HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 GP Community Plan & Sust Elementtip' cr
J ~. I
~I~V
\~:~
CITY CLERK
File # ^~0^-~^
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 16, 2008
SUBJECT: PA 07-038 -General Plan Community Design and Sustainability
Element
Report prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment adding a
Community Design and Sustainability Element to the General Plan
as Chapter 10, with the Community Design and Sustainability
Element included as Exhibit A.
2) Planning Commission Resolution 08-21 Recommending that the
City Council adopt a Resolution approving a General Plan
Amendment adding a Community Design and Sustainability
Element to the General Plan as Chapter 10.
3) City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report
Dated April 1, 2008 (without Attachments).
4) City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Minutes Dated
April 1, 2008.
5) Planning Commission Staff Report Dated July 29, 2008 (without
Attachments).
6) Planning Commission Study Session Minutes Dated July 29, 2008.
7) Planning Commission Staff Report Dated August 26, 2008
(without Attachments).
8) Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes Dated August 26,
2008.
9) Village Policy Statement.
10) Village Action Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation;
2) Open the Public Hearing;
3) Receive public testimony;
_ 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and
5) Adopt a Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment adding
a Community Design and Sustainability Element to the General
Plan as Chapter 10.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Funds have been allocated in the 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 budget to
create the Community Design and Sustainability Element. The
proposed element contains a number of implementation measures that
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPY TO: RBF/UDS Consulting
File PA 07-038 I
ITEM NO. •
Page 1 of 5
G:\PA#\2007\07-038 Community Design Element\City Council\9.16.08 CDE\ccsr 9.16.08 CDE.doc
i
are specific tasks needed to achieve the proposed goals and policies
contained in the document. The City Council will need to dedicate
resources, including staff time and money, in order to achieve many of
these implementation measures over the anticipated 20 year life of the
General Plan. The dedication of resources would have a fiscal impact to
the City. The fiscal impact of these resources will be determined at the
time that the City Council directs Staff to dedicate resources to complete
specific implementation measures.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
The Fiscal Year 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 City Council Goals and Objectives include, as a high priority
goal, the preparation of a General Plan Community Design Element. On June 19, 2007, the City Council
adopted a Resolution (Resolution 105-07) approving a Consulting Services Agreement with RBF/UDS
Consulting to prepare the Community Design Element and authorized the City Manager to sign the
Agreement on behalf of the City.
Each city and county in California is mandated to adopt a General Plan with seven required "elements".
Each jurisdiction may adopt additional optional elements as they see fit. The proposed Community
Design and Sustainability Element (draft Element) is an optional element and would be added to the
Dublin General Plan as Chapter 10.
The draft Community Design and Sustainability Element (Exhibit A to Attachment 1) provides a guiding
vision for the character of future public and private improvements throughout the City. The draft Element
is a graphically-based document that illustrates design principles related to site planning, architecture and
landscaping. Planning theorist and author Kevin Lynch provides a commonly used model for community
design which divides the city into functional areas, which contribute to distinctive design. Lynch's
functional areas have been refined to create the unifying principles of community design for Dublin.
A joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session was held on April 1, 2008 to .discuss the
unifying principles of community design which provide the framework of the Community Design and
Sustainability Element. The City Council and Planning Commission identified those principles that they
value the most (Attachments 3 and 4). Staff and RBF/UDS Consulting used the information obtained at
the Study Session to refine the unifying principles and prepare the goals, policies and implementation
measures that comprise the draft Element as discussed in the Analysis section of this Staff Report.
The Planning Commission held a subsequent Study Session on July 29, 2008 to review the draft
Community Design and Sustainability Element. The Study Session included an overview of the draft
document and the proposed goals, policies, and implementation measures. The Planning Commission
provided Staff and the consultant team with the following direction regarding the draft Element
(Attachments 5 and 6).
^ Provide a policy to address distracting signs and Electronic Readerboard Signs adjacent to I-580 &
I-680;
^ Provide an implementation measure to create Villages throughout the entire City;
^ Review the document format; and
^ Other minor modifications throughout the draft document.
The Planning Commission feedback and direction was incorporated into the draft Element for the
Planning Commission meeting on August 26, 2008. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on
Page 2 of 5
August 26, 2008 to review and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the draft
Community Design and Sustainability Element. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to adopt a
Resolution (Resolution 08-21) recommending that the City Council approve the GPA adding the
Community Design and Sustainability Element as Section 10 of the General Plan (Attachment 2) and to
further modify Policy 10.5.3.E to provide additional flexibility as discussed on page 4 in the Analysis of
this Staff Report.
ANALYSIS:
Unifying Principles
The draft Community Design and Sustainability Element includes five unifying principles of community
design that provide the framework for the document. Each of these unifying principles is described
below:
a. Positive Regional Identity -The visual character of public and private improvements adjacent to
roads of regional significance, including major arterials and Interstates 580 and 680;
b. Sense of Arrival -The design of public and private improvements to create a sense of arrival at
entrances to the City;
c. Design of the Built Form -Elements that create and enhance high quality, safe and attractive,
residential, commercial, office, industrial, and mixed use neighborhoods and villages;
d. Connections and Linkages -Streets, sidewalks, paths and trails that enhance connectivity within
and between separate properties, the public right-of--way and open space; and
e. Sustainability -Techniques to provide a high quality of life and preserve energy, water and other
natural resources, with attractive and integrated design.
Separate sections of the draft Element are dedicated to each of these principles. Each section contains
goals, policies and implementation measures that will provide a guiding vision for the character of public
and private improvements throughout the community. These improvements include streetscape design,
landscaping, site planning, and building design. The draft Element also contains graphics and
photographs to illustrate these policies.
Villages
The City Council adopted a 10 year Strategic Plan in 2004 which includes the establishment of villages
within the City. The City Council's 2004/2005 Goals and Objectives included the development of
policies that define village characteristics as a planning tool and also identified opportunities to create new
villages in Dublin. Staff conducted research and prepared a background study of village concepts for use
in creating a Village Policy Statement. The Village Policy Statement was approved by the City Council
on September 7, 2004, and identifies the characteristics that comprise a village in Dublin (Attachment 9).
A village in Dublin is defined as the compact development of an area that promotes pedestrian friendly
design and integrates a variety of housing types and densities, community facilities, pedestrian trails and
linkages, transportation, and fosters a specific identity. The City Council subsequently directed Staff to
identify potential village sites and prepare a Village Action Plan.
Staff analyzed potential village sites using the criteria established in the Village Policy Statement and
created a Village Action Plan (Attachment 10). The Village Action Plan included measures to achieve
villages consistent with the Village Policy Statement. The City Council approved the Village Action Plan
on August 16, 2005, and identified the following five potential village locations:
^ Downtown Dublin
^ Camp Parks
Page 3 of 5
^ Transit Center
^ Dublin Ranch Town Center
^ Fallon Village Center
Since approving the Village Action Plan, the City adopted the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan
in August 2006. The characteristics of the Dublin Village Historic Area are consistent with the village
characteristics identified in the Village Policy Statement.
The concepts of the Village Policy Statement and Village Action Plan are incorporated into the draft
Community Design and Sustainability Element (Section 10.7.3.6). This includes identification of village
locations, which includes the Dublin Historic Village, and policies to ensure that the village characteristics
are incorporated into future development of these areas.
The Planning Commission expressed a desire to incorporate all areas of Dublin into villages. At the
Planning Commission meeting, there was a discussion of the creation of villages throughout the City and
how creating villages throughout the City could potentially divide the City into individual districts or
communities rather than one overall community. After the discussion, the Commission directed Staff to
include an implementation measure to study the feasibility of creating villages throughout Dublin. The
following Implementation Measure has been included to study additional village areas:
Implementation Measure 1 D. 7.4.M: Study the feasibility of creating villages for all portions of
Dublin.
Creating villages throughout the entire City would not be consistent with the compact mixed use village
characteristics that were approved by the City Council. Therefore, in order to achieve implementation
measure 10.7.4.M, the City Council would need to allocate Staff time in order to study the feasibility of
creating villages throughout Dublin. Staff would need to review and modify the characteristics and
policies that define villages in Dublin and study how they would apply to areas throughout Dublin. If the
City Council does not want to create villages throughout Dublin, the Council can direct Staff to delete
Implementation Measure 10.7.4.M.
Sustainability Element
Sustainability was identified as a unifying principle of community design, as noted above. The draft
Community Design Element includes extensive Policies and Implementation Measures related to
Sustainability (Section 10.9). The concept of Sustainability has come to the forefront of planning in
recent years. In fact, some local jurisdictions have adopted a Sustainability Element in their General
Plans. Because of the importance of this issue and the number of policies related to this topic, the
Planning Commission has recommended adopting the proposed document as a combined Community
Design and Sustainability Element. Adopting this document as a combined Element will provide further
weight to the importance of Sustainability in Dublin.
Distracting Signs Adjacent to I-580 and I-680
The Planning Commission cited ongoing concern regarding the use of distracting signs and electronic
reader board signs adjacent to I-580 and I-680. At the Study Session on July 29, 2008, the Planning
Commission directed Staff to include a policy to prohibit distracting signs and Electronic Readerboard
Signs adjacent to I-580 and I-680. Staff added a policy (Policy 10.5.3.E) to address distracting signs and
electronic readerboard signs. At the Public Hearing on August 26, 2008 the Planning Commission
directed Staff to further refine Policy 10.5.3.E, as follows, providing the flexibility to allow Electronic
Readerboard Signs where deemed appropriate.
Page4of5
Policy 10.5.3.E: Encourage attractive quality signage along freeway corridors that avoids the use of
distractive features such as bright colors, bulky scale and mass, and discourages electronic
readerboard signs.
Policy 10.5.3.E reinforces the current practice to allow a variety of different sign types, including
electronic readerboard signs, adjacent to I-580 and I-680 consistent with the existing Sign Regulations in
the Zoning Ordinance. However, the proposed policy would also provide a stronger tool to regulate the
design of such signs, and to deny such signs if they are not appropriate for a particular site.
The Sign Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.84) regulates electronic readerboards and requires
approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by the Planning Commission. In order to approve a CUP,
the Planning Commission must make a Finding of consistency with the General Plan. While Policy
10.5.3.E discourages electronic readerboard signs, the Policy provides the flexibility to approve a CUP for
such signs. Therefore, a finding of consistency with the General Plan could be made and a CUP for an
Electronic Readerboard Sign adjacent to I-580 and I-680 could be approved where deemed appropriate by
the decision-making body.
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES:
If adopted, the Community Design and Sustainability Element will become part of the Dublin General
Plan. The General Plan is anticipated to be implemented over a period of approximately 20 years. The
proposed Community Design and Sustainability Element includes implementation measures that are
specific tasks needed to achieve the proposed goals and policies. The City Council will need to dedicate
resources, including staff time and money, in order to achieve many of these implementation measures.
The dedication of these resources would have a fiscal impact to the City. However, these resources do not
have to be dedicated at one time. The City Council can select implementation measures and dedicate
resources through the annual City Council Goals and Objectives process throughout the life of the General
Plan.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
In order to obtain community input regarding the Community Design and Sustainability Element, the City
hosted an online Townscan Survey from November 1St through December 31St 2007. The online survey
contained various images of development and provided respondents with an opportunity to rate these
images and provide additional feedback. Staff utilized the following outreach methods to encourage
community participation in the online survey: a TV 30 promotion that aired during the months of
November and December 2007, a flyer that was inserted into Dublin resident's water bills, an ad in the
Parks and Community Services quarterly activity guide, and a notice published in the Valley Times and
posted at several locations throughout the City. As a result, the City received over 300 survey responses.
Survey participants and other interested parties have received notice regarding the City Council Meeting
to take action on the Community Design and Sustainability Element.
CONCLUSION:
The Community Design and Sustainability Element contains goals, policies and implementation measures
that will further the City's efforts to create an inviting and attractive community by providing a guiding
vision for public and private improvements throughout the City. If adopted by the City Council, the
Community Design and Sustainability Element will become Section 10 of the General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3)
Receive public testimony; 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt a Resolution
approving a General Plan Amendment adding a Community Design and Sustainability Element to the
General Plan as Chapter 10.
Page 5 of 5
1~~3
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 08
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ADDING A COMMUNITY DESIGN AND
SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN AS CHAPTER 10
PA 07-038
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 City Council Goals and Objectives
included as a high priority goal, the preparation of a General Plan Community Design Element; and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2007, the City Council adopted a Resolution (Resolution 105-07)
approving a .Consulting Services Agreement with RBF/UDS Consulting to prepare the Community
Design Element with Sustainability measures and authorizing the City Manager to sign the Agreement on
behalf of the City; and
WHEREAS, each city and county in California must adopt a General Plan containing seven
required "elements"; and
WHEREAS, jurisdictions may adopt additional elements as they see fit; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopted on February 11, 1985, and has been
amended a number of times since that date; and
WHEREAS, the Community Design and Sustainability Element is an optional element and would
be added to the Dublin General Plan as Chapter 10; and
WHEREAS, the Community Design and Sustainability Element provides a guiding vision for the
character of future public and private improvements throughout the City while preserving energy, water
and other natural features; and
WHEREAS, the Community Design and Sustainability Element includes five unifying principles
of community design, including Positive Regional Identity, Sense of Arrival, Design of the Built Form,
Connections and Linkages, and Sustainability, that provide the framework for the goals, policies and
implementation measures contained in the Community Design and Sustainability Element; and
WHEREAS, the Community Design and Sustainability Element is exempt from the
environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA
applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and
where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a
significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a noticed
public hearing on said Community Design and Sustainability Element on August 26, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 08-21,
incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan
Amendment adding a Community Design and Sustainability Element as Chapter 10 of the General Plan;
and ~-l Lo-OS~ ~o- /
ATTACHMENT 1
a~
WHEREAS, a City Council Staff Report dated September 16, 2008, and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the General Plan Amendment adding a Community Design and
Sustainability Element to the General Plan as Chapter 10; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Project at a noticed Public Hearing on September 16,
2008, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony described herein and used its independent judgment to evaluate the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and
made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby approve adding the
Community Design and Sustainability Element, attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution, to the General
Plan as Chapter 10 based on findings that the amendment is in the public interest and will not have an
adverse effect on health or safety or be detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or
public improvement and that the General Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed Community Design and Sustainability
Element is consistent with all other goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the General
Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Plan Amendment shall be effective 30 days
after the date of approval.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16t" day of September 2008 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
G:\PA#\2007\07-038 Community Design Element\City Council\9.16.08 CDE\CC Reso CDE GPA.DOC
2
'
~~
~~
~~
I '
City of Dublin
/
- ~ ,~J
~,~.. ~ ~_:- ' ~ ~ \
- ~\. _ _ .~ ~ .
