Day 1999.05.04PC

Also Present: Community Development Director Rowland, City Planner Emerson, Associate Planner Duffy, Assistant Planner Behvand, City Engineer Baird, Assistant Engineer Casey.

2. Commissioner Williams noted a correction to page 2, paragraph 5, that Chairman Wilkins had raised a question, not Commissioner Williams. Commissioner Williams moved, Commissioner Dimmick seconded to approve the minutes of April 20, 1999 with the noted correction. Motion approved 6-0.

Associate Planner Duffy reviewed the project and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that this is a proposal to develop 47 production homes on 12.9 acres of vacant land, located north of Cooper School Road and southeast of Ulatis Creek. The proposed project would have no direct street connections to Cooper School Road, but would instead connect to streets in the California Springs Unit 1 subdivision immediately to the east of the project site. The floor area of the proposed house plans range from 1,820 sq. ft. to 3,100 sq. ft. Pursuant to Sections 15063 and 15073 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study of potential environmental impacts has been prepared and circulated for this project. Based on the findings of the Initial Study, adoption of a Negative Declaration is recommended. Mitigation measures have been identified in the Draft Negative Declaration, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program is also recommended.

Ms. Duffy provided renderings of the proposed house plans. She also reviewed the conditions of approval, including requirements for access to the potential bike path along Ulatis Creek.

Vice-Chairman Minkler noted concern about the potential for graffiti on a wood fence along the bike path. Ms. Duffy clarified a wood fence is the standard requirement and that a masonry wall would detract from the creekway and look less natural.

Commissioner Dimmick noted concern about not having public access to the bike path through the cul-de-sac. He felt that the areas should be left open and available to the residents.

Commissioner Turpen noted that the bike path is part of the circulation system, and felt that it would be important to install the bike path along with the development of the subdivision so there is not the potential of opposition if it is installed later and the residents are not aware that the area is designated for a path. Commissioner Turpen felt that the developer should fund the path as part of the development.

Ms. Duffy noted that the developer will be dedicating land for the bike path, but it will be the city’ s responsibility to install the path.

Chairman Wilkins noted that if the city has agreed to install the path, it should be done at the time of development.

City Planner Emerson clarified that the waterway is owned by the Solano County Water Agency, and the City must obtain approval from the Agency before a path can be constructed.

Community Development Director Rowland reviewed the three ways paths can be funded, which would be 1) by the developer, 2), city traffic impact fees, and 3) grants from state and federal agencies.

Chairman Wilkins stated that this needs to be addressed so that homeowners are aware that a bike path will be installed.

Tom Phillippi, Phillippi Engineering representing Kaufman & Broad, noted that the developer will pay 100% of the school mitigation for Phase One and 50% or more for Phase Two. He stated that Kaufman & Broad is a responsible builder and will be dedicating property to the City for the bike path. He commented that the roof will be tile and there will be many options available to provide variety in the subdivision. Commissioner Dimmick noted that many of the plans would lend themselves to side-entry garages and encouraged the developer to use that option where available to break up the street frontage. Mr. Phillippi agreed that side-entry garages could be done on corner lots, and that they would look at the possibility in other areas. He also clarified for the Commission that there would not be a fence at the end of the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Turpen questