community Design Element is a living document that will change over
time, and the implementation rrieasures are one of the key components which drive how the
City will evolve.
Chair Schaub referred to page 83, and stated the principles ha•~e been listed there but they were
mislabeled as the "Five Goals'. He felt it was confusing to have goals within goals and
suggested how to label the goals and the principles and make it clearer.
Chair Schaub stated within the Design of the Built Form section there will be a few sub-
principles but no vocabulary for them.
Mr. Wiseman asked Chair Schaub if he suggested having goals for each of the sub-components
of the Design of the Built Form. Chair Schaub referred to "10.7.3.1 Site and Building Design" on
Page 91, stating that breaking up that principle into 2 separate elements, as opposed to having it
combined, should be discussed. He felt the taxonomy system would help make it clear. He
continued the Commission may ask for an element of the principle of the Design of the Built
Form, stating one element to only speak to Site with its own intent, goals, policies, and
implementation and another for Building Design. He suggested five principles, with elements
under those principles, then within each element should be the intent, goals, policies and
implementation measures. He felt that would make the document consistent.
Ms. Wilson stated that Staff has been working with the consul~:ant on how to sub-categorize the
different sections without duplication. Chair Schaub commented that there could be the same
implementation measures for a number of elements because they are the same. He felt the word
"intent and goal" are similar and suggested that there does nct need to be both, but should be
one or the other. He continued there are the five principles an~i then sub-principles which there
is no name for and felt they might want to only have goals, policies and implementation.
Ms. Wilson agreed to review chaxiging the wording.
Mr. Wiseman felt Chair Schaub was looking for organizational hierarchy and they could look at
making changes to the document without creating a major reworking, and possibly call the sub-
principles "categories° and apply goals to the categories.
Mr. Wiseman spoke regarding the Guiding Principles and th~~ key policies of the Community
Design Element.
'Iuttrttstr~j ('~~rnmi.r.siur /-~ ~Iralti 2{J, Zd)t?.'s
..YT .1:7}".~i'..?57i Ott
DRAFT
POSITIVE REGIONAL IDENTITY:
DRAFT
Mr. Wiseman stated that this section looks at regional roads and how they create a positive
identity for Dublin. These roadways include: BART, I-580, and I-680, San Ramon Road, Village
Pkwy, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road.
Several of the Commissioners asked why Hacienda Drive was not part of the regional roads
listed. Chair Schaub answered that Hacienda Drive is covered in the "Sense of Arrival" section
and also mentioned that Hacienda Drive terminates within the City Limits.
Mr. Wiseman stated that the roads considered for the Positive Regional Identity are roads that
would be used to drive through or past Dublin.
Cm. Tomlinson stated Hacienda Crossings and The Green on Park Place were considered two of
the most important gateways into the City and felt Hacienda Drive should be the 9th Regional
Positive Identity.
Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Tomlinson.
Chair Schaub asked the Commission if they would like to have Hacienda Drive as the 9th
Regional Positive Identity.
Mr. Baker asked how much of Hacienda Drive should be included.
Mr. Wiseman asked the Commission to wait to have their straw vote until he had completed the
"Sense of Arrival" section. He felt that the guidelines in that sE~ction would help to make things
clear.
Chair Schaub asked Mr. Wiseman to ensure the word "distinctive' is placed in the document.
Mr. Wiseman referred to Page 85 where it mentions creating distinctive design features.
Chair Schaub stated he would like the first four words of the paragraph to state: Create
Distinctive Design Features.
There was a discussion regardin€; the definition of "maintain views" and how that relates to the
Community Design Element document.
Chair Schaub stated he wanted to strike the words "where feasible" from the document. Ms.
Wilson felt that there are instances where the statement "wherf~ feasible' would allow the policy
flexibility and interpretation.
Cm. Tomlinson added the document should not be too concrete so as not to allow for challenges
from residents opposed to a projE~ct.
Mr. Baker mentioned that "where feasible" is another word fc~r "encourage" rather than "shall
or must."
.'F~ir.r,~tt;J{'c~rrr~ti~r.crc~ S ,Jr,Ip<~9 ;~Ut)~Y
DRAFT DRAFT
Chair Schaub suggested changing the words "where feasible' to "encourage." He felt "where
feasible" was not strong enough language.
Ms. Wilson asked the Commission if they wanted to modify the language "where feasible."
Cm. King asked if the words "goal" and "policies" allow somE~ flexibility or do they include the
"where feasible' so that exceptions can be made.
There was a discussion regarding the difference between goals and policies and how that relates
to "where feasible."
Chair Schaub suggested discussing the words "where feasible" at the end of the meeting.
Ms. Wilson stated that the Design Element is among many documents that must work together
and "where feasible' is an important part of that because a project may be feasible in one area
covered by a Specific Plan but clot in another and there sho .old be a balance and the Design
Element should not contradict other Plans.
Mr. Wiseman continued with screening visually challenging features, which speaks to shielding
views of trash areas with landscaping or enclosures.
SENSE OF ARRIVAL
Mr. Wiseman explained coming into the City, there are 11 gateways identified; Hacienda being
one of them. He continued these are points where someone e~:iting the freeway will know they
are in Dublin. He stated the idE~a of this section is to treat the gateways so that they create a
"sense of arrival."
Cm. Tomlinson asked if the Dublin Blvd exit from I-680 South is considered one of the
gateways.
Ms. Wilson mentioned the list of streets came from the Streetsc.~pe Master Plan.
Chair Schaub felt the title "Dublin Gateways' should be capitalized as well as all eleven
gateways identified.
Ms. Wilson agreed and added th.e two BART stations are not on the map currently but will be
added, increasing the number of gateways to 14.
DESIGN OF THE BUILT FORM:
Mr. Wiseman stated this section states the City's intent to design unique, high-quality, and
compatible buildings that reflect the overall quality of Dublin. He stated there are six categories
and this is the most detailed component of the Community Deg ign Element.
Chair Schaub asked why the Element discusses the zoning designation for Office and
Campus/Office, but does not discuss the levels of Commerci~il and Industrial zoning which is
more consistent with the Zoning Code. Ms. Wilson asked if h<~ wanted to add the General Plan
;'f~a;rt a~t~{ lr,tr"crra2 . EE,.< ( I~rt~ 2{>, 7.(}{78
~~fit.•'~ ~'vy,~Fi'7I
DRAFT DRAFT
land use categories. Chair Schaub answered yes. Ms. Wilso 1 agreed to add the General Plan
land use categories for Commercial and Industrial areas.
SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN:
Mr. Wiseman continued with this section, which states the City of Dublin wants quality,
attractive, architecturally appealing buildings and functional gathering spaces. He stated this
section would review the building and how it relates to the site.
Cm. King suggested there should be more information regarding what the different
architectural styles are and which ones invite distinctive themE~s.
Ms. Wilson asked Cm. King if he meant that the document would not dictate which
architectural styles should be used, but if one is chosen, the developer would have to be true to
that style.
Mr. Wiseman explained the document states, "convey an exce'lence in architecture, workmanship,
quality, and durability in building materials" which will last over +:ime.
There was a discussion regarding; architectural styles and their definitions.
Mr. Wiseman stated he could include more definition of architectural styles within the
document for clarity but not be too specific.
Cm. Biddle thought the document did not need to be spe~:ific and felt it may be limiting
developers when there is no neec(.
Cm. Wehrenberg thought the "Modern' style was more up-to-date and Cm. Tomlinson thought
the term "Modern' should be avoided and felt "Contempcrary" is a better term reflecting
current style.
Ms. Wilson stated the word "Modern° could be replaced with "Contemporary."
There was a discussion regarding the terms "Modern' and "Contemporary" architecture and
how it could be limiting to developers making everything look the same.
Mr. Baker stated Policy J came out of a discussion at the ;study session that indicated the
Planning Commission liked the "Modern' style and the polic}~ was crafted directly in response
to those comments. He felt the Planning Commission has c~~ncerns that the policy might be
limiting. He stated that Policy A would be more what the Commission is looking for and felt
the Commission wants high quality materials with good design, but the policy would not focus
on what the design is. He suggested deleting Policy J and relying on Policy A.
Chair Schaub suggested combining Policy A and J into one policy.
Cm. Wehrenberg disagreed.
t;l:ar~t7irri7 t `t>ifiYttz~.itc'.:P 7 ~rrrfv Z~?, ~?i}~},`3
,'i ltliY ~i?.~.S tL'tP
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Wiseman referred to the discussion from the workshop w=sere the Council and Commission
indicated they liked modern, interesting looking office buildi~lgs that create public spaces with
signature buildings. He spoke about the intent of the polic.~ and stated if it is not what the
Commission wants then it can be changed.
Chair Schaub suggested the document stay as is.
Mr. Baker asked the Commission to clarify if they want to leave Policy J as is, including the
terms "Modern and Contemporary."
The Commission agreed.
Cm. King suggested using "encourage distinctive buildings" in the document and didri t feel
that Policy A communicates that.
Ms. Wilson felt "distinctive" is a positive word.
Chair Schaub suggested using t11e words "encourage distinctive, high quality, attractive" and
felt that would set the tone for the policy.
The Commission agreed.
Mr. Wiseman discussed the intent for residential in building diversity of setbacks, architectural
styles, materials, colors, rooflines and garage orientation in residential areas. He also discussed
clustered "Campus/Office" buildings and parking lots conneci:ed by pedestrian pathways.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the document should identify courtyards or gathering places in
clustered campus/office buildings. Ms. Wilson stated the info~~mation is in the document.
LANDSCPAING & NATURAL :FEATURES:
Mr. Wiseman referred to this section, which states the intent to have formal landscaping in
urban areas and natural in suburban areas. He continued the intent is to preserve mature
vegetation, ensure setbacks and landscaped buffers along collectors and arterial roads and
create distinctive neighborhood entry treatments. He contimted with signage and fences and
walls with landscaping associated with the walls/fences.
Cm. King asked if the term "semi-transparent" is compatible with masonry wall/fence.
Ms. Wilson stated that it was not compatible and probably should be changed. She suggested
listing a variety of materials with. masonry as one type, which would be more in line with what
the Commission would like to encourage.
Chair Schaub stated instead of using the term "public right-oi~-way" they use the term "public
realm" which he felt was a broader term. Ms. Wilson stated the change could be made to the
document.
Chair Schaub suggested there be a reference to the Heritage Trc>e Ordinance in the document.
~'tcrrnir~;~ (r~rnrsii:-,svr>*r g July Z<l, ?.t)rJ,'!
~f~t3 Sf'3'SPGt7
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Wiseman suggested putting the Heritage Tree Ordinance under Implementation Measures,
Page 101, item H.
Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned the section that states protecting views "whenever feasible." She
felt it was important to protect acid preserve the creeks, hillsides, etc.
Ms. Wilson explained the document refers to protecting the view of the creeks, etc. not the creek
itself.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked to delete "whenever feasible' and instead of "consider views", it should
read "preserve views."
Chair Schaub agreed.
Cm. Tomlinson stated by cha~lging the language they might create sites that would be
undevelopable based on the strict interpretation of the statement.
Mr. Wiseman reminded the Commission that it is incL.mbent upon the Applicant to
demonstrate that it is not feasible. They must show that th~~ site is not developable without
putting the building in a certain :;pot.
Chair Schaub suggested replacing the word "consider" with "preserve" and leave "whenever
feasible' in the section. He felt that it makes the language stro~lger.
Cm. King asked if they should include "whenever feasible" to all the other items. Mr. Wiseman
answered no and the other Commissioners agreed.