~ ~=' _ _ - .
. . "_~~:r.
`.`;,~y
Communit Desi n & -~
y g _.
3a ~ s3
Sustainabilit EI m nt
y e e
Prepared by
~ Draft
August 2008
CONSLJLT~NG ~~~`~~~ `1
fi~p ~ ~ ~008
~''.~$~.~l~ °L~1-viv~~r.-
Prepared for
ti~~~ ~x~~
n`~" , ~;".
~~y ~~ ~~1 C~;
`~\ i ,~~
'jtij~-.~i~`
EXHIBIT A TO
ATTACHMENT l
3erbg 3
COMMUNITY DESIGN & SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
City Council
Janet Lockhart, Mayor
Tim Sbranti, Vice Mayor
Kasie Hildenbrand
Tony Oravetz
Kate Ann Scholz
Planning Commission
Bill Schaub, Chair
Greg Tomlinson, Vice Chair
Donald Biddle
Morgan King
Doreen Wehrenberg
City Staff
Rich Ambrose, City Manager
Jeri Ram, Community Development Director
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager
Jeff Baker, Senior Planner
August 2008 Page i
~'3
COMMUNITY DESIGN 8~ SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
10.1 Overview .................................................................................................. 79
10.1.1 Citywide Design Vision ......................................................................................................... 79
10.2 Relevant Plans and Policies .................................................................... 80
10.3 Unifying Principles of Community Design .............................................. 82
10.3.1 The Image of the City ........................................................................................................... 82
10.3.2 The Importance of Streetscapes .......................................................................................... 83
10.4 Organization of the Community Design 8~ Sustainability Element ...... 83
10.5 Positive Regional Identity ........................................................................ 84
10.5.1 Intent .................................................................................................................................... 85
10.5.2 Goal ...................................................................................................................................... 85
10.5.3 Policies ................................................................................................................................. 85
10.5.4 Implementation Measures .................................................................................................... 86
10.6 Sense of Arrival ........................................................................................ 88
10.6.1 Intent .................................................................................................................................... 89
10.6.2 Goal ...................................................................................................................................... 89
10.6.3 Policies ................................................................................................................................. 89
10.6.4 Implementation Measures .................................................................................................... 90
10.7 Design of the Built Form .......................................................................... 90
10.7.1 Intent .................................................................................................................................... 91
10.7.2 Goal ...................................................................................................................................... 91
10.7.3 Policies ................................................................................................................................. 92
10.7.3.1 Site and Building Design ...................................................................................................... 92
10.7.3.2 Landscaping and Natural Features ...................................................................................... 96
10.7.3.3 Gathering and Open Space Areas ....................................................................................... 98
10.7.3.4 Signage, Lighting, and Art .................................................................................................... 100
10.7.3.5 Parking and Circulation ........................................................................................................ 101
10.7.3.6 Villages ................................................................................................................................. 102
10.7.4 Implementation Measures .................................................................................................... 105
Page ii August 2008
~~g3
COMMUNITY DESIGN 8 SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
10.8 Connections and Linkages ..................................................................... 106
10.8.1 Intent .................................................................................................................................... 106
10.8.2 Goal ...................................................................................................................................... 106
10.8.3 Policies ................................................................................................................................. 106
10.8.4 Implementation Measures .................................................................................................... 108
10.9 Sustainability ............................................................................................ 108
10.9.1 Intent .................................................................................................................................... 108
10.9.2 Goal ...................................................................................................................................... 108
10.9.3 Policies ................................................................................................................................. 108
10.9.4 Implementation Measures .................................................................................................... 111
LIST OF FIGURES
10-1 Regional Corridors ............................................................................................................... 84
10-2 Gateways ............................................................................................................................. 88
10-3 Character Sketch -General Commercial ............................................................................. 93
10-4 Character Sketch -Gathering Areas .................................................................................... 99
10-5 Villages ................................................................................................................................. 102
10-6 Character Sketch -Villages .................................................................................................. 104
August 2008 Page iii
c~~~3
This page intentionally left blank
i~
J
ie
i~
~~83
-_ COMMUNITY DESIGN & SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT I CITY OF DUBLIN
CHAPTER 10
COMMUNITY DESIGN & SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT
10.1 Overview
The Community Design and Sustainability Element guides public and private development to
create a city that is diverse, functional, and aesthetically appealing. The Community Design
and Sustainability Element contains goals and policies that provide a framework for community
development and guidelines for new construction and improvements while protecting the City's
positive characteristics. These goals and policies apply to three-dimensional aspects of the built
environment in Dublin: buildings, streets, sidewalks, neighborhoods, plazas, etc. Community
design combines aspects of architecture, landscape architecture, public works, public art, and
transportation systems. Implementation of these community design policies will create an
inviting and attractive city that will help to unify the City visually and create a distinct sense of
place in special areas of the City.
10.1.1 Citywide Design Vision
The following design vision provides the basis for the goals and policies contained in this
Community Design and Sustainability Element:
Dublin is a vibrant, well-designed city with a positive regional identity. Regional corridors
promote Phis positive regional identity through attractive development, unique landscaping,
and preservation of views to rolling hillsides and other prominent features. Gateways
welcome residents and visitors alike through signage, distinctive landscaping, and buildings
oriented toward gateway intersections.
Dublin is a city of villages that enhance its suburban character with attractive and integrated
residential neighborhoods, retail centers, and office and industrial areas. Regional transit
hubs are developed with compact development that incorporates a mixture of commercial,
office, and residential uses. Pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists are provided with a
variety of connections that link various activity centers of the City. Dublin is a leader in
sustainable design and continues to thrive as an attractive and livable city for generations to
come.
August 2008 Page 79
~~~3 ~
COMMUNITY DESIGN 8 SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
10.2 Relevant Plans and
Polices
Dublin has adopted a number of plans
and policies to guide development.
Some of these pertain to the entire
City, while others have a specific area
of focus. As part of the City of Dublin
General Plan, this Community Design
and Sustainability Element provides
goals, policies, and implementation
measures that address the entire
City. Where goals, policies, and
implementation measures of other
policy documents and plans conflict,
those in the Community Design
and Sustainability Element shall
supersede. The following includes the
existing plans and policies that guide
development in Dublin.
A. City of Dublin General Plan
The General Plan is the highest-level policy document for the entire City, and acts like an
"umbrella" over other documents. State law requires general plans to include the following
elements: land use, circulation, open space, conservation, safety, noise, and housing. These
elements may be combined and additional (optional) elements may be included. All elements of
a General Plan are considered equal and all other plans and policies are required by state law
to be consistent with the General Plan. The Community Design and Sustainability Element is
an optional element of the Dublin General Plan.
B. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (In Process)
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) is currently undergoing development and will
provide policy guidance, development standards and design guidelines for downtown Dublin.
Once complete, the DDSP will replace the existing Dublin Downtown Specific Plan, Downtown
Core Specific Plan, San Ramon Road Specific Plan, Village Parkway Specific Plan, and West
Dublin BART Specific Plan.
C. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provides policy guidance for existing and future development
generally east of the Iron Horse Trail and Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. New
development in this area requires adoption of Planned Development (PD) zoning, which
includes development regulations, architectural standards, and preliminary landscape plans.
Page 80 August 2008
~i ~~3
COMMUNITY DESIGN 8~ SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
r'
D. Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan
The Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan applies to future development and redevelopment
in the Dublin Village Historic Area. This plan includes design guidelines, historic resource
~'' preservation measures, and implementation actions.
E. Scarlett Court Design Guidelines
The Scarlett Court Design Guidelines apply to the industrial area in and around Scarlett Court.
Design guidelines address site planning, architecture, signage, landscaping, and lighting.
F. Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards
The Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policy establishes a set of scenic corridor polices for
designated corridors including Interstate 580, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road, and defines a
review process within these scenic corridors.
' G. Streetscape Master Plan
The Streetscape Master Plan addresses landscape planting and street furnishings throughout
Dublin. This document identifies tree species and planting requirements, as well as streetscape
' amenities such as streetlights, trash receptacles, benches, bus shelters, monuments, and
signage.
' H. Bikeways Master Plan
The Bikeways Master Plan provides goals and policies for the bicycle network, supporting
facilities, educational and enforcement programs, and implementation measures that support
bicycle mobility in and through Dublin.
I. Public Art Master Plan
The Public Art Master Plan provides guidelines, policies, and implementation measures for
^ public art in City projects and private developments.
J. Zoning Ordinance
The Zoning Ordinance provides policies and regulations for the entire City. Topics addressed
include permitted, conditionally permitted, and temporarily permitted uses, development
~ standards, parking and landscaping regulations, permit procedures, and sign regulations.
K. Heritage Tree Ordinance
The Heritage Tree Ordinance provides regulations controlling the removal of and the
,~ preservation of heritage trees within the City. In establishing these regulations, it is the City's
intent to preserve as many heritage trees as possible.
L. Parks and Recreation Master Plan
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan establishes goals, long-term policies, and standards
to guide the City in the acquisition, development, and management of Dublin's Park and
Recreation facilities for the next 20 years.
August 2008 Page 81
1~~~3
COMMUNITY DESIGN 8~ SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
10.3 Unifying Principles of Community Design
Because of the varied scales at which a community functions, city
planners and designers often utilize a variety of analytical techniques
and methodologies to describe and communicate various community
design principles.
10.3.1 The Image of the City
A commonly used model of urban design comes from theorist and
author Kevin Lynch (The Image of the City, 1960). His overriding idea
was for cities to create a more memorable identity by enhancing the
image of their major elements. He divided the city into the following
functional areas, each of which contributes distinct design potential:
Paths -Paths connect activity areas and can have an important
identity of their own.
Landmarks -Visually prominent buildings, important cultural
centers, or special natural features serve to give a city a distinct
image and are important amenities.
Edges -Boundaries signal one's arrival at a new land use, area, or
feature. If edges are clearly marked, such as in the use of entry signs
or monuments, a city's identity is strengthened.
Nodes -Focal points, intersections, and gathering places create
activity centers that draw people into them and stimulate adjacent
development.
Districts -Special areas of the city have their own visual and
functional identity and help differentiate the visual monotony seen in
many cities today.
~:~
*~n j/~`
c
~ fi C~J
-...`~+~5~ V
o° eoo
O p°~0
_-_
Page 82 August 2008 "~ i
i ~~g3
COMMUNITY DESIGN 8 SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
Lynch's five functional areas have been refined into the following five goals for Dublin.
1. Promote a Positive Regional Identity of the City.
2. Create a Sense of Arrival at gateways to the City.
3. Ensure quality and compatible Design of the Built Form.
4. Establish Connections and Linkages throughout the City.
5. Encourage Sustainability to provide a high quality of life and to preserve resources and
opportunities for future generations.
10.3.2 The Importance of Streetscapes
Streetscapes refer to the visual image created by the buildings, signs, street furniture,
landscaping, spaces and other features along a street. By unifying the treatment of one or
more of these elements, a streetscape can have a coherent image and one that makes a strong
statement within a city.
10.4 Organization of the Community Design and Sustainability Element
This Community Design and Sustainability Element is organized according to the following three
hierarchal elements:
Goals
Goals are general and serve as a vision for components of community design.
Policies
Policies divide these goals into more specific categories.
Implementation Measures
Implementation measures are specific tasks needed to achieve the policies and goals.
i~
n
i~
n
I ~ --.___.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - __
August 2008 Page 83
12 ~ 83
COMMUNITY DESIGN & SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
10.5 Positive Regional Identity
Historically Dublin has been at the crossroads of major regional routes since early settlement
of the area. These routes have evolved over time from trails to the current alignment of Dublin
Boulevard, San Ramon Road, Interstate 580, and Interstate 680.
Regional corridors are routes of regional significance and are generally defined as routes that
connect Dublin to surrounding communities. Dublin has 12 features (including roadways, trails,
and public transportation) that are considered regional corridors (see Figure 10-1). These
include:
1. Interstate 680
2. Interstate 580 /BART Corridor
3. Dublin Boulevard
4. San Ramon Road
5. Village Parkway
6. Dougherty Road
7. Hacienda Drive
8. Tassajara Road
9. Fallon Road
10. Iron Horse Trail
j_.. ;City Limits
. ~ Sphere of Influence (Includes City Limits)
/~~`._
Figure 10-1 Regional Corridors
LoI tro ~0..^~C ~n Y .• .
-~~
"~ i
:•--•-I
°-•~-~--
-~
„ i
m
_.__.i
A
a j
1~
Page 84 August 2008
13 ~83
COMMUNITY DESIGN 8 SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
10.5.1 Intent
To those traveling through the City, these regional corridors create their overall image of Dublin.
Due to the high number of people who pass through the City each day and because of their
importance, these regional corridors should be emphasized to create a positive identity and
image for Dublin.
10.5.2 Goal
Promote a Positive Regional Identity of the City.
10.5.3 Policies
A. Incorporate distinctive design features along regional corridors that reinforce a positive
image of Dublin. Both within the right-of-way and on adjacent private development,
utilize features such as gateway elements, street trees, median planting, special lighting,
separated and ample sidewalks, crosswalks, seating, special signs, street names,
landscape, decorative paving patterns, and public art. Consider undergrounding utilities
along these roadways (reference: Streetscape Master Plan).
B. Maintain views through development to distant vistas (i.e. foothills) and view corridors
along regional corridors, wherever feasible (reference: East Dublin Scenic Corridor
Policies and Standards).
C. Incorporate visual screening techniques such as berms, dense and/orfast-growing
landscaping, and appropriately designed fencing where feasible, to ensure that visually
challenging features, such as parking lots, loading docks, storage areas, etc. are visually
attractive as seen from regional corridors.
m
a~
w
Parking and loading areas screened from public roadways
August 2008 Page 85
i~~~3 ~
COMMUNITY DESIGN 8 SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
D. Provide landscaping and articulated design to soften the visual appearance of existing and
new walls and fences that are adjacent to regional corridors, wherever feasible (reference:
Sreetscape Master Plan).
Landscaped median and distant hill views (left) and attractive landscaping and ample sidewalks
(right)
E. Encourage attractive and high-quality
landscaping along the edge of the
freeways and development surrounding
on- and off-ramps to provide softer
and more attractive views both to and
from the freeways. Landscaping on
private property should compliment the
buildings and overall site design.
F. Encourage attractive quality signage
along freeway corridors that avoids
the use of distractive features such as
bright colors, bulky scale and mass,
and discourages electronic readerboard
signs.
10.5.4 Implementation Measures
A. Work with Caltrans to encourage high-
quality design on new freeway projects,
with special consideration for both views
of and from the freeways.
Page 86
y *:.~ u;
.Freeway
- ~ - -~ - -
Landscaping along freeway edge and
throughout private property to complement
building and site design
- -
August 2008
1~~~3
COMMUNITY DESIGN 8 SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
i~
B. Implement the Streetscape Master Plan, Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and
Standards, and applicable Specific Plans.
C. Review development through the Planned Development Regulations and/or the Site
Development Review Permit process.
D. Work with BART to encourage high-quality design on new and redeveloped projects near
BART stations.
E. Work with the East Bay Regional Park District to encourage high-quality design and strong
connections on new and redeveloped projects adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail and trail-
heads.
August 2008 Page 87
I(~~ 83
COMMUNITY DESIGN 8 SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
10.6 Sense of Arrival
Dublin has several entrances into the City along regional corridors at or near the City limit.
These entrances have been classified as gateways. Gateways may include special signage
and landscaping to highlight transitions into the City, and in some instances are envisioned to
function as nodes at major intersections with special architectural features on adjacent buildings
and/or with public spaces incorporated into the design.
As shown in Figure 10-2, the Community Design and Sustainability Element identifies the
following 14 Dublin gateways:
1. Schaefer Ranch Road at Dublin Boulevard
2. San Ramon Road at Dublin Boulevard
3. West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
4. I-680 Southbound off ramp
5. San Ramon Road at northern entry to City
6. Village Parkway at northern entry to City
7. Dougherty Road at northern entry to City
8. Dougherty Road at Dublin Boulevard
9. East Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
10. Hacienda Drive at Dublin Boulevard
11. Tassajara Road at Dublin Boulevard
12. Tassajara Road at northern entry to City
13. Fallon Road at Dublin Boulevard
14. Dublin Boulevard at eastern entry to City
'":
~_._
City Limits ~ou~ty „ ~ Z
Sphere of Influence`(Includes City Limits) ~ont;e~eao' qty ~ • I
O Gateway ~ ` 1 ~. 'Aloe' ~uu v '_.._.~--._
/• n n ip aim ~ _m ;
~-~ - ----------- _.: -~ p o
~ DuDli~n Blvd 1 O 1 1 1 3 ~~
~._._._.~ i_ /1 / 7 1 ~~..._.~/•._/ O L__ ~_
.~ ~ 4
Figure 10-2 Gateways
Page 88 August 2008
i~
i~
i~
II
II
i~
,~~~3
COMMUNITY DESIGN 8 SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
Just as regional corridors have an impact on creating a positive regional identity for Dublin,
gateways and entries have an impact on creating inviting entrances and a sense of arrival
into the City.
10.6.1 Intent
The City wants to create inviting entrances at gateways that reflect the character of Dublin and
welcome residents and visitors. These gateways help define the edge of Dublin and will further
create nodes near the City's edge.
10.6.2 Goal
10.6.3 Policies
Create a Sense of Arrival at gateways to the City.
A. Mark gateways with City identification (i.e. signage) and include enhanced landscaping
and street improvements to highlight Dublin's identity, consistent with the City's
Streetscape Master Plan, where feasible (reference: Streetscape Master Plan).
City of Dublin monument sign
'
B. Incorporate dramatic and imaginative
landscaping, public art, water features, or
other design features when reconstructing
streets and/or sidewalks at key gateways
into the City, where feasible (reference:
~ Public Art Master Plan).
~%
August 2008 Page 89
Landscaping, public art, and plaza design
of gateway development projects (Dublin
Gateway Medical Center, Dublin)
i~~~3
COMMUNITY DESIGN & SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
C. Encourage signature building architecture at gateways that are oriented toward the
gateway to create a sense of place.
Signature building architecture oriented toward gateway intersections
10.6.4 Implementation Measures
A. Implement the Streetscape Master Plan.
B. Review development adjacent to gateways through the Planned Development Regulations
and the Site Development Review Permit process.
10.7 Design of the Built Form
Dublin is made up of a variety of villages, residential neighborhoods, and other commercial and
industrial areas, each with their own unique features and development patterns. Each area
functions differently from other areas -largely based on location (i.e. proximity to freeways or
hillsides) and use (i.e. residential or commercial) -but all have common elements that make
them distinct to the City. The design of the built form has a variety of categories (including Site
and Building Design, Landscaping and Natural Features, Gathering and Open Space Areas,
Signage, Lighting, and Art, Parking and Circulation, and Villages) which apply to the following
land uses:
Residential
Dublin has a variety of single and multi-family residential neighborhoods with unique design
features and building types. These neighborhoods are generally developed around a central
feature such as a school or park. Residential neighborhoods in the Primary and Western
Extended Planning Areas consist predominately of established neighborhoods with single-
family homes. The residential neighborhoods in the Eastern Extended Planning Area generally
contain higher density development near Dublin Boulevard and lower density (single-family)
development along the hillsides to the north and east.
Page 90 August 2008
ia~g3
COMMUNITY DESIGN 8~ SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
Commercial
Commercial developments (i.e. General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Retail/Office
Mixed-Use, etc.) range from a single building with a single tenant to multiple buildings often with
multiple tenants (shopping centers) and also consider mixed use developments. Commercial
development in the City generally occurs along arterial roadways and adjacent to office
developments. Shopping centers generally consist of multiple buildings that share common
architecture, landscaping, and/or other design features. Shopping centers generally are
developed with a central parking lot providing shared parking.
Office
Office developments (i.e. Office, Campus Office, etc.) range from a single building with a single
tenant to multiple buildings often with multiple tenants. Office development in the City generally
occurs along arterial roadways and adjacent to commercial developments. Campus Office
developments consist of multiple buildings that share common architecture, landscaping, and/or
other design features.
Industrial
Industrial uses (i.e. Industrial Park, Business Park/Industrial, etc.) provide vital resources and
services and are an integral part of the City. Industrial uses are often buffered from more
sensitive uses, such as residential, schools, and parks, to minimize their impacts associated
with traffic, noise, and aesthetics.
The following policies apply to the land uses described above:
10.7.1 Intent
The City wants to design high-quality and compatible areas that reflect the overall character
of Dublin. These areas should also be distinct from one another to avoid monotonous
development patterns.
10.7.2 Goal
Ensure quality and compatible Design of the Built Form.
August 2008 Page 91
ZOD~83
u
COMMUNITY DESIGN !4 SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
10.7.3 Policies
10.7.3.1 Site and Building Design
A. Encourage diverse, high quality, attractive, and architecturally appealing buildings that
create distinctive visual reference points, enrich the appearance of functional gathering
spaces, and convey an excellence in architecture, workmanship, quality, and durability in
building materials.
Architecturally appealing retail buildings with visual reference points and strong articulation
B. Encourage buildings with
varied massing, heights,
articulation techniques, and
architectural and signage
treatments to create
visual interest and ensure
compatibility with adjacent
uses, in commercial, office,
industrial, and mixed use
areas.
C. Ensure that building height,
scale and design are
compatible with the character
of the surrounding natural and
built environment, and are
varied in their massing, scale
and articulation.
Page 92
-- _- -
Buildings with articulated facades and varying roof lines
August 2008
2 I ~ ~3
COMMUNITY DESIGN 8 SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
Figure 10-3: Character Sketch -General Commercial
August 2008
Page 93
2283
COMMUNITY DESIGN & SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
D. Encourage a variety of site and building designs that are compatible and consistent with
surrounding development, especially where larger scale development is adjacent to
smaller scale and/or more sensitive land uses (i.e. residential, schools, and churches) to
the greatest extent feasible.
Commercial
___
Residential
Street
p:
.a~ii ,.
Building height, scale, and design is compatible with adjacent uses
E. Avoid the use of long, continuous, straight (building) walls along roadways by designing
appropriate articulation, massing, and architectural features.
F. Create distinctive neighborhoods that exemplify high-quality and varied design while
reinforcing Dublin as one integrated community, in residential areas.
G. Encourage the diversity of garage orientation and setbacks, architectural styles, building
materials, color and rooflines, and other design features, on all sides of all buildings, in
residential areas.
Residential architectural variation and garage orientation
Page 94 August 2008
Z3~~
COMMUNITY DESIGN & SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
H. Orient buildings toward major thoroughfares, sidewalks, pedestrian pathways, and
gathering spaces, and incorporate clear and identifiable entries where feasible, in campus
office areas.
I. Cluster and connect buildings through a series of pedestrian pathways designed to work
with each other to form a unified design character and create larger functional spaces, in
campus office and commercial areas.
Pafhwavc
J. Design inviting and attractive office buildings that incorporate modern and contemporary
architectural elements and design features that enrich the appearance of the gathering
places, encourage people to use them, and have attractive appearances from the public
right-of-way, in office areas.
~, ,
w~
Office buildings with an attractive, modern arci~itectura~ style
August 2008 Page 95
Clustered buildings and parking lots that are
connected by pedestrian pathways
z ~ ~~3 I~
COMMUNITY DESIGN 8. SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
K. Minimize the visual impacts of service/loading areas, storage areas, trash enclosures,
and ground mounted mechanical equipment. When feasible, these elements should be
located behind or to the sides of buildings and screened from views through a combination
of walls/fencing, and/or landscaping.
L. Minimize the visual impacts of roof mounted mechanical equipment. When feasible, such
elements should be consolidated and housed in architecturally articulated enclosures.
10.7.3.2 Landscaping and Natural Features
A. Utilize more formal landscaping
treatments in more densely developed
(urban) areas and utilize more natural
landscaping treatments in less dense
(suburban) areas, as appropriate.
B. Achieve neighborhood identities by
applying streetscape and landscape
design, entry treatments, signage, and
architectural detailing standards, in
residential areas (reference: Sreetscape
Master Plan).
C. Incorporate setbacks and landscaped
buffers for development along collector
and arterial roadways to minimize the
impacts from roadway noise, where
appropriate.
Page 96 August 2008 '~
Neighborhood entry with attractive use of
landscaping, hardscape, and lighting
Setback and landscaped berm to buffer development along collector/arterial roadways
2 5 rTb83
COMMUNITY DESIGN & SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
D. Ensure that landscaping along and adjacent to the public realm is well maintained and
retains a natural appearance.
E. Encourage distinctive landscaping and signage that is aesthetically appealing from the
public realm (reference: Streetscape Master Plan).
F. Encourage the use of landscaping on walls to soften and screen their visual appearance
(reference: Streetscape Master Plan).
~.
- ~,..
. ~' - ~ .
Walls with appropriate
landscaping
G. Increase the width of existing narrow parkway strips when the opportunity arises and
encourage all new development and redevelopment projects to provide appropriately sized
landscaped parkway strips (reference: Streetscape Master Plan).
H. Presence mature trees and vegetation, with special consideration given to the protection of
groups of trees and associated undergrowth and specimen trees (reference: Heritage Tree
Ordinance).
I. Preserve views of creeks, hillsides, skylines, or other natural or man-made landmarks
during site planning of new developments, whenever feasible.
J. Integrate development with natural features and land forms.
August 2008 Page 97
Distinctive landscaping and signage that is
appealing from the public right-of--way
~r~o~~3
COMMUNITY DESIGN & SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
10.7.3.3 Gathering and Open Space Areas
A. Encourage gathering spaces and amenities such as mini plazas, courtyards, benches,
seating, shade, trash receptacles, and water fountains, in commercial and office areas.
B. Design attractive gathering spaces with pedestrian amenities such as landscaping,
benches, shade structures, fountains, public art, and attractive lighting.
C. Encourage design treatments that enhance the attractiveness of the streetscape, public
spaces, landscaped areas, and open space.
