Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-29-2008 Study Session MinutesPlanning Commission Study Session Minutes CALL TO ORDER 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. Clair Schaub called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. ATTENDEES Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioners Biddle, King, and Wehrenberg; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Jeff Baker, Senior Planner; 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 Community 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 a 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 Design 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. Wiseman responded a General Plan has 7 elements that are required by State law but a Community Design Element is an optional element of the General Plan. He continued the General Plan 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 or PUD. Cm. Tomlinson wanted to ensure that the document was not so generic that it does not cover large sections of the City that do not fall under any Specific Plan 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 (P(anning Commission 1 Ju!y 29, 2008 Ct"'A Qvccimr 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 Master 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 Specific 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 most specific (Scarlett Court). He continued the Planning Commission will work with RBF regarding Design Guidelines for the Downtown Specific Plan and, at that point, the Commission could decide if they support the Downtown Specific Plan enough that they would want those 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 some of the items the Commission has wanted to address. He felt the Commission could wait on 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 and then decide if they want to apply those Guidelines to areas that aren't in a Specific Plan. The Commission may want to create Citywide Design Guidelines. Ms. Wilson described the General Plan as a policy document :ind 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 that 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 leans 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, Aanning Commission 2 Jufy 29, 2008 01, J-d C!-; n signage, architecture or landscaping. He stated it should not be too defined but should set a standard for projects within the City. Chair Schaub asked if the Community Design Element will go -.oo far. Ms. Wilson mentioned the previous Study Session where the City Council and Planning Commission had the opportunity to review slides and comment 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 had 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 reason 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 doesn't become dated over time. She also commented on page 95 of the draft Community 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 fences" but gives a guideline as to what the Planning Commission would support without bein;; 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 defined, but is now defined in the Community Design Element document. Chair Schaub stated the term "gateway" 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 and felt that any area not covered by a Specific Plan would then be covered by the Design Element. 3 Jufy 29, 2008 t'lanning Commission C to Av Cvccimr 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 was inconsistent. There was a brief discussion regarding taxonomy and its meaning. Mr. Wiseman referred to the book, Image of the City, by Kevin 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 a:-e 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 measures are one of the key components which drive how the City will evolve. Chair Schaub referred to page 83, and stated the principles have 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 systein 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 consultant 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 not need to be both, but should be one or the other. He continued there are the five principles and 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 changing the wording. Mr. Wiseman felt Chair Schaub was looking for organizationa . 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 the key policies of the Community Design Element. Aanning Commission 4 ,duly 29, 2008 POSITIVE REGIONAL IDENTITY: Mr. Wiseman stated that this section looks at regional road: and how they create a positive identity for Dublin. These roadways include: BART, I-580, and 1-680, 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 section 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 regarding the definition of "maintain N iews " 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 "where 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 project. Mr. Baker mentioned that "where feasible" is another word for "encourage" rather than "shall or must." (PCanning Commission 5 Jury 29, 2008 4h-fu C:-,n- 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 not in another and there should 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 exiting the freeway will know they are in Dublin. He stated the idea 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 ape Master Plan. Chair Schaub felt the title "Dublin Gateways" should be capitalized as well as all eleven gateways identified. Ms. Wilson agreed and added the 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 Deign Element. Chair Schaub asked why the Element discusses the zoning designation for Office and Campus/Office, but does not discuss the levels of Commercial and Industrial zoning which is more consistent with the Zoning Code. Ms. Wilson asked if he wanted to add the General Plan (PCa nning Commission 6 Jufy 29, 2008 land use categories. Chair Schaub answered yes. Ms. Wilson 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 themes. 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 exce3ence in architecture, zoorkmanship, quality, and durability in building materials" which will last over ilme. 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 spec--ific and felt it may be limiting developers when there is no need. Cm. Wehrenberg thought the "Modern" style was more up-to-date and Cm. Tomlinson thought the term "Modern" should be avoided and felt "Contemporary" 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 policy was crafted directly in response to those comments. He felt the Planning Commission has concerns 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 rely] ng on Policy A. Chair Schaub suggested combining Policy A and J into one policy. Cm. Wehrenberg disagreed. Aanning Commission 7 _9ufy 29, 2008 Mr. Wiseman referred to the discussion from the workshop where the Council and Commission indicated they liked modern, interesting looking office buildings that create public spaces with signature buildings. He spoke about the intent of the policy 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 didn t feel that Policy A communicates that. Ms. Wilson felt "distinctive" is a positive word. Chair Schaub suggested using the 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 connected by pedestrian pathways. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the document should identify courtyards or gathering places in clustered campus/ office buildings. Ms. Wilson stated the information 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 continued 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-of-way" they use the term "public realm" which be 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 Tree Ordinance in the document. Aanning Commission 8 Jufy 29, 2008 Chi?v Coccinn 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 and 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 changing 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 incumbent upon the Applicant to demonstrate that it is not feasible. They must show that the site is not developable without putting the building in a certain spot. Chair Schaub suggested replacing the word "consider" with "preserve" and leave "whenever feasible" in the section. He felt that it makes the language stronger. 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 atiractive gathering spaces such as plazas and courtyards, with amenities such as: benches, ,:eating, shade, trash receptacles, landscaping, etc. There was a discussion regarding the mention of campus/office and the Commission felt it should read "Commercial and Office." Cm. King asked. if this section is meant to encourage design. Mr. 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 perimeter areas with high quality and compatible signage. (PCanning Communion 9 Afy 29, 2008 cr„T„ co??;?„ Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned about company branding wish signage. Ms. Wilson stated the City is limited by the U.S. Constitution as far as free right, but can ask for well designed signs that comply with the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Wiseman referred to Page 97 which states the, "signage must be compatible with 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 added to the list at the front of the document. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if they should include information in the document regarding the Planning Commissions feeling that very large LED signs are not appropriate for Dublin. Ms. Wilson mentioned an Applicant: who submitted plans for a 75-foot LED moving sign which requires a CUP and was denied. She continued that there is nothing in the Ordinances now that prohibit that type of sign, although a moving sign is regulated in the Sign Ordinance. She stated the information in this document should be consistent with 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 flashing lights. Mr. Wiseman asked the Commission if they would like a policy that specifically addresses those types of signs at a policy level. Chair Schaub answered the Commission has allowed large pylon signs in the past but they do not want moving, distracting, lighted pylon signs. Mr. Wiseman 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 loi: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 between uses" contradicts the parking formulas. Ms. Wilson answered it could contradict the formulas, but there is benefit in having the statement. She continued that 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. (Pranning Commission 10 jufy 29, 2008 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 the 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." Ms. Wilson stated Staff would work on a policy and then an implementation measure if needed. VILLAGES: Mr. Wiseman showed the map that references the 6 villages; Dublin Historic Village, Downtown, Camp Parks, Transit Center, Dublin Ranch Town Center, 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 measures covered by a village policy and viewing them as distinct areas rather than west and east Dublin. 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 mitke it easier to guide distinctive development and encourage the building of villages. The Commission discussed the concept of villages within Dublin. Mr. Baker stated Staff would work 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 and reinforce a network of linkages throughout Dublin within and between public and private sFaces. He continued there should be visually appealing roadways and pathways being clear and identifiable, ensuring they are safe pathways interconnected between villages, neighborhoods, schools, parks, etc. Cm. King suggested having pedestrian bridges over some higl-L-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 which 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, Livermore and Pleasanton. She felt it was not safe to ride a bike or walk on the freeway overpass between Dublin and Pleasanton. 41finning Commission 1 1 Jufy 29, 2008 O"d, Cvccimr 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 or currently but could add an implementation measure to the Community Design Element to 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 community that future generations will enjoy. Cm. Biddle felt the sustainability section was important because 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 regarding reducing light pollutio:a in the night time sky. Ms. Wilson referred to Page 97 in the Signage, Lighting and 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 flans should be updated to reflect the information in the Community Design Element. PCanning Commission 12 jufy 29, 2008 Chive Coccinri Mr. Wiseman asked if the City will be implementing a Green Building 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 BART 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 from tonight's meeting into the document, and bring a final draft to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council on the August 26th Planning Commission meeting. Cm. Biddle suggested talking about implementation measures at the meeting on August 26111. 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 implementation measures so that Staff can address those issues before the August 26th meeting. Aanning Commission 13 Jufy 29, 2005 Ct,,A, Cnccinn 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 Ramon Road and felt it was not distinctively Dublin. Cm. King felt the village concept could solve the problem of Dublin 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 discussion regarding parks which is a part of gathering places and was also concerned the Planning Ccmmission has no input with the City Council regarding parks because the Parks and Arts Commissions 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 stated 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 know 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 Community Services Director to see if there is something that needs to be included and will check wish her again. Chair Schaub asked to put the topic of talking to developers iu1d the policies that the Planning Commission will follow on the Agenda. Ms. Wilson stated she has asked John Bakker, City Attcrney to join a future Planning Commission meeting and give a Brown Act tutorial. Hearing no further comments, Chair Schaub adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m. ?'Canning Commission 14 ,only 29, 2008 rr„A;? Caccinn