Month 1986.07 July.


Day 1986.07.01PC

VACAVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Vacaville
7:30 p.m. - City council Chambers    July 1, 1986

CALL TO ORDER:
    The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Matsuhara.

PRESENT:    Chairman Matsuhara, Vice Chairman Rajander, Commissioner Breece, Commissioner Brewer, Commissioner Gjervold, Commissioner McCulley, and Commissioner Rasmussen
ABSENT:    None
ALSO PRESENT:    Planning Director Werner, Senior Planner Sexton Associate Planner Traut, Assistant Planner Buderi and Assistant Public Works Director Baird.

COMMUNICATIONS:
-    Letter from CARE (Citizens Against Residential Exploitation) regarding the proposed street along the railroad right-of-way.
-    Letter from Vacaville Unified School District regarding the location of the school site in the UC Regents property planned unit development.
-    Letter from Jim Grossi regarding the location of the school in the Cooper School Road area.
-    Letter from Steven Hicks of MacKay & Somps, requesting continuance of the hearing for Gramercy Park Garden Homes.

MISCELLANEOUS:
    None

1.    CONSENT CALENDAR

    Commissioner Rasmussen moved, Rajander seconded, to approve the following items as listed on the Consent Calendar.  Motion approved 7-0.
    Approval of Minutes - Meeting of May 20, 1986
    Approval of Minutes - Meeting of June 3, 1986

2.    DIRECTOR'S REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTION - HOUSING MIX INTERIM ZONING

    Director Werner introduced a report on the Interim Zoning Ordinance, which suspended approvals of multi-family dwelling unit and its effect on development applications.  A copy of City Council Ordinance No. 1283 was attached.

3.    U.C. REGENTS PROPERTY - Regents of the University of California, applicant
    a.    Environmental Assessment (REA-37-86)
    b.    Planned Unit Development (PUD-8-86)
    c.    Zone Change (Z-37-86)
    Pertains to a request for approval of a 848 unit residential development on 159.3 acres located along the south side of Cooper School Road and east of Nut Tree Road. The proposal includes 338 multi-family units, 518 single-family units, an 8 acre school site and 7.2 acre park site.  The request also involves the pre-zoning of the property from A-40 (Agriculture) to RM-2000 PD (Multiple Family), R-1-6000 PD and R-1-8000 PD and R-1-Variable PD (Single Family).  This item was continued from the June 17 meeting.

    Assistant Planner Buderi reviewed the proposal and introduced the staff report dated July 1, 1986 into the record, noting that the project established a master plan for the area.  The property must be prezoned to apply for annexation.  Staff recommended that 10% of the lots be designated R-1-8000 PD to achieve the required density mix and that the design of the units be upgraded.  The multiple family zone falls under a recent interim ordinance which has suspended issuance of building permits and plan approvals for multi-family projects south of I-80, with the exception of senior citizen units.  The developer would dedicate the park site, do grading and initial improvements in lieu of park fees, and would dedicate a school site with related street improvements consistent with General Plan Policy.  A study by the applicant's engineer would determine the necessity for a detention basin. The developer would provide sewer and water lines,their share of the under grounding of Byrnes Canal, two lanes of the Nut Tree Road realignment and a share of the remaining Nut Tree Road improvements. Staff felt that subject to the upgrading of housing types and the addition of an R-1-8000 area, the project could recommended for approval.

PUBLIC HEARING:
Those speaking in favor of the project:
    Ed Haworth, representing U.C. Regents, noted that this project has been in the works for about three years.  A portion of the property was sold to the hospital.  He said that when the project is sold, the builder would submit specific building plans for homes. He asked for clarification of conditions, noting that they agreed to dedication and site improvement in lieu of fees, but did not agree to installation of off-site improvements.

Those speaking in opposition to the project:
    Christine Anderson, 332 Ponderosa Drive, was concerned about overcrowding of Elmira School, adequate police patrol and drainage of flooded areas.

    Don Dittmore, President of Leisure Town Home Owners Association, was concerned about drainage and runoff.

    Bernice Stalk, 337 Ponderosa Drive, said that Cooper School Road has flooded every year for the past 11 years.  Ulatis creek does not handle the flooding.  She said that this project should be denied until the flood control is taken care of.

    Virginia Esh, area resident, also stated concerns about flooding, asked that the project be denied and the area left agricultural.

    Deborah Dutch, representing the Solano Health Care Service, owner of the hospital property adjacent to the property being heard, said that they supported the project, however, they had developed a plan for the school and park site that they felt was better, which located the sites adjacent to the hospital and would cluster all public facilities.  She requested a continuance to consider this revised plan.

    Kathleen Keeler, representing the U.C. Regents, said that they had been working on this site for about 2 years.  The U.C. Regents paid for the EIR that planned the school and park sites and also the General Plan amendment.  They felt that their plan located the park and school sites in the best possible location and that it had been approved by the hospital, City Staff, Park and Recreation Commission, and School District.  She felt they were being used to benefit the hospital property owners. She asked that the original plan be approved and said that to change now would delay the annexation a year.

    Ed Haworth, in answer to some of the public statements, said that this project would provide the school site as well as impact fees with the building permits.  The School District can then proceed with providing the school, which will serve other properties in this area.  He also stated that the master plan for the entire area locates the detention basin on the Hilden property, but if that property did not develop, a detention basin would be provided on this property.  Provisions for this have been made according to the EIR for the area.  He said that this project cannot solve the Leisure Town flooding problem, only that it will not make it worse. We will have more specific details when the tentative map is submitted.

    Assistant Public Works Director Baird stated that Leisure Town drains on the other side of the creek, this project would have very little effect on the Leisure Town property.

    Director Werner said that he would strongly recommend the site as planned; that there is no relation of services between the park site and hospital.  It would be a much greater cost to the city to put the park and school on a major street.  The hospital has 26 acres to use and to buffer other uses.  He felt that it would be a disbenefit to people who live in the area.  The project is presented for prezoning before it can go to LAFCO for annexation.  If annexed, specific details would be submitted to the City for study of development plans.

    Public hearing closed.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
    The Commission decided by a 4-3 vote that the Park/School site should be moved next to the hospital.  Commissioners Breece, Brewer, Rasmussen, Matsuhara, felt that the park site would be detrimental to the residents of the abutting homes. Commissioner McCulley, Rajander and Gjervold felt that because of the cost to the City of street improvements to locate the park on arterial streets, it should remain in the center of the project as originally planned. The Commission also agreed that they could not approve the project with 40% multi-family.

COMMISSION ACTION:
    Commissioner Rasmussen moved, Brewer seconded, to continue this project to the next regular meeting to allow time for the applicant to provide a revised planned unit development plan.  Motion approved 7-0.

    Chairman Matsuhara declared a recess at 9:45 p.m.  The meeting was recalled to order at 9:55 p.m.

4.    COPPERFIELD ESTATES SUBDIVISION  -  Western Planning & Development Corp.
    a.    Environmental Assessment (REA-34-86)
    b.    Planned Unit Development (PUD-5-86)
    c.    Tentative Map (TM-5-86)
    d.    Zone Change (Z-3-86)
    Pertains to a request for approval of a 649 unit single-family residential development on 138.8 acres located along the west side of Leisure town Road, south of Ulatis Creek and north of Cooper School Road and includes a 6 acre park site and 649 single family units.  The request also involves the pre-zoning of the property from A-40 (Agriculture to R-1-Variable PD, R-1-PD and R-1-8000 PD (Single Family).  The Tentative Map pertains to the subdivision of 57.3 acres of the site for 255 of the single family lots.  This item was continued from the June 17 meeting.

    Senior Planner Sexton reviewed the proposal and introduced the staff report dated July 1, 1986 into the record noting that the request is to prezone the property and establish a master plan for 139 acres with a mixture of land uses.  A tentative map for the first phase was proposed and a request for annexation has been filed with LAFCO. The developer would dedicate the park site, do initial grading and provide off-site improvements in lieu of a portion of the park fees, and participate in funding the school site.  In addition, they would provide a detention basin, extension of the parallel sewer trunk line and two center lanes of Leisure Town Road. Development plans targeted larger lots and upgraded designs and materials.  Staff recommended approval of the project.

PUBLIC HEARING:
Those speaking in favor of the project:
    Jim Grossi, representing Mr. Hilden, said that this is an infill area to be annexed and would be an upgraded project, with some larger lots that would include landscaping. He said that they have done extensive drainage studies and that the use of detention basins does work and that it would not add to the flood flow in Leisure Town or this project.  Grading and street improvements on the park would be done in lieu of fees and at no cost to the City.  Mr. Grossi said that they had worked with staff and agreed with the conditions of the report and would like to move ahead with the project.