Page 98 August 2008
Street
Buildings oriented around a central gathering space with landscaping
Attractive gathering/public spaces
z~~ ~3
COMMUNITY DESIGN & SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
Figure 10-4: Character Sketch -Gathering Areas
August 2008 Page 99
. ~. ~L_ r
COMMUNITY DESIGN & SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
10.7.3.4 Signage, Lighting, and Art
A. Ensure that perimeter areas incorporate
appropriate planting, lighting, and signage.
B. Ensure that signs are constructed of high
quality materials, are compatible with their
surroundings, and make a positive visual
contribution to the character of the community.
(For freeway signs, see also Policy F in Section
10.5.3.)
C. Provide signs that are oriented towards
pedestrians, bicyclists and other alternative
modes of transportation, where appropriate.
D. Incorporate public art where feasible (reference:
Public Art Master Plan).
2~~~~ ~
1
1
1
Page 100 August 2008
t~
Appropriate planting and signage along
perimeter area
Appropriate signage with a positive visual
contribution
Public art in commercial
developments in Dublin
a~~ ~3
COMMUNITY DESIGN 8 SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
E. Design and locate outdoor lighting around buildings, in parking lots, and along streets that
minimize the effects of glare on adjacent properties, particularly in residential areas.
S ~
a Y'
i, ~~
C' } 5
S
10.7.3.5 Parking and Circulation
A. Provide convenient but not visually
dominating parking that incorporates
extensive landscaping to provide
shade, promote wayfinding, visually
soften views from the street and
surrounding properties, and reduce
the heat island effect (generally
characterized with large expanses
of paved and under-landscaped
surfaces).
B. Buffer and screen large expanses of
parking areas from the street, where
practical.
C. Encourage the use of integrated
circulation and parking facilities
that are shared among surrounding
properties.
Residential
i
1 - .-- __ _ _ __ _ _ - _ _ - - -__..._
August 2008 Page 101
Downward lighting designed to minimize effect on adjacent
uses and reduce night sky lighting
30 s~~3
COMMUNITY DESIGN 8 SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
D. Provide attractive and convenient bicycle parking (reference: Bikeways Master Plan)
10.7.3.6 Villages
Villages are unique areas in Dublin that have distinct identities, include a mix of land uses,
encourage pedestrian activity and can serve as major transit hubs. Figure 10-5 identifies the
locations of each Village.
L.- ~ City Limits
Sphere of Influence (Includes City Limits)
~ Dublin Village WstoricArea
~ Downtown Dublin ~ .~
~ Camp Parks Exchange Areas •`
~ Transit Cenler ,'
~ Oublin Ranch Town Center _
•
,
\•' ~~
~ Fallon Village Center
/.
l
(~' ; --.._.. _... ..: .mi
..,
~ontr ~~p5'o~o n Y • •, . I
~plomeda r ~
~~ r 4
o~ o` 4 ~ I
` y o ~ a e .. r
~~~ LL' m F LL
. 'Ly
r ~4 t
r
~. Dublin Blvd _'~ I:
Figure 10-5 Vllages
The following policies apply to Villages.
A. Encourage compact development that integrates a variety of housing types and densities,
commercial and industrial uses, community facilities, civic, and educational uses with an
emphasis on pedestrian-friendly design.
Page 102 August 2008
Easily accessible village node
31~~ 3
COMMUNITY DESIGN & SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Design Village locations to be compatible with the local environment including surrounding
land uses and topography. Village designs should respect constraints, such as roadways,
and environmental considerations.
Provide a mixture of housing types, densities, and affordability in Villages that support a
range of age and income groups.
Construct easily accessible activity nodes (commercial areas, community facilities,
gathering areas, and public/private facilities).
Incorporate trails, pedestrian pathways, and street linkages to better unify the parts and
elements of each Village.
Design streets and pedestrian pathways that are linked to transportation routes including
buses and regional transit services.
Design Villages with strong edges to define their boundaries, such as major streets,
signage, architecture, or landscaping.
Encourage Village size and development that promotes pedestrian mobility, permits a
sufficient mixture of residential and public/private uses, and convenient commercial areas.
Foster a specific identity for each Village by applying special signage, unique design
elements, public spaces, etc.
~ ~~ ~ ~
~~
August 2008 Page 103
Representative urban character of a village
3~~~
COMMUNITY DESIGN 8 SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
Figure 70-6: Character Sketch - Village
Page 104
August 2008
33~g3
COMMUNITY DESIGN & SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
10.7.4 Implementation Measures
Design of the built form includes all of the following subcategories as discussed above (Site
and Building Design, Landscaping and Natural Features, Gathering and Open Space Areas,
Signage, Lighting, and Art, Parking and Circulation, and Villages). The following implementation
measures apply to these subcategories:
A. Update the City's Sign Ordinance.
B. Institute a Design Awards Program to recognize new and remodeled projects of special
quality.
C. Work with development applicants to create projects that more closely relate to and
reinforce the unique character of Dublin consistent with the intent of this Community
Design and Sustainability Element.
D. Work with PG&E or other appropriate organizations to underground new and existing utility
cabinets, overhead wiring, and other related equipment, whenever feasible.
E. Develop design guidelines for light industrial areas that are not within a Specific Plan or
planned development zoning district and that do not have existing design guidelines.
F. Periodically update the Streetscape Master Plan.
G. Schedule the maintenance and replacement of public improvements, such as pavement
and streetlights, commensurate in quality and appearance to those in more recently
constructed neighborhoods, when redevelopment occurs and where feasible.
H. Create a comprehensive Specific Plan with design guidelines for the downtown.
I. Implement the Streetscape Master Plan, the Public Art Ordinance, Heritage Tree
Ordinance, the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, and all Specific
Plans.
J. Review development using Planned Development Regulations and/or Site Development
' Review.
i~
i~
K. Support and maintain the City's industrial land uses as an important aspect of the
community, in industrial areas.
L. Create a Specific Plan to guide development of the Camp Parks Exchange areas
consistent with the Village policies.
M. Study the feasibility of creating Villages for all portions of Dublin.
I - __- --. - _. _ ...--
August 2008 Page 105
3~f~83
COMMUNITY DESIGN 8 SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
10.8 Connections and Linkages
Connections and linkages are what unify the villages, residential neighborhoods, commercial
and industrial areas, and various developments within each neighborhood. Dublin includes a
variety of connections and linkages for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. These provide
connections within and between properties and the public right-of-way including streets,
sidewalks, trails, etc. Some connections and linkages have design and landscaping patterns
unique to that corridor, while others have a design and landscaping pattern unique to the type of
connection (i.e. sidewalk or freeway).
10.8.1 Intent
Create connections and linkages throughout the various areas of Dublin and within and between
properties and the public right-of-way. These connections and linkages should be provided for a
variety of users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists.
10.8.2 Goal
Establish Connections and Linkages throughout the City.
10.8.3 Policies
A. Design roads and pedestrian and bicycle pathways to be safe and visually appealing
connections (reference: Streetscape Master Plan, Bikeways Master Plan).
B. Provide clear, identifiable, and ample pedestrian and bicycle pathways that connect
sidewalks, parking areas, building entrances, trails, and other site features by using
wayfinding techniques such as signage, landscaping, hardscape, and prominent building
entrances, where feasible (reference: Bikeways Master Plan).
Page 106 August 2008 ''`~
Tassajara Creek Trail
Attractive pedestrian pathway through
parking lot
3S~ ~3
COMMUNITY DESIGN 8 SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
C. Encourage developments to provide pedestrian and bicycle pathways that inter-connect
with adjacent land uses and thereby create safe routes of travel to transit facilities, public
gathering spaces, trails, parks, community centers, schools, City villages, gateways, and
entries (reference: Bikeways Master Plan).
s Residential ~ ~ _~~
~ r- l s-~1 _ - -
'"
,1 ~ _ j_-.
-;, _ _ _
~ -- , __-~
----'~Op a~ a~Plaza ----
~_ -
~~~
Retail
_ _ __
-- -
~/ - - _~
~__ _ - -~
~~-- ,Street ~ .-
Pedestrian pathway inter-connecting with adjacent land uses
D. Ensure continuous and ample
sidewalks along all roadways
(reference: Streetscape Master
Plan).
E. Ensure that sidewalks, pedestrian
and bicycle pathways, and trails
are furnished with appropriate
pedestrian amenities such as
lighting, signage, trash receptacles,
etc., where appropriate (reference:
Streetscape Master Plan, Bikeways
Master Plan).
Meandering pedestrian pathway with pedestrian bollard
lighting
August 2008 Pa e 107
3~~g3
COMMUNITY DESIGN ~ SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
10.8.4 Implementation Measures
A. Implement the Streetscape Master Plan and the Bikeways Master Plan.
B. Review development through the Planned Development Regulations and/or the Site
Development Review process.
C. Create a transportation network map.
10.9 Sustainability
As the global population continues to grow and natural resources continue to diminish, cities
are implementing a variety of sustainability measures to preserve resources and maintain a
healthy quality of life for future generations. Sustainable development is generally defined as
development that meets the needs of present generations without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their needs. Dublin has already taken measures to encourage
sustainable development and as time moves on, the City will continue to raise the standards for
quality and sustainable development.
Sustainable development and good community design are key components that can work
together and complement each other to create livable cities. Sustainable design measures
should play an integral role in all future development and redevelopment efforts within the City.
10.9.1 Intent
The City wants to promote community design that incorporates principles of sustainability and
create a livable community that future generations will be able to enjoy.
10.9.2 Goal
Encourage Sustainability to provide a high quality of life and to preserve resources and
opportunities for future generations.
10.9.3 Policies
A. Design sustainable measures to be an integrated and attractive element of community
design.
B. Promote sustainable communities as good places to live that offer social, environmental,
and economic opportunities for the people of Dublin.
Page 108 August 2008
3~~ ~
COMMUNITY DESIGN & SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
C. Consider environmentally sensitive and
energy-efficient building siting, which
minimize impacts from wind, provides
shade, reduces stormwater runoff,
and maximizes opportunities for
passive solar design, where feasible.
D. Encourage transit-oriented
development adjacent to BART
stations and major arterials.
E. Promote walking and bicycling
through site and building design.
F. Encourage alternative modes of
transportation by providing priority
parking for carpool and alternative
energy vehicles, bicycle racks/lockers,
showers for employees, and easy
access to adjacent regional trails and
transit stops.
G. Protect the biodiversity of the natural
environment.
H. Encourage the use of native and/
or drought tolerant plant species,
hydrozoning (locating species
according to water needs), xeriscaping
(landscaping that does not require
supplemental irrigation), drip irrigation
systems that use recycled water and
moisture sensors, and pesticide free
landscaping.
I. Design water features to minimize
water loss.
J. Incorporate measures to minimize
the effects of night sky lighting by
encouraging the use of downward
facing light fixtures.
^^ ~ ~~ _
' !III ~- __ -d~:.
._ ~ ,~ - -
Roof with solar panel roof tiles that incorporates
sustainability and attractive design
August 2008 Page 109
Residential buildings incorporating solar
collectors on roofs
Parking stall with electric vehicle service
3~6u~~3
COMMUNITY DESIGN & SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
K. Encourage development features that
minimize the use of non-renewable energy
consumption (i.e. material reuse, natural
lighting and ventilation, etc.).
L. Encourage public art projects that utilize a
variety of materials including sustainable
and/or renewable products (Reference:
Public Art Master Plan).
M. Encourage the renovation and reuse of
existing buildings.
N. Design and construct buildings and
development for longevity and potential
reuse.
O. Incorporate recycling and green waste
containers into the design of sites and
integrate into buildings where feasible.
P. Encourage the use of roof gardens to
collect storm water and reduce heat island
effect.
Q. Design prominent buildings to demonstrate environmental awareness.
R. Design landscaping to create comfortable microclimates, provide shade to buildings,
and reduce the heat island effect (generally caused by large expanses of paved and
unlandscaped areas).
Page 1 10 August 2008
Conveniently located recycling and green
waste facilities
Example of roof garden
3 ~~~~3
~~
COMMUNITY DESIGN >li SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
S. Incorporate features to reduce the impact of development such as bioretention, permeable
pavement, etc. that use natural and engineered infiltration and storage techniques to
control storm water runoff, where feasible.
T. Encourage development of underutilized lots.
10.9.4 Implementation Measures
A. Facilitate environmental and energy-efficient design guidelines that promote good design
for new construction.
B. Consider adopting an ordinance to minimize the adverse impacts of nighttime lighting and
glare, and meet security standards.
C. Encourage development that incorporates measures from the U.S. Green Building
Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or other similar
sustainable design programs.
D. Develop and implement a mandatory green building self-certification program as part of
the Building Permit process.
E. Develop a program to encourage the installation of attractive solar panels.
F. Develop a program to add trees to existing surtace parking lots.
G. Review the existing Landscape and Fencing Regulations to determine if appropriate to
include additional sustainable landscape standards and parking lot shade requirements.
August 2008 ------_,_.._.-__-.--------- Page 1 1 1
Parking lots with bioswales (bioretention)
Landscaping that creates a comfortable
microclimate for pedestrians
, ,.
` ~.; `::~ ( ,~
COMMUNITY DESIGN 8~ SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
H. Investigate modifications to the Building Code to require integrated, comprehensive, and
well designed sustainable building practices (i.e. water and energy efficiency, resource
allocations, and site planning).
Implement the Bikeways Master Plan and the Public Art Ordinance.
K. Review development through the Planned Development Regulations and/or Site
Development Review process.