GATHERING AND OPEN SPACE AREAS:
Mr. Wiseman stated the intent of this section is to create attractive gathering spaces such as
plazas and courtyards, with amenities such as: benches, seating, shade, trash receptacles,
landscaping, etc.
There was a discussion regardi~lg the mention of campus/cffice and the Commission felt it
should read "Commercial and Office."
Cm. King asked if this section is meant to encourage design. 1~[r. Wiseman stated the intent is to
be more forceful in this section and it does not read "where feasible," but states what elements
the City wants in gathering spaces.
SIGNAGE, LIGHTING AND ART:
Mr. Wiseman stated that this section of the document addresses signage, lighting and art and
concerns with appropriate planting, lighting, and signage in I,erimeter areas with high quality
and compatible signage.
i'{~~rrrftF f,brn?r ~ f,.< 9 Jr}_~r fir; 2tItJ8
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned about company branding with signage. Ms. Wilson stated the
City is limited by the U.S. Constitution as far as free right, bait can ask for well designed signs
that comply with the Sign Ordin;~nce.
Mr. Wiseman referred to Page 97 which states the, "signage must be compatible zaith surrounding
areas and make a positive visual contribution to the City."
Chair Schaub suggested stating the Ordinance and where tc~ find it, whenever a reference is
made in the document.
Mr. Wiseman suggested saying "consistent with", and then stating the Ordinance.
Ms. Wilson agreed to review that and stated the Public Art Ordinance would be easy to address,
but they cannot reference all PL) Ordinances. Chair Schaub stated he would like to have the
Heritage Tree Ordinance and the Master Sign Ordinance ad~~ed to the list at the front of the
document.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if they should include information in the document regarding the
Planning Commission's feeling that very large LED signs are not appropriate for Dublin. Ms.
Wilson mentioned an Applicant: who submitted plans fora 75-foot LED moving sign which
requires a CUP and was denied. She continued that there is n<~thing in the Ordinances now that
prohibit that type of sign, although a moving sign is regul~~ted in the Sign Ordinance. She
stated the information in this document should be consistent v~~ith the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Wiseman asked if they foresee freeway signs as an issue. Chair Schaub answered the
Commission does have problems with large LED signs with fleshing lights. Mr. Wiseman asked
the Commission if they would like a policy that specifically a dresses those types of signs at a
policy level.
Chair Schaub answered the Commission has allowed large p}~lon signs in the past but they do
not want moving, distracting, lighted pylon signs. Mr. Wi:.eman stated he would work on
language for the document.
Ms. Wilson stated Staff will work. on the signage policy also.
PARKING AND CIRCULATION:
Mr. Wiseman stated in this section the City wants to avoid large expanses of blacktop and
install convenient, but not visually dominating parking lot s. The parking lots should be
buffered with landscaping and way-finding so that pedestrians can move through the parking
lots. Shared circulation between uses and bike parking are encouraged.
Cm. Wehrenberg felt the statement "shared circulation betu~e~~n uses" contradicts the parking
formulas. Ms. Wilson answered it could contradict the formulas, but there is benefit in having
the statement. She continued th~~t a project could have surrounding property that would share
parking resources in a specific circumstance where adjacent businesses have peak parking
demands at difficult times.
1'?x.;t,irxft { et+tns~t~<,~ 1~ ,7rr~v2~J, 1.l){)<~
DRAFT DRAFT
Chair Schaub wanted to ensure that there is well maintained landscaping. Ms. Wilson stated
that the document could include a policy which would encourage well maintained landscaping
and the project Conditions of Approval would require that th~~ landscaping be maintained. She
continued if the landscaping was not being maintained, Code :Enforcement would be involved.
There was a discussion regarding long term landscaping maintenance programs that could be
included in this section as an "implementation measure." M~;. Wilson stated Staff would work
on a policy and then an implementation measure if needed.