Those speaking in opposition to the project:
    Elaine Anderson, Ponderosa Drive, was concerned about additional flooding over the bridge because it damages the road.

    Bob Hawkins, property owner on Cooper School Road, asked about the location of drainage lines.

    Bernice Stalk, asked that this item, as well as the U.C. Regents, be continued.

Public hearing closed.

COMMISSION COMMENTS:
    It was the consensus of the Commission that this was a well planned project that would provide needed improvements for the City and had mitigated any potential problems.  They felt it was a better project than the U.C. Regents project.

COMMISSION ACTION:
Environmental Assessment:
    Vice Chairman Rajander moved, Gjervold seconded, to approve Environmental Assessment (REA-34-86) regarding the proposed project, reaffirming the Cooper School Road Sector EIR in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and with findings A. and B. of staff report.  Motion approve 7-0.

Planned Unit Development:
    Vice Chairman Rajander moved, Gjervold seconded, to approve Planned Unit Development (PUD-5-86 for the master plan of development for 649 residential units on 139 acres, subject to the standard findings (a-g) and findings 1-6 of Section 17.54.070(c) of the Zoning Ordinance and subject to the following conditions of approval:  A-M and Findings of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Attachment "A";  amending condition E. and adding condition M. as follows:
    E.  That the park site be dedicated to the City and the related off-site improvements be installed by the developer.  Prior to the recordation of the first final map the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide for the dedication of the raw land area in lieu of a portion of the park fees.  The agreement shall also reflect that the frontage improvements along the park site shall be installed by the developer at no cost to the City.  In addition, this agreement shall specify that the on-site park improvements will be installed by the developer prior to the occupancy of the 585th dwelling unit of the development in lieu of a portion of the park fees.
    M.  That the approval of this PUD is subject to the City Council approval of compatible prezoning.  If a prezoning of the site is adopted by the City Council inconsistent with the PUD approval an application for a revised PUD consistent with the prezoning action shall be filed by the applicant.  If the prezoning is denied by the City Council the PUD shall be void.

Motion approved 7-0.

Zone Change:
    Vice Chairman Rajander moved, Gjervold seconded, to recommend to the City Council that Zone Change (Z-3-86) be approved, prezoning the site from A-40 to R-1-Variable PD, R-1-6000 PD and R-1-8000 PD, subject to the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Attachment "A", and required A. and B. as listed in staff report.  Motion approved 7-0.

5.    GRAMERCY PARK GARDEN HOMES  -  Lewis Homes, applicant
    a.    Environmental Assessment (REA-25-86)
    b.    Planned Unit Development (PUD-7-86)
    c.    Tentative Map (TM-8-86)
    Pertains to a request to divide eleven existing, vacant corner duplex lots in half to create individual "for sale" residential units within the Gramercy Park Subdivision.  The proposal involves lots #1, 20 and 27 within Gramercy Park Unit #4, and lots #1, 39, 42, 57, 65, 92, 78, 79 within Gramercy Park Unit #3.  The 2-story units will be an attached "duplex" design, but are proposed to be on individual lots of 5,200 square feet.

    Assistant Planner Buderi reviewed the proposal and introduced the staff report dated July 1, 1986 into the record, noting that the revised design for the duplexes, from l story to 2 stories and the subdivision of the duplex lots would create attached full sized homes on a split duplex lot.  Additionally, these units would be 5' higher than existing 2 story homes, and there would be a problem in providing utilities to the split lots.  Staff felt that the size of the units were out of scale for the lots proposed and that the revised plan was not compatible with the existing subdivision.

    Staff recommended denial of the project.

PUBLIC HEARING:
Those speaking in favor of the project:
    Charles Grimshaw, representing Lewis Homes asked that the item be continued to allow time to discuss the report with staff and to meet with residents of the area.

Those speaking in opposition to the project:
    A letter and petition signed by 63 property owners in the Gramercy Park subdivision was presented to the Commission.

    Bill Briar, stated that he concurred with the staff's position in the report.

    John Baszcnzewski, 626 Rialto Drive, said that Lewis Homes made a promise to home buyers which they did not keep.  Whether this decision is made tonight or at the next meeting the answer form everyone in the area is no.