Page 1 12 August 2008
i~~ ~ 1~ ~ l.V,. Y>
RESOLUTION NO. OS - 21
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ADDING A COMMUNITY DESIGN AND SUSTAINABILITY
ELEMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN AS CHAPTER 10
PA 07-038
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 City Council Goals and Objectives
included as a high priority goal, the preparation of a General Plan Community Design Element; and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2007, the City Council adopted a Resolution (Resolution 105-07)
approving a Consulting Services Agreement with RBF/UDS Consulting to prepare the Community
Design Element with sustainability measures and authorizing the City Manager to sign the Agreement on
behalf of the City; and
WAEREAS, each city and county in California must adopt a General Plan containing seven
required "elements"; and
WHEREAS, jurisdictions may adopt additional elements as they see fit; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopted on February 11, 1985, and has been
amended a number of times since that date; and
WHEREAS, the Community Design and Sustainability Element is an optional element and would
be added to the Dublin General Plan as Chapter 10; and
WHEREAS, the Community Design and Sustainability Element provides a guiding vision far the
character of future public and private improvements throughout the City while preserving energy, water
and other natural features; and
WHEREAS, the Community Design and Sustainability Element includes five unifying principles
of community design, including Positive Regional Identity, Sense of Arrival, Design of the Built Form,
Connections and Linkages, and Sustainability, that provide the framework for the goals, policies and
implementation measures contained in Community Design and Sustainability Element; and
WHEREAS, the Community Design and Sustainability Element is exempt from the
environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA
applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and
where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a
significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public
hearing on the adoption of the Community Design and Sustainability Element on August 26, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony describe herein, and used its independent judgment to evaluate the Project.
Attachment 2
:~ v ~~ ~~ /~ I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and
made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, based on the findings in the
attached draft City Council Resolution, recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution
attached as Exhibit A, which approves a General Plan Amendment adding a Community Design and
Sustainability Element as Chapter 10 to the General Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August 2008 by the following vote:
AYES: Schaub, Tomlinson, Wehrenberg, Biddle and King
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chair Bill Schaub
ATTEST:
Jeff Baker, Acting Planning Manager
G:APA#12007\07-038 Community Design Element\Planning Commission\PC 8.26.08\PC Reso CDE GPA.DOC'
2
~~ OF DU~~ ~j c 1
~ _
~ ~ ti CITY CLERK
~=~~~~ az File # ^~~~'a~
` ~~ l//
~~LIFOR~~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
MEETING DATE: April 1, 2008
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: PA 07-038 General Plan Community Design
Element.
Report prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDAT ON: Receive presentation and provide Staff and the Consultant with
~~~input and direction regarding the proposed General Plan Community
Design Element.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Funds have been aliocated for this project in the 2007/2008 budget.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
The Fiscal Year 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 City Council Goals and Objectives include, as a high priority
goai, the preparation of a General Plan Community Design Element. On June 19, 2007, the City Council
adopted a Resolution (Resolution 105-07) approving a Consulting Services Agreement with RBF/iJDS
Consulting to prepare the Community Design Element and authorized the City Manager to sign the
Agreement on behalf of the City.
The proposed General Plan Cvmmunity Design Element will provide a guiding vision far future
development/redevelopment throughout the City. The Community Design Element will be a graphically
based document that illustrates design principles related to site planning, architecture and landscaping.
Staff and RBF/IJDS Consulting have identified key design principles for consideration in the future
Community Design Element. These design principles were developed using information obtained through
an assessment of the existing character of Dublin, information obtained at the City Council/Planning
Commission Study Session that was held on August 7, 2007, and from the input received through the
TownScan Online Survey.
ANALYSIS:
The team from RBF/UDS Consulting will lead the City Council and Planning Commission in a discussion
of key design principles that will be used as the framework to create the Community Design Element.
These design principles will focus on site planning, architecture and landscaping to achieve desired goals.
The following is a description of the proposed design principles that will be discussed during the Study
Session:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPY TO: Consultant
File
Page 1 of 2
G:~PA#~2007\07-038 Community Design Element\City Council\ccsr 4.1.08 CC PC Study Session.doc
Attachment 3
~ ~f- ~~ `~ ~>
a. Positive Regional Identity - The visual character of development adjacent to I-580 and I-680;
b. Sense of Arrival - Private improvements at key gateway locations to create a sense of arrival into
the City.
c. Neighborhoods, Villages, Commercial and Employment Centers - Elements that create and
enhance safe, attractive, pedestrian friendly residential, commercial, office and industrial
neighborhoods and villages within the City;
d. Connections and Linkages - Enhance the connectivity between separate projects and between
projects and public streets, trails and open space; and
e. Sustainability - Techniques to minimize the consumption of energy, water and other natural
resources.
The Study Session will include interactive exercises that are designed to provide the City Council and
Planning Commission with the opportunity to identify those design principles that they value the most.
Staff and RBF/iJDS Consulting will use the information obtained at the Study Session to refine the
principles and policies of the future Community Design Element. Following the Study Session, a
Community Workshop will be held to present the key components of the Community Design Element to
the public and to obtain their feedback. Staff and RBF/LTDS Consulting will then prepare a draft
Community Design Element. The Community Design Element will be brought forward to the Planning
Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will then have the
opportunity to review and consider the draft Community Design Element.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council and the Planning Commission receive presentation and provide
Staff and the Consultant with input and direction regarding the proposed General Plan Community Design
Element.
Page 2 of 2
~5 ~~ ~ ~
~"' `~~~.~~ MINUTES OF THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL/
~ ~~~ PLANNING COMMISSION
~ ~f~/
\~_~/ SPECIAL MEETING - April 1, 2008
.~
A special joint meeting of the Dublin City Council and Planning Commission was held on
Tuesday, April 1, 2008, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The
meeting was called to order at 8:55 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart.
•
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Council members Hildenbrand, Oravetz, and Scholz, Vice Mayar Sbranti and
Mayor Lockhart.
Planning Commissioners Biddle, Tomlinson, Wehrenberg, King and Chair
Schaub
•
Mayor Lockhart opened the public comment portion of the meeting and hearing no
comment, closed the public comment.
COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
Mayor Lockhart asked for the presentation from Staff.
l. PA 07-038 General Plan Community Design Element: Receive
presentation and provide Staff and the Consultant with input and direction
regarding the proposed General Plan Community Design Element.
Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report.
Bill Wiseman, RBF Consulting, gave the panel of City Council members and Planning
Commissioners an overview of the project and the scope of work that has been done, the
principles to determine what "Community Design" means and how that translates into the
General Plan. He stated he would share the results of the "TownScan" survey. He felt the
survey gave a good indication of what the residents of Dublin value in their community.
He continued he would translate the survey into an exercise for the panel asking for their
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1
VOLUME 27 ~~~
SPECIAL MEETING 9 ~~~~~
April l, 2008 ~~~~ `~
Attachment 4
~~ v~~ ~ ~
feedback regarding likes and dislikes of the images that are shown to them based on the
design principles, and then conclude with public comments and next steps.
Mr. Wiseman stated the document will be set up like other General Plan Elements but will
be set up to guide the look and feel of the City, what makes Dublin, Dublin. He
introduced the proposed design principles that will form the framework of the Community
Design Element which are: Positive Regional Identity, Sense of Arrival, Design of Built
Form, Connections and Linkages, and Sustainability. The emphasis for the Community
Design Element will be on private development and design policies, not guidelines.
He stated that the purpose of the workshop is to talk about the City of Dublin's values,
validate specific planning principles and then receive feedback from the panel and the
public.
Mr. Wiseman stated the "positive regional identity" looks at the character of the City from
the freeway, BART stations and surrounding areas, then to a"sense of arrival" where the
emphasis would be on gateways and entrance nodes.
Mr. Wiseman continued to speak regarding the "design of the built form" with regard to
coming into the City through a major arterial and notice the features of the "built form"
creating safe, attractive places and creating an environment from the architecture, design
and the integration of the built form.
Mr. Wiseman reviewed "connections and linkages" which is how the "built form" relates
to pathways and connectivity.
Mr. Wiseman continued looking at "sustainability" and how the City is designing a
community that is also sustainable for the long term.
Mr. Wiseman showed slides that depicted the freeway centerlines and showed the path that
people would travel on the freeway and how they would see what is immediately in their
foreground, then the middle ground and then the distant views where the topography rises
up. This gives an impression of the City as you move into it. The Streetscape Master Plan
identified 11 gateways; Staff is suggesting to also include the two BART stations making
13 entryways that mark the transition from the region to the City.
Mr. Wiseman covered "Design of the Built Form" and how it relates to physical form,
gathering spaces, architecture of commercial centers, and multifamily residential and how
they relate to the streets as well as looking at the physical form and how it relates to public
spaces.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2
VOLUME 27 ,~ or ~
SPECIAL MEETING 19;,~~~;~
April 1, 2008 ~`~ ~ ~~
c~,~, ~~~
!-I= ~~;,~~ ~
Mr. Wiseman covered "Connections and Linkages" looking at pedestrian paths, trails, and
boulevards, and how people, bikes and vehicles move through space.
Mr. Wiseman discussed items related to "Sustainability".
Mr. Wiseman discussed the results of the on-line surveys called "TownScan" and the
results of 7 categories; multi-family residential, residential streets, retail commercial
streets, retail shopping centers, office buildings, light industrial, and gathering spaces. He
gave an overview of the overall 10 lowest rated images and the top ten highest rated
images.
Mr. Wiseman explained how the survey was conducted. He continued that there was a
picture, a question, and then the ranking received for each. He indicated that the bar chart
showed the representation of the numbers of people responding to the five questions,
which states that they "strongly disagree, disagree, no opinion, agree or strongly agree."
Cmr. Wehrenberg asked how many people responded to that question. Mr. Wiseman
responded there were no specific numbers only percentages that gave a.n overall feel of
differences. He stated that this is not a statistical approach but looking at relative
differences.
Mayor Lockhart asked what percentage of people responded to the question. Mr.
Wiseman responded it was approximately 44%.
Cmr. Tomlinson asked how many people responded to the survey. Mr. Wiseman
answered 348 people responded to survey.
Mr. Wiseman presented slides indicating he would not comment on them but only present
them to the panel so they can form their own opinion. The slides were of retail shopping
centers and retail streets that were rated in the "TownScan" survey.
Chair Schaub asked if the data from the survey would be shared with the Planning
Commission. Mr. Wiseman answered yes.
Mr. Wiseman showed slides of multifamily residential buildings, retail shopping centers,
attractive streets, and light industrial buildings indicating whether they were liked or
disliked by the survey participants. Cm. Oravetz asked if all the buildings in the slides
were located in Dublin. Mr. Baker answered that some of them were and some were not.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCILlPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3
VOLUME 27
SPECIAL MEETING G~~~ ~
19/~~~111
April 1, 2008 ~\ ~ ~~
c~ , ,~~.~
W ~ ~;~`~~ ~
Mr. Wiseman continued to show slides of buildings, commercial streets, gathering places,
shopping centers, and multifamily residential buildings and indicated whether they were
liked or disliked by the survey participants.
Cmr. Wehrenberg asked if there was a variance in the type of gathering places that were
presented in the survey and felt that they were very similar. Mr. Wiseman responded there
were differing types of gathering places in the survey, but the ones he was showing were
the ones the respondents liked. Cmr. Tomlinson felt that there was a theme of what people
liked.
Mr. Wiseman then led the panel in an exercise showing slides of the top two highest rated
and two lowest rated images for each category: multi-family residential, residential streets,
retail commercial streets, retail shopping centers, office buildings, light industrial
buildings, and gathering places and then asked for feedback from the panel regarding their
likes and dislikes. He asked the panel to relate what is seen to the 5 design principles. The
panel then viewed a series of slides and indicated to Mr. Wiseman what they liked and
disliked about each one. Mr. Wiseman's associates recorded the comments on flip charts
for future use.
There was a discussion regarding the identity of the City and how people from the outside
view the City of Dublin.
Mayor Lockhart opened the public comment.
Mr. Pete DeFao, resident of Dublin Ranch for 7 years, stated he is glad to be in Dublin, felt
it is a unique idea to ask for ideas from the residents regarding the design element. He also
commented that the Palo Alto Medical Center building is a beautiful building.
Hearing no further comments, Mayor Lockhart closed the public comment.
Mr. Wiseman stated that RBF will be working with Staff on the preliminary components
of an administrative draft with the design principles being the basis for the document based
on the input of this meeting.
Cmr. Wehrenberg learned at the League of Cities Conference that one of the elements to
consider is regarding our crosswalks. She suggested there could be different paving or a
stamped design in the pavement that would encourage traffic to slow down and would
identify the area as a crosswalk which would keep our pedestrians safe when walking
across the street.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4
VOLUME 27 ,~~~
SPECIAL MEETING 19`~~~'~
April 1, 2008 ~~ ~ ~`
~, Ns
~~ ~r~~~
Mayor Lockhart thought it was a great idea and commented that in the planning process
and as changes are made in roadways, the City could review adding a different kind of
paving or design, and in the future Dublin would be known as the City with the unique
crosswalks.
Cmr. Tomlinson stated that Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton has brick crosswalks
and he has seen this type of crosswalk in other cities as well. Mayor Lockhart felt that
would work well in the large intersections such as Tassajara Road and Dublin Blvd.
There was a discussion regarding sidewalks and how to make them look different in
Dublin. ~
Cmr. King asked about architectural themes for Dublin, and suggested the City Council try
to make a different feel in different areas of the City.
Mayor Lockhart also liked Cmr. King's idea. She felt Dublin is its own City and does not
try to look like its neighbors. She stated that Dublin does not have an old fashioned Main
Street because that is not who we are. She stated the one thing the City Council has done
is try to be the City of Villages with each Village having its own identity all working
together but not looking the same. She felt Dublin adds to the Tri-Valley by not trying to
look like our neighbors.