VILLAGES:
Mr. Wiseman showed the m~ip that references the 6 villages; Dublin Historic Village,
Downtown, Camp Parks, Transit Center, Dublin Ranch Town ~~enter, and Fallon Village Center.
Chair Schaub suggested putting all of Dublin into villages. He felt the City would be defined by
its outer limits, then villages and neighborhoods within the villages and so on. He continued
they should include this concept in the implementation mea cures covered by a village policy
and viewing them as distinct areas rather than west and east Lublin.
Mr. Baker stated that the City Council adopted policies that define the characteristics that make
villages in Dublin. The existing villages were identified using those characteristics.
Cm. Biddle mentioned Chair Schaub's suggestion could mike it easier to guide distinctive
development and encourage the building of villages.
The Commission discussed the concept of villages within Dub] in.
Mr. Baker stated Staff would ~~ork on an implementation measure to study the concept of
creating villages throughout the City.
CONNECTIONS AND LINKAGES:
Mr. Wiseman stated this section states the intent to create an~i reinforce a network of linkages
throughout Dublin within and between public and private spaces. He continued there should
be visually appealing roadways and pathways being clear ar~d identifiable, ensuring they are
safe pathways interconnected bet~tveen villages, neighborhood;, schools, parks, etc.
Cm. King suggested having pedestrian bridges over some high-traffic areas to connect centers.
Mr. Wiseman responded the Bikeways Master Plan identifies bike routes and suggested
identifying pedestrian alternativE~ modes which would identify how to get through the City.
Ms. Wilson stated there is an existing Circulation Element whi~:h is part of the General Plan and
one of the high priority Goals and Objectives of the Commission was to create an easy to read
map.
Cm. Wehrenberg suggested a connection between Dublin, Livc rmore and Pleasanton. She felt it
was not safe to ride a bike or wall< on the freeway overpass between Dublin and Pleasanton.
#'larr,tttt~ €:,,tn?~tissr~>rr 11 7.~1Y i4, 1f?f?.Y
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Baker stated the Bikeways Master Plan addresses better connectivity between Dublin and
Pleasanton.
Cm. King suggested a pedestrian bridge, but the expense may prohibit the construction.
Ms. Wilson asked if the Commission wanted a new policy or just implementation measures.
Chair Schaub suggested looking at connectivity.
Ms. Wilson stated that Staff is updating a transportation network map and that map includes
bicycle paths which is something Staff is working on currently but could add an
implementation measure to the C=ommunity Design Element tc~ create this map.
SUSTAINABILITY:
Mr. Wiseman stated the intent of sustainability is to promote Community Design that
incorporates principles of sustainability and creates a livable a~mmunity that future generations
will enjoy.
Cm. Biddle felt the sustainability section was important beriuse none of the current Specific
Plans addresses this subject.
Chair Schaub felt there were a lot of implementation measures and asked why Item J, which
states: "Incorporate measures to minimize the impacts of nighttimE lighting on adjacent properties and
nighttime glare" is needed. He felt it was not in the correct ;section. Mr. Wiseman answered
there is a sustainability issue reg~crding reducing light pollutio~l in the night time sky.
Ms. Wilson referred to Page 97 in the Signage, Lighting anti Art section and stated there is
mention of lighting to prevent excessive glare.
Cm. Tomlinson felt the sentence was two separate issues.
Mr. Wiseman suggested separating the two issues, putting night time lighting in the lighting
section and "reduce the nighttime sky light pollution" in the sustainability section.
Cm. Wehrenberg referred to page 82 and how they relate to sustainability. Mr. Wiseman stated
they try to relate back to principles of Community Design from Kevin Lynch and how they
apply to Dublin.
Chair Schaub felt Staff could eliminate the chapter and section numbering of the document as
he felt it was confusing.
Ms. Wilson agreed to review the numbering of the document.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Commission needs to revise other documents to correlate with the
Community Design Element. Cm. Biddle felt all. the Specific I=1ans should be updated to reflect
the information in the Community Design Element.