    Bill Gooden, 608 Tiburon, said that everyone in the area keeps their homes up nice and Lewis Homes keeps up the existing duplexes well.  To put $70,000 homes next to $125,000 to 140,000 homes is just stupid.

    Mary Ann Smith said that she lives one lot away from a duplex lot.  A two story duplex would destroy their view. Lewis homes has changed their plans before--the large park and "elite" condo project were never done.  We are all pretty mad about it.

    Peter English, 645 Cordelia Circle, said that he agreed with the letter and petition that was sent to the Planning Commission.  He felt that Lewis Homes had made a commitment and that they should be required to hold to that commitment.

    Mrs. English, 645 Cordelia Circle, said that she felt the Commission should protect the rights of the public.

    John Newman, 365 Bishop Drive and Tony Krystek, 604 Tiburon Lane agreed that the developer had said that they would build one story duplexes and that they should not be allowed to change now.

    Steven Ash complimented the staff on the position taken in the staff report.  Bill Gooden agreed.

    Ron Collins, 629 Rialto Drive, said that Lewis homes used to have integrity, now they negate all promises and want to do everything different--they are getting a bad reputation here and in other cities as well.

Public Hearing closed.

COMMISSION ACTION:
    Commissioner Rasmussen moved, Brewer seconded, that the item be continued to the next regular agenda, to give the applicant a chance to improve the project.  Motion approved 7-0.

6.    CALIFORNIA OAKS APARTMENTS  TIME EXTENSION  -  Kingsland Enterprises, applicant
    a.    Environmental Assessment (REA-27-85)
    b.    Planned Unit development (PUD-9-85)
    Pertains to a request for approval of a time extension for the previous approval of a 98-unit, 2 story apartment development proposed on 7.4 acres on the north side of California Drive between Creekside Drive and the El Matador Mobile Home Park.  This item was continued from the June 3 meeting.

    Commissioner Breece declared a conflict of interest and stepped down.

    Associate Planner Traut reviewed the proposal and introduced the staff report dated July 1, 1986 into the record.  Staff recommended denial, noting that the project did not comply with the required Housing Mix.

PUBLIC HEARING:
Those speaking in favor of the project:
    Allan Moore, attorney for Kingsland Enterprises, felt that they were consistent with the General Plan density mix.  He asked for approval of the project, and they would then request a City Council hearing for an exception.

    Rick Kennerly said that because of a death in the family the project had been on hold for awhile.  They had submitted plans close to the deadline, and felt that they were held up by the Planning, Building and Public Works staff.  He asked for a 90 day extension for project approval.

Those speaking in opposition to the project:
    None

Public hearing closed.

COMMENTS:
    Director Werner noted that there had been a substantial change in apartments in the south side of the City within the last year. Also, an Interim Ordinance had been approved by the City Council.

    Chairman Matsuhara noted that the issue before the Commission was only to decide on the PUD extension, not the exception to the Interim Ordinance.

    The consensus of the Commission was a that this was down graded project which could not be approved as submitted, additionally, the applicant should have submitted the plans in time for plan checking and approvals.

    Chairman Matsuhara felt that there was a question of equity, that the project had been approved before and that the applicants had invested an enormous amount of money, in good faith, to complete the project.

COMMISSION ACTION:
    Commissioner Brewer moved, McCulley seconded to deny the 90-day time extension request for the California Oaks Apartments planned unit development (PUD-90-85), finding that the project is inconsistent with the housing mix policies of the General Plan.  Motion approved 5-1-1, (No:  Matsuhara, Abstaining: Breece).

    Commissioner Breece rejoined the Commission.

7.    GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - LAND USE & CIRCULATION ELEMENTS  - Gentry-Alamo, (GP-2-86 "B") - applicants
    Continuance was recommended due to changes in the plan and additional traffic study was required.

    Commissioner Brewer moved, McCulley seconded, to continue this item to the next regular meeting, and to Vote on components "A" and "B" of the amendment at that time.  Motion approved 7-0.

8.    DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
    Director Werner gave an update on City Council actions pertaining to Planning Commission items.

9.    COMMISSION COMMENTS:
    None.

10.    ADJOURNMENT:
    There being no further business to discuss at this regular meeting of the City Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 12:17 A.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Phyllis Lorenzo, Recording Secretary