Chair Schaub agreed with the Mayor regarding the village concept. He felt that the City
was close to the village concept with the various Specific Plans and thought that if RBF
could help the panel identify Dublin as Villages within the Design Element that would be
ideal.
Council Member Sbranti mentioned his trip to Citrus Heights during the League of
California Cities Conference and how the city had distinct areas within the city.
Mayor Lockhart felt that when the east Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is build-out it will
have a unique feel with different housing and office buildings. She stated the buildings
will be similar but you will know it is a village with different height, density and different
kinds of businesses.
Cm. Scholz commended RBF Consulting and Staff for a j ob well done.
Mayor Lockhart thanked Staff and the Applicant for their presentation as well as the public
for sharing their time.
•
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5
voLUME 2~ ,~~~~
SPECIAL MEETING ~;~~~,~~
April l, 2008 ~ ~ ~~
Gcf R~s
ADJOURNMENT
~~~ ~ ~
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at
10:25 p.m. in memory of our fallen troops.
Minutes prepared by Debra LeClair, Secretary.
,
ATTEST: ° ~G~~
Deputy City Clerk
; ~ .~ ~
~ r' ~ i?
1 ~" ~~ t"~ ,. ~ f - ~ 7G ~L' L ~,
/ ~t ~ ~
Mayor
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6
VOLUME 27 ~
SPECIAL MEETING ,~;`~~~,~
April 1, 2008 ~\ ~ ~~
c~,~, Ns
ti
~ ~ ~ ~~~r~J
~ -~-~ ,sz
~/~~~ AGENDA STATEMENT
~\~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION: July 29, 2008
\IFOR~1~
SUBJECT: PA 07-038 - General Plan Communit;y Design Element
Report prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior t'lanner
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Draft Community Design Element.
2) City Council/Planning Commissic~n Study Session Staff Report dated
April l, 2008.
3) City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Minutes dated
April 1, 2008.
4) Village Policy Statement.
5) Village Action Plan.
RECOMMENDATION• Receive presentation and provide Staf~~ and the Consultant with feedback
\nn and direction regarding the Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures in
~~ ,
the draft Community Design Element, and provide further direction
regarding the concept of a combined Cummunity Design and Sustainability
Element.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
The Fiscal Year 200b/2007 and 2007/2008 City Council Goals and Clbjectives include, as a high priority
goal, the preparation of a General Plan Community Design Element. On June l9, 2007, the City Council
adopted a Resolution (Resolution 105-07) approving a Consulting ~~ervices Agreement with RBF/LJDS
Consulting to prepare the Community Design Element and authorized the City Manager to sign the
Agreement on behalf of the City.
Each city and county in California is mandated to adopt a General Plan with seven required "elements".
Each jurisdiction is allowed to adopt additional optional elements as they see fit. The proposed
Community Design Element would be an optional element and in<-luded as Section 10 in the Dublin
General Plan.
The proposed Community Design Element will provide a guiding vision for the character of future public
and private improvements throughout the City. The Community De;sign Element will be a graphically
based document that illustrates design principles related to site plarning, architecture and landscaping.
Planning theorist and author Kevin Lynch provides a commonly used model for community design which
divides the city into functional areas, which contribute to distinctiv~~ design. Lynch's functional areas
have been refined to create unifying principles of community design for Dublin.
COPY TO: File
Page 1 of 3
G:\PA#~2007107-038 Communiry Design Element\Planning Commission\Study Session 7.29.08\pcsr 7.29.08 Study Session.doc
Attachment 5
A joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session was held on April 1, 2008 to discuss the
unifying principles of community design. The City Council and I'lanning Commission identified the ~' ~' ~~~G~
principles they value for Dublin. Staff and RBF/UDS Consultin~; used these principles to form the
framework of the draft Community Design Element and to refinc; the proposed Goals, Policies and
Implementation Measures in the draft document.
ANALYSIS:
The team from RBF/UDS Consultil~g will provide the Planning Commission with an overview of the
unifying principles of community design that are the framework of th~ Community Design Element. This
overview will include an introduction to the proposed Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures of the
draft document. These Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures focus on the design/development
character throughout the community. This includes site planning, architecture, and landscape design in
both public and private improvements.
The following is a description of the design principles that provide ttie framework for the Goals, Policies
and Implementation Measures of the Community Design Element:
a. Positive Regional Identity - The visual character of public and private improvements adjacent to
roads ofregional significance including major arterials and Int~rstates 580 and 680;
b. Sense of Arrival - The design of public and private improve~ments to create a sense of arrival at
entrances to the City.
c. Design of the Built Form - Elements that create and enhance high quality, safe, attractive,
residential, commercial, office, industrial, and mixed use neigt-borhoods and villages;
d. Connections and Linkages - Streets, sidewalks, paths and tr:~ils that enhance connectivity within
and between separate properties, the public right-of-way and open space; and
e. Sustainability - Techniques to provide a high quality of life ~~nd preserve energy, water and other
natural resources, with attractive and integrated design.
Village Policy Statement
The City Council's 2003/2004 Goals and Objectives included the development policies that define village
characteristics as a Planning tool and to identify opportunities to create new villages in Dublin. Staff
conducted research and prepared a background study of village co~icepts for use in creating a Village
Policy Statement (Attachment 4). The Village Policy Statement identifies the characteristics that
comprise a village in Dublin. On September 7, 2004, the City ("ouncil adopted the Village Poiicy
Statement and directed Staff to identi fy potential village sites.
Staff analyzed potential village sites using the criteria established in the Village Policy Statement and
created a Village Action Plan (Attachment 5). The Village Action Plan includes measures to achieve
villages consistent with the Village Policy Statement. The City Coun~:il approved the Village Action Plan
on August 16, 2005, and identified the following six potential village ]ocations:
^ Dublin Village Historic Area
^ Downtown Dublin
• Camp Parks
^ Transit Center
^ Dublin Ranch Town Center
• Fallon Village Center
The concepts of the Village Policy Statement and Village Action ]'lan are incorporated into the draft
Community Design Element (Section 10.7.3.7). This includes ide~itification of village locations, and
policies to ensure that the village characteristics are incorporated into :uture development of these areas.
Page 2 of 3
Sustainability Element ~.;) f J~ ~ ;
Sustainability was identified as a unifying principle of community design, as noted above. The draft
Community Design Element includes extensive Policies and Irriplementation Measures related to
Sustainability (Section 10.9). The concept of Sustainability has come to the forefront of planning in
recent years. In fact, some local jttrisdictions have adopted a Sus:ainability Element in their General
Plans. Because of the importance of this issue and the number of policies related to this topic, the
Ptanning Commission may want to consider adopting the proposed document as a combined Community
Design and Sustainability Element. Adopting this document as a co~nbined Element will provide further
weight to the importance of sustainability in Dublin.
CONCLUSION:
This Study Session will provide an opportunity for the Planning Commission and the public to provide
comments and feedback regarding the draft Community Design Elem ~nt. Staff and RBF/LTDS Consulting
will use this information to further refine the draft document.
The draft Community Design Element will be brought forward to tlie Planning Commission for review
and recommendation to the City Council at a subsequent Public Hearing. The City Council will then havc
the opportunity to review and consider adopting the Community Desi~m Element.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive preser~tation and provide Staff and the
Consultant with feedback and direction regarding the Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures in the
draft Corr-munity Design Element, and provide further direction re;arding the concept of a combined
Community Design and Sustainability Element.
Page 3 of 3
~ ~W ~ ~ ,. . . . , ~ ~~~ ~ ~
,,,
<.. ~ ~ F~ j. , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~b~ ~
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. Chair 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
. 1
Attachment (
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. ~ j~--L ; C-,~
J
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 areri t in a Specific Plan. The Commission may want to create Citywide Design Guidelines.
Ms. Wilson described the General Plan as a policy document and 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 Eler~lent 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 Chairmari 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,
_ 2
signage, architecture or landscaping. He stated it should not be too defined but should set a
standard for projects within the City. -~ ;,
~~~~t~~
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 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 doesri 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 zi~alls z~~ith
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 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 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
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. ~ 7c~~ ~~>
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 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 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 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 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 rznd goc~l" 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 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 the key policies of the Community
Design Element.
4
POSITIVE REGIONAL IDENTITY: ~~ `~~~ ~~~"`'
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 9~ Regional
Positive Identity.
Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Tomlinson.
Chair Schaub asked the Commission if they would like to have Hacienda Drive as the 9~
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 Arriz~al" 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 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 "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."
5
./~~ r. ~ i ~ . ~.
~7 ! ij1. ..t, ~ .J
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 Streetscape 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 Design 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
6
Lo D r~ ~' = ,:
land use categories. Chair Schaub answered yes. Ms. Wilson agreed to add the General ~n`"
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 excellence in architecture, zvorkmanship,
qur~lity, and durability in building materials" which will last over time.
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 specific 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 relying on Policy A.
Chair Schaub suggested combining Policy A and J into one policy.
Cm. Wehrenberg disagreed.
~
r _,
Mr. Wiseman referred to the discussion from the workshop where the Council and C~ ~sion
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 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 Tree Ordinance in the document.
8
~z~v~~~
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 attractive gathering spaces such as
plazas and courtyards, with amenities such as: benches, seating, 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.
, 9 __
~03~/~l c`::
Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned about company branding with signage. Ms. Wilson stated ~fe
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 zvith surrounding
areas and make a positive z~isual contribution to the City."
Chair Schaub suggested stating the Ordinance and where to 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 PD 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 Commissiori s 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 lots. 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 "sh~zred circulation betz~~een 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.
10
Co ~ J-fi ~ ;>
Chair Schaub wanted to ensure that there is well maintained landscaping. Ms. Wilson st~l'ed
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.
VTi.T.AC,F~•
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 make 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 spaces. 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 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 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.
. 11
(~ 5 ~ ~~; =~,
Mr. Baker stated the Bikeways Master Plan addresses better connectivity between Dublin ~nd
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 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 pollution 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. Tornlinson 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 Plans should be updated to reflect
the information in the Community Design Element.
. _ ,. ~x; :~ 12
l~ l~ ~_r ~ ~
Mr. Wiseman asked if the City will be implementing a Green Building Ordinance. Chair Sch~b
stated the Commission discussed the subject in their Goals and Objectives last year, but felt they
needed more infarmation 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 26~ Planning Commission meeting.
Cm. Biddle suggested talking about implementation measures at the meeting on August 26th
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.
. 13
~D ~~ 1~ ~i
Cm. Tomlinson asked if the Community Design Element will guide the placement of ga~vay
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 not 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 Commission 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 with her again.
Chair Schaub asked to put the topic of talking to developers and 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, Chair Schaub adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m.
T 14
<'
~.~ v~ LU~~r~
~ ~~ ~b `~ ~
~.~ ~
~I~V $~ AGENDA STATENIENT
~<~_~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 26, 2008
SUBJECT: PA 07-038: General Plan Community Design Element (Legislative)
Report prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior F'lanner
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Draft Community Design Element.
2) Resolution Recommending that tlie City Council adopt a Resolution
~ approving a General Plan Amcnclment adding a Community Design
and Sustainability Element to the ~seneral Plan as Chapter 10, with the
draft City Council Resolution Included (Exhibit A).
3) City Council/Planning Commissicn Study Session Staff Report Dated
April 1, 2008 (without Attachmeni s).
4) City Council/Planning Commiss: on Study Session Minutes Dated
April 1, 2008.
5) Planning Commission Staff Report Dated July 29, 2008 (without
Attachments).
6) Planning Commission Study Sessi•~n Minutes Dated July 29, 2008.
7) Village Policy Statement.
8) Village Action Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation;
~ 2) Open the Public Hearing;
~ 3) Receive public testimony;
`' 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and
5) Adopt a Resolution recommendi ~g that the City Council Adopt a
Resolution approving a Gene~~al Plan Amendment adding a
Cummunity Design and Sustainability Element to the General Plan as
Cliapter 10, with the draft City C~~uncit Resolution Included (Exhibit
A).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
The Fiscal Year 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 City Council Goals and Cbjectives include, as a high priority
goal, the preparation of a General Plan Community Design Element. On June 19, 2007, the City Council
adopted a Resolution (Resolution 105-07) approving a Consulting Services Agreement with RBF/LTDS
Consulting to prepare the Community Design Element and authori ~ing the City Manager to sign the
Agreement on behalf of the City.
COPY TO:
Page 1 of 5
C. IPA#11007i07-038 Comnnuril~~ Design fYeuientlPlmn;rng CommissronlPC 8.26.ORIpcsr 8 26.0~ CD£.~~oe
Attachment 7
Each city and county in California is mandated to adopt a General Plan with seven required "elements".~C~~~ ~,~
Each jurisdiction may adopt additional optional elements as they see fiT. The proposed Community
Design Element is an optional elemerit and would be added to the Duhlin General Plan as Section 10.
The draft Community Design Element (Attachment 1) provides a guic_ing vision for the character of future
public and private improvements tl~roughout the City. The draft Community Design Element is a
graphically based document that ill~zstrates design principles relate~i to site planning, architecture and
landscaping. Planning theorist and author Kevin Lynch provides a cc mmonly used model for community
design which divides the city into functional areas, which contribute to distinctive design. Lynch's
fimctional areas have been refined to create the unifying principles of ~,ommunity design for Dublin.
A joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session was hcld on April I, 2008 to discuss thc
unifying principles of community design which provide the frarriework of the Community Design
Element. The City Council and Planning Commission identified those principles that they value the most
(Attachments 3 and 4). Staff and RBF/LTDS Consulting used the information obtained at the Study
Scssion to refine the unifying principles and prepare the goals, policiFS and implementation measures that
comprise the draft Community Design Element.