~'frr;€ a"1 ('nntn gs,ir?.f 12 ~t~tb l J, 2~1~J~4
4:r~ r~s;.,;rr
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Wiseman asked if the City will be implementing a Green E~uilding Ordinance. Chair Schaub
stated the Commission discussed the subject in their Goals and Objectives last year, but felt they
needed more information before moving forward.
Ms. Wilson stated that in this Fiscal Year, one of the Goals and Objectives was to implement a
self-certification Green Building checklist requirement for developers, which will be processed
through the Building Department but there is no Ordinance at this time.
Chair Schaub stated the two items that the Commission wanted to continue discussing are the
words "when feasible" and whether to include Hacienda in the Positive Regional Identity
section.
Chair Schaub asked the Commission if they felt Hacienda Drive, from I-580 to Dublin Blvd.,
should be listed in the Positive Regional Identity section.
The Planning Commission agreed.
Mr. Baker asked to reconfirm on the taxonomy concept of principles, then categories, then goals
for each categories. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Baker to leave intent, goal and policy as is until the
next meeting.
The Planning Commission agreed.
Mr. Baker asked about adding the I-680 south off ramp and B~~RT stations as a Sense of Arrival
point.
The Planning Commission agreed.
Mr. Baker also asked about creating an implementation measure to create Villages.
The Planning Commission agreed.
NEXT STEPS
Mr. Baker indicated Staff would incorporate the changes i~rom tonight's meeting into the
document, and bring a final draft to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City
Council on the August 26~ Planning Commission meeting.
Cm. Biddle suggested talking about implementation measures at the meeting on August 26~.
The Commission agreed to spend more time on the implementation measures and felt some
have more work items than others.
Ms. Wilson asked the Commission to send her an email before the meeting if they feel there is
something missing or if they have concerns about the impleme station measures so that Staff can
address those issues before the August 26~ meeting.
7'I~a;rt{art~t (l~rrrnt~>'rc-:t ] 3 jt,fr t€> :(3t?:'S
t< ~ ....<
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Tomlinson asked if the Community Design Element will guide the placement of gateway
monument signs. Mr. Baker answered that would be addressed in the Streetscape Master Plan.
Cm. Wehrenberg suggested instead of a monument sign, a vertical sign that goes along the
street might be better. She felt it could be a piece of art work incorporating a Dublin theme, but
it might be difficult to install a monument if there is a median riot big enough for it.
Chair Schaub mentioned the monument sign on San Ra:non Road and felt it was not
distinctively Dublin.
Cm. King felt the village concept could solve the problem of )/ublin Blvd., which was discussed
at a previous meeting, because it touches every village.
Cm. Biddle felt art placement should be part of the implementation measures and that art
placement in public right-of-ways would be important.
Chair Schaub was concerned that there had been no discussio 1 regarding parks which is a part
of gathering places and was also concerned the Planning Commission has no input with the
City Council regarding parks because the Parks and Arts Coxrunissions have their own guiding
principles.
Ms. Wilson stated the Community Design Element does not deal very much with the Parks and
Art Commissions who have their own Master Plans. She st<<ted she would look at the Parks
Master Plan to see if it should be referred to in the Community Design Element.
Chair Schaub suggested letting the other Commissions kno~N about the Community Design
Element in case they would like to add information to it.
Ms. Wilson stated she had spoken with the Parks and Comrunity Services Director to see if
there is something that needs to lie included and will check wit h her again.
Chair Schaub asked to put the topic of talking to developers ~~nd the policies that the Planning
Commission will follow on the Agenda.
Ms. Wilson stated she has asked John Bakker, City Attorney to join a future Planning
Commission meeting and give a Brown Act tutorial.
Hearing no further comments, Cltair Schaub adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m.
la.rr,at=fit t,~na;~,2s~irrt 14 ,Jz~fY Z~), ?t)f)„
ed. :~sPi17i -