The draft Commuriity Desigr- Elemerit includes five unifying principl~,s of community design that provide
the framework for the document. Each of these unifying principles is ~iescribed below:
a. Positive Regional Identity - The visual character of public a~id private improvements adjacent to
roads of regional significance, including major arterials and Interstates 580 and 680;
b. Sense of Arrival - The desien of public and private improvements to create a sense of arrival at
entrances to the City;
c. Design of the Built Form - Elements that create and enhance high quality, safe and attractive,
residential, commercial, ofGce~, industrial, and mixed use neighborhoods and villages;
d. Connections and I,inkages - Streets, sidewalks, paths and tr~.ils that enhance connectivity within
and between separate properties, the public right-of-way and o~-en space; and
e. Sustainability - Techniques to provide a high quality of life and prescrve energy, water and other
natural resources, with attractive and integrated design.
Separate sections of the Comrnunity Design Element are dedicated to each of these principles. Each
section contains goals, policies and implementation measures that will provide a guiding vision for the
character of public and private imprcrvements throughout the commt.nity. These improvements include
streetscape design, landscaping, site planning, and building design. Tlie Community Design Element also
contains graphics and photographs to illustrate these policies.
The Planning Co~nmission held a subsequent Study Session on July 29, 2008 to review the draft
Community Design Element (Attachments 5 and 6). The Study Session included an overview of the draft
document, and an introduction to the proposed goals, policies, and implementation measures. The
Planning Commission provided Staff and the consultant team with thf: following comments and feedback
regarding the draft Community Design Element, as further discussed in the Analysis section of this Staff
Report.
^ Address distracting signs and l~lectronic Readerboard Signs adjacent to I-580 & I-680;
^ Create Villages throughout the entire City;
^ Review the document format; and
^ Other minor modifications thre~ughout the draft document.
Pagc 2 of 5
The feedback from the Study Session has been incorporated into the draft Community Design Eleme t~ r-' ~
that is included as Attachment 1 to this Staff Report. The Planning Commission is requested to review
the revised draft document and make a recommendation to the City C'ouncil regarding the adoption of this
proposed General Plan Element.
ANALYSIS:
Planning Commission Modifications
As previously stated, the Planning (:ommission provided Staff and the consultant team with comments
and feedback regarding the draft Community Design Element (Attachment 6) at the July 29, 2008 Study
Session. The Co~nmission requesteci the addition of a policy to regi~late distracting signs and Electronic
Readerboard Signs along Interstates 580 and 680 (I-580 and I-680); ;m itnplementation measure to create
Villages throughout the entire City; a review of the document format; and various other minor
modifications throughout the draft document. The following is a disc assion of the modifications proposed
by the Planning Commission:
Distracting Signs Adjacent to I-580 und I-680
The Planning Commission cited on;oing concern regarding the usf: of distracting signs and electronic
reader board signs adjacent to I-580 and I-680. The Planning Conimission directed Staff to include a
policy in the Community Design Element to address signs adjacent to I-580 and I-680. The following
policy (Policy 10.5.3.E on page 86 c~f Attachment 1) has been inclu3ed to address distracting signs and
Electronic Readerboard Signs:
Polic~10.5.3.F.: Encourage attractive quality signage along freeway corridors that avoids the use of
distractive features such as electronic reacler boards, bright color.;, bulky scale and mass, etc.
The Sign Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.84) regulates Electronic Reader Boards and requires
approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by the Planning Comrrission. In order to approve a CUP,
the Planning Commission must make a Finding of consistency witli the General Plan. A CUP for an
Electronic Readerboard Sign adjacent to I-580 and I-680 would not bf: consistent with Policy 10.5.3.E and
therefore, could not be approved. However, if the Planning Commission would like the ability to approve
an Electronic Readerboard Sign where appropriate, Policy ] 0.5.3.E c ould be revised as follows to allow
such flexibility:
Alternative Policv 10.5.3.E: Encourage attractive quality sigliage along freeway corridors that
avoids the use of distractive features such as bright colors, hul~y scale and mass, and discourages
electronic readerboard signs.
T~illages
The City Council's 2003/2004 Goals and Objectives included the clevelopment of policies that define
village characteristics as a planning tool and also identified opportunilies to create new villages in Dublin.
Staff conducted research and prepareci a background study of village concepts for use in creating a Village
Policy Statement (Attachment 7). The Village Policy Statement identifies the characteristics that
comprise a village in Dublin. On September 7, 2004, the City Council adopted the Village Policy
Statement and directed Staff to identi fy potential village sites.
Staff analyzed potential village sites using the criteria established i~i the Village Policy Statement and
created a Village Action Plan (Attachment 8). The Village Action Plan included measures to achieve
villages consistent with the Village Pulicy Statement. The City Coun~;il approved the Village Action Plan
0~1 August 16, 2005, and identified the following six potential village locations:
Page 3 of 5
^ Dublin Village Historic Area
^ Downtown Dublin
^ Camp Parks
^ Transit Center
^ Dublin Ranch Town Center
^ Fallon Village Center
~1Ir~~.1
U
The concepts of the Village Policy Statement and Village Action :?lan are incorporated into the draft
Community Design Element (Section 10.7.3.6). This includes identification of village locations and
policies to ensure that the village characteristics are incorporated into future development of these areas.
The Pianning Commission expressed a desire to incorporate all areas of Dublin into villages. In order to
achieve this, the Planning Commission directed Staff to include ar~ implementation measure to create
villages throughotit Dublin. The following Implementation Measure (Implementation Measure 10.7.4.M
on page 105 of Attachment 1) has be~;n included to study additional village areas:
Implementation Measure 10.7.4.M: Study the feusibility of creating villages for all portions of
Dublin.
The City Council would need to allc~cate Staff time in order to study the feasibility of creating villages
throughout Dublin. Staff would nef;d to review and modify the ch<<racteristics and policies that define
villages in Dublin and study how they would apply to areas thrc+ughout Dublin. Creating villages
throughout the City has the potential to divide the City into individual districts or communities rather than
one overall community.
Fornaat of the Comnaunity Design Element
Concern was raised at the Study Session regarding the format of the draft Community Design Element.
Staff reviewed the concerns regarding the existing format and alternatives to address these concerns.
However, after further review, Staff believes that the existing docum~;nt format best serves the use of the
document. The existing format enables users to clearly identify ancl cite applicable goals, policies and
implementation measures. Therefore, Staff is not recommending any further modifications to the format
of the draft Community Design Element.
Sustainability Element
Sustainability was identified as a uriifying principle of community design, as noted above. The draft
Community Design Element includes extensive Policies and Implementation Measures related to
Sustainability (Section 10.9). The c;oncept of Sustainability has come to the forefront of planning in
recent years. In fact, some local jnrisdictions have adopted a Sustainability Element in their General
Plans. Because of the importance of this issue and the number of policies related to this topic, the
Planning Commission may want to consider adopting the proposed d~~cument as a combined Community
Design and Sustainability Eiement. ,~dopting this document as a conibined Element will provide further
weight to the importance of sustainability in Dublin.
CONCLUSION:
The Community Design Element cor-tains goals, policies and implenientation measures that will further
tlle City's efforts to create an invitin~; and attractive community by providing a guiding vision for public
and private improvements throughout the City.
Page 4 of 5
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
72 C_.:-
This project is exempt from the environmental review requirements of the California Environment
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The activity is covered by the
general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect
on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in
question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Plannin~; Commission: 1) Receive Staif presentation; 2) Open the Public
Hearing; 3) Receive public testimony; 4) Close the Public Heari~~g and deliberate; and 5) Adopt a
Resolution recommending that the City Council Adopt a Resc,lution approving a General Plan
Amendment adding a Community Design and Sustainability Element to the General Plan as Chapter 10,
with the draft City Council Resolution Included (Exhibit A).
Page 5 of 5
DRAFT DRAFT
City could revoke or modify their permit quickly with a public hearing which would require a
10 day notice period. -] 3 r~, ~~_~
~(J
Cm. Tomlinson suggested a large drop box on the side of the wall at the front of the building for
night drop donations which would alleviate the problem of leaving them by the front door.
Mr. Frankli~ agreed to review Cm. Tomlinsori s suggestion. ~
Cm. Wehrenbe agreed with Cm. Tomlinsori s suggestion but felt it would block access on the
sidewalk. ~
,
Cm. Tomlinson asked Ms. Karaboghosian to show where the trash dumpster is that was
mentioned in letter. Ms. Karaboghosian pointed out the trash dumpster on the slide.
Cm. Tomlinson asked who has use of the trash dumpster. Mr. Franklin answered their trash is
transported to their plant in Oakland and they do not have trash pick up at the site.
Chair Schaub closed the public hearing.
Cm. King asked Mr. John Bakker, City Attorney since the signers of the letter are not present
can the Commission take it into consideration when making findings.
Mr. Bakker answered the Conunission can use it as evidence and weigh it accordingly not
knowing if any of the signers are actually business owners.
Cm. Wehrenberg felt there is a need in the community for this service and is in favor of CUP.
Cm. Tomlinson supports the CUP and in favor of monitoring the site to ensure compliance.
,
On a motion~ay Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 5-0, with the
Planning Commission unanimously approved:
RESOLUTION NO. 08-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A SIX (6) MONTH EXTENSION OF A PREVIOU5LY APPROVED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE GOODWILL RETAIL CENTER WHICH ALLOWED
AN INTERIOR DONATION CENTER LOCATED AT 7232 REGIONAL STREET
PA 06-053
8.3 PA 07-038 - General Plan Community Design Element (Legislative)
Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
.':'fe 7Z "i~t 1.~ ~Z~Yii'.,;;:3?7 ~~~'.1d i t`, ~~)£,'{~
~:, 's`p::~~`` a~ 93 Attachment 8
DRAFT
DRAFT
c,~;
~ ~~ n 1
Mr. Baker indicated there were three issues the Planning Commission has asked Staff o
address, which were:
1) A policy to address distracting signs and electronic reader board signs adjacent to I-
580 and I-680;
2) An implementation measure to create villages throughout Dublin; and
3) Change the title to read: Community Design and Sustainability Element
Chair Schaub was concerned about how the electronic reader board signs take over cities and
was pleased the City will address the problem.
Mr. Baker stated that Policy 10.5.3.E was created to address the concerns of the Planning
Commission regarding the distracting signs and electronic reader boards adjacent to I-580 and I-
680. The original policy read "Encourage attractive quality signage along freeway corridors that
avoids the use of distractive featccres such as electronic reader boards, bright colors, bulky scale and mass,
etc." He stated the Commission would not be able to approve a CUP for an electronic reader
board because they would not be able to make the finding that it was consistent with the
General Plan therefore those types of signs would be prohibited. He stated Staff has crafted an
alternative policy so that if the Commission would like the flexibility to allow an electronic
reader board under certain circumstances it would be able to allow it.
Mr. Baker stated the alternative policy which reads "Encourage attractive quality signage along
freeway corridors that avoids the use of distractive features such as bright colors, bulky scale and mass,
and discourages electronic reader board signs."
Chair Schaub asked if Mr. Baker would like their decision tonight. Mr. Baker stated the
Commission would need to direct Staff to modify the language when approving the resolution.
Chair Schaub felt the Comrnission should discuss the item and come to a decision later in the
meeting.
Mr. Baker continued with the discussion regarding the implementation measure to create
villages throughout Dublin.
Chair Schaub asked if the Planning Commission should recommend to the City Council to
eliminate the Village Policy and refer now to the Community Design Element.
Mr. Baker stated if the Community Design Element is adopted it would supersede the Village
Policy. He statecl the Village Policy was approved as a policy rather than adopted so there
would be no need to rescind the policy.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing.
James Dowdy, Dublin resident thanked the Planning Commission for their good job. He was
involved with the TownScan survey and appreciated being a part of the decision making
process. He was concerned about the shopping center at the north east corner Village Pkwy and
Amador Valley Blvd. and if it would be revitalized in the near future.
;=`l: ~~ ., ~ ,E . ,~u,~ zs~ ~'r~ ?c3r;~~
.# , ~
~~~~.,,~~ =;A~~ 94
DRAFT
DRAFT
~ j~j ~'~%
Chair Schaub explained that the shopping center will be addressed in the Downtown Spec~fic
Plan but would not be specifically addressed in the Community Design Element which is more
general.
Cm. Tomlinson reminded Mr. Dowdy that the City cannot force property owners to update
their property. Mr. Dowdy understood.
Chair Schaub encouraged Mr. Dowdy to remain involved with the Downtown Specific Plan.
Mr. Dowdy asked about the trails in his area. There was a brief discussion regarding the
Bikeways Master Plan and the Parks Commission. Mr. Dowdy asked about volunteer
opportunities and the Commission referred him to the Parks Commission as well as the Public
Works Department.
Mr. Dowdy asked about the "villages" concept and Chair Schaub explained the section of the
Community Design Element and the history behind it.
Chair Schaub asked if there were questions for Bill Wiseman, RBF Consulting.
Cm. King stated there have been no architectural design policies in the past but he felt the
Planning Commission has managed to improve Dubliri s look and feel. He mentioned the
Village Policy and was not aware of it in the Community Design Element.
Chair Schaub stated the Village Policy was written originally with new development in mind
and mostly development on the east side. He continued the Guiding Principles on Page 102 are
interesting but dori t hold the planning structure that was needed earlier. He felt the
Commission needed to talk about villages and apply what they have learned towards existing
developments throughout the City.
Jeri Ram, Community Development Director stated the intent of the Village Policy was to have
a separate identity for different areas but tied together. She stated the intent was not for each
area to be a village but some unique areas that they wanted to concentrate as villages so that the
look and feel would be different but still be Dublin.
Cm. King asked if the Commission wants to encourage pedestrian connections between
developments. He stated there is a pedestrian bridge in Dublin and asked if connections and
linkages are defined well enough in the document.
There was a discussion regarding the Bikeways Master Plan and the Streetscape Master Plan
and how they relate to the Community Design Element.
Cm. King stated the intention of the West Dublin BART Station area is to create a destination to
attract people. He felt the traffic at Dublin Blvd. and Amador Plaza Road was very congested
and suggested a pedestrian bridge to alleviate some of the traffic.
`t".ytrL7" ~i`a.~ *'E 7 .,. _._ ~ i~dfd~~T ,t~ r ~'~~~~,`'
.~i~".i 2 ~f'"'~e'? #3'?~: 95
DRAFT ~ ~ ~ '' ~'
DRA~ ~
Chair Schaub suggested discussing Cm. King's idea when they discuss the Downtown Specific
Plan. Cm. King stated that he wanted to discuss the pedestrian bridge because he wasn't sure if
they actually mean to connect the different villages and developments.
Bill Wiseman, RBF Consulting stated the Community Design Element is a framework document
that addresses the entire city and referred to Page 107, Policy C which addresses connectivity
between the villages on a citywide level and references the Bikeways Master Plan as a
mechanism for implementation.
Cm. King asked if we want parts of the city to be different than the other parts of the City and
how that relates to the phrase "distinctive design."
Mr. Baker stated that under the Village Policy, Page 103, Policy I, is to create a specific identity
for each village but not specific to design.
Cm. Tomlinson stated he interprets the phrase "distinctive" as "high quality" but not
necessarily a specific design.
Mr. Baker indicated there are 6 villages identified and not all under construction yet but the
map shows their locations.
Cm. King referred to the Sense of Arrival section and asked about the distinctive arrivals into
the city and if it would be feasible to have a unified theme for all entrances with the same kind
of welcoming monument or should the document indicate the entrances should be beautiful.
Mr. Baker stated the Community Design Element will correlate with the Streetscape Master Plan
and the arrival locations identified in the CDE are pulled from that plan. He stated the goal is to
create attractive entryways with a new monument sign which has not been used yet. He stated
the monuments would be a unifying element in each of the listed gateways. He referred to Page
89 which includes some policies to guide how the entryways should be built.
Cm. King felt the monument is not big enough.
Chair Schaub suggested bringing that subject up in the goals and objectives discussion.
Cm. King felt it was appropriate for a discussion now but he was not suggesting adopting
tonight.
Chair Schaub felt is was a good idea but without a special fund to build the structures it would
be difficult. Cm. King felt there was no mention of how the monuments would be paid for and
felt it would be paid for by the developers or some kind of public investment of funds to
achieve what the Community Design Element is asking for.
Cm. Biddle stated most of the Sense of Arrival locations are from the south coming off the
freeways and asked if the ~ity works with CalTrans in creating joint agreements to improve
their lands.
~~~^'f ~f :; ;, t rYa s,e,, ~~ 1~I zt ~ , 9 ~„
. ;_4
~~~ ~ ~x ; ~<~ ~~~,=F 96
DRAFT DRAFT
1~ ~~
Mr. Baker answered that Public Works would be responsible for that type of agreement~e
continued they have partnered with CalTrans in the past and they are working on the
Fallon/580 interchange design now regarding the landscaping improvements on the right-of-
way. He continued in the CDE there is and implementation measure that states "continue to
work with CalTrans." He suggested adding an implementation measure to the CDE to re-
evaluate the entry monuments through the Streetscape Master Plan and at that level there could
be the actual design of the entry monument and possibly make it more dramatic.
Cm. Biddle asked how they would create more villages if property is already developed. He
felt it would be very difficult to create a village in a long established residential area.
Chair Schaub felt they could identify villages without changing them and they did not need to
have other elements such as commercial or retail.
There was a discussion regarding villages within Dublin and how that would be accomplished.
Mr. Baker indicated they would have to re-evaluate what a village is in Dublin.
Cm. Biddle asked if the CDE would be periodically updated. Mr. Baker stated there will be
periodic updates.
Cm. Wehrenberg felt the document was comprehensive and was in support of it.
Cm. Tomlinson also felt the document was well done and in support of it.
Chair Schaub commented now that the CDE is completed he would like see to it used when
talking to developers. He wanted to see where the City will be meeting the intent of the CDE
and was concerned that there are a lot of implementation measures. He felt that the
Commission should discuss the implementation measures in their goals and objectives meeting
and prioritize them accordingly. He also felt the Commission should focus on the sustainability
of projects as well.
Mr. Baker stated that when Staff reviews projects they would be evaluated against the CDE and
the Planning Commission would need to make a finding of consistency with the General Plan.
Cm. King agreed with Chair Schaub regarding sustainability and felt it was important to
encourage green building in Dublin.
Cm. Biddle asked if they should break out some parts of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to
update since it is so large.
Ms. Ram answered that the City is bound by the environmental document and if significant
changes were made to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan then the environmental document
would have to be changed as well.
"?~1`~ ; ,_ ~ ' , r 7rrz ~a~;r: ~.~
~ bi~ z~ t;, ?~3`~,>T
<~,~c~, •,.t<<~ =rr~ 97
7~~~ -; ~_.
DRAFT DRA~ "~
Chair Schaub felt that when the Commission makes decisions for one specific plan it should
apply to all specific plans for consistency and suggested discussing that subject in the future.
Chair Schaub closed the public hearing.
Chair Schaub suggested having the discussion regarding distracting signs and electronic reader
boards adjacent to I-580 and I-680.
Mr. Baker suggested having a discussion then coming to a decision.
Cm. Tomlinson felt the discussion was not about a specific sign but about tying the hands of the
City Council. He felt the financial impacts and the ability to attract businesses are of concern.
He stated because Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton all touch I-580, that if a business owner
has an opportunity to choose between the cities and one will give them the sign they want and
the others would not then there is a concern. He felt the way the signage section was written
currently it would prevent the Planning Commission from making the necessary findings and
essentially leave the Council without the flexibility to negotiate. He was in support of the
alternative policy language because it discourages the signs but leaves the flexibility.
Chair Schaub also felt the alternative policy gives the most flexibility. He asked about the
update of the Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Baker answered the Sign Ordinance will be updated as part of the Zoning Code update.
Cm. King asked if a policy is a binding rule or just an encouragement. He felt that a policy
could be either binding or flexible.
Mr. Baker stated that many policies in the document allow for some interpretation. He stated in
the Sign section of the CDE states that it would prohibit an electronic reader board along I-580
because the Planning Commission could not make a finding of consistency with the General
Plan so the policy would prohibit these types of signs.
Cm. King asked if in public documents the word "policy" has the same weight throughout.
Mr. Bakker answered the phrase "policy", as used in the General Plan generally xefers to
specific requirements. He continued the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning
Commission must make the finding that an application is consistent with the General Plan. He
continued Staff would determine that the application is consistent with the Land Use
designations and all the various policies that would apply and if Staff determines it does not
then it will be noted in the staff report. He continued that policies are firm standards.
Cm. King asked where in the process would the Applicant be made aware of the policies.
Cm. Tomlinson felt the Applicant should review the policies before they submit their project.
Chair Schaub encouraged Staff to use the CDE as a stand alone document.
.ii,r _. _ . . ..
_. ~ e,~i..~.~ ,r,P_,,.,~~,c ~"~""~,Sr~`a~b3a `d`Yr-:.~~~
`~=.. ?:t~; ,~;y 98
DRAFT DRAFT
The Commission agreed to change the language regarding signs to the alternative policy
U c~ ~
Chair Schaub stated the Commission has raised a number of questions about design and felt
there will be more conversations regarding design when they discuss the Downtown Specific
Plan and if the design should become applicable everywhere.
Mr. Baker asked for clarification regarding the concept of the Streetscape Master Plan and the
unique entry monument.
Chair Schaub felt the language was adequate but if the Commission wanted to go further they
should discuss it in their goals and objectives meeting.
Mr. Baker responded that it would be difficult to achieve a design tonight but they could add an
implementation measure regarding the Streetscape Master Plan and that could become a goal in
the future.
Ms. Ram stated the City recently finished the design of the monument sign and suggested the
Commission wait and see the finished sign before they make a decision.
Mr. Baker described the City Monument sign and stated the design had gone to the City
Council but had not been implemented as yet.
Chair Schaub asked the Commission if they wanted to add an implementation measure to re-
evaluate the Dublin gateway signage or wait.
The Commission agreed to wait.
Mr. Baker asked the Commission if they wanted to change the title of the document to read
the Community Design and Sustainability Element.
The Planning Commission agreed.
On a motion by Cm: Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. Tomlinson, on a vote of 5-0, with
modifications, the Planning Commission approved:
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 21
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ADDING A COMMUNITY DESIGN AND SUSTAINABILITY
ELEMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN AS CHAPTER 10
PA 07-038
'~°b~: ~ ~u ~'~£J7R1 ,s, ... ~ . . _
.. ~ ~aZtflT..~ '+3. _'ir{,~
, ~ ,x~~~ ,.u. 99
~~~ ~~_/
~.i
C " ~1
J J~ i
~~~
~\~ V /. w-
CITY OF DUBLIN
VILLAGE POLICY STATEMENT
~ ~ ~ ~ ~=
~ ~
e ~ 7 , ~. ~: ~:
'
~ " ~ ' .
' ~._~ 1 ~V.
~ 1~
F.: ..
~
N_„? __"Vr.i!C'~
~ ~-i ,~ ~~ r"Y 'Y i
~
, .. ~ t d r t ! . 'Y 7 I !. . 'x I
T. , F ~~ F S i' 1 ..,: ~ 2 7 . a 6~ 1' 1
.... W ~-, . . _« s , _.l~d. .I . -^' , ..~4~ _!. . ~' n _
KC%iii e.='dF1:C u
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
Attachment 9
~ ~~~~~~
VILLAGE POLICY
~ntrnductinn
The Policy described below is not a Planning legal requirement for new development. This Policy
Statement is a definition of a Village used to refine and enhance special areas in the community that
already contain some of the characteristics of villages. In addition, this Policy provides direction on
what characteristics comprises the Dublin Village Concept. This concept can be used as a template
for the development of new villages in the future. The development of this Policy is based on a
Background Document dated September 7, 2004.
Applicability
This Policy will be used by the City to identify possible Village sites in both new development areas
and redeveloping sites. An Action Plan will be developed by Staff with specific recommendations
on:
1. Possible Village Sites
2. Later modifications to the General Plan and Specific Plans to mandate the location
and characteristics of Villages.
Only when changes are made to the Planning documents noted above will this Policy become a legal
requirement. ~
The Village Policv
A Village is defined as a physical development of land that has been
designed to encourage compact development of an area which integrates a
variety of housing types and densities with community facilities, civic and
educational uses. Commercial and industrial uses may also be located in
Villages. An emphasis on pedestrian-friendly design should be required.
Villages should have these characteristics:
1 A Village location should be compatible with the local environment including surrounding
land uses and topography. It should respect constraints, roadways and environmental
considerations;
2 A Village should have a mixture of housing types, densities and affordability and should
support a range of age and income groups;
3 Activity nodes (commercial areas, community facilities and public/private facilities) should
be easily accessible;
4 Trails, pedestrian walkways and street linkages should be established to bring the parts and
elements of the Village together;
5 Street and Pedestrian linkages should link to transportation spines including buses and transit
services;
2
~z~b~~~
6 The Village should have a strong "edge" defining the boundaries. This could include major
streets, architectural or landscaped areas;
7 Village size should reflect development that promotes pedestrian walkability, permits a
sufficient mixture of residential and public/private uses and convenient commercial areas.
8 Specific identity should be fostered for the Village areas (special signage, unique design
elements, public plazas etc.)
Implementation
An Action Plan to determine potential Village sites and appropriate modifications to the City's
General Plan and Specific Plan to include development of Villages in appropriate locations in Dublin
shall be prepared by Staff for review and adoption by the Planning Commission and City Council.
G:APA#~2004\04-025\Villages Policy Statement Revisions from CC mtg.doc
~ ~ c~~:~~
VILLAGE ACTION PLAN
Fallon Village Center
1. Continue working with the Eastern Dublin Property Owners on the Specific Plan
Amendment and the development of a Stage 1 Development Plan that includes the
proposed Fallon Village Center.
2. Incorporate the concepts from the Village Policy Statement into the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment for the Eastern Dublin Property Owner's Stage 1
Development Plan.
Camp Parks
l. Work with the United States Army to incorporate the village characteristics identified
in the Village Policy Statement into the formal land use plan application for the future
development at Camp Parks. The Village Policy Statement would supplement the
results of the Strategic Visioning Process and City Council's subsequent direction to
Staff and the Army regarding the formal land use plan application.
2. Create a strong pedestrian linkage between the Transit Center and the future
development at Camp Parks.
Transit Center
1. Work with the individual property owners to implement the existing Stage 1
Development Plan and incorporate the concepts from the Village Policy Statement
into the Stage 2 Development Plan.
Area G- Dublin Ranch Town Center
1. Ensure that development conforms to the Stage 1 and 2 Development Plans to create
a cohesive village.
Downtown Village
1. Evaluate land use changes for the Downtown area once the BART station has been
constructed. This includes a review of the existing Specific Plans to determine what
changes/updates should be considered. This may include revising the existing
Specific Plans, or repealing these Specific Plans and creating a new Specific Plan for
the entire Downtown.
2. Evaluate the future potential for a Downtown Village when the Specific Plan
documents are updated.
Attachment ~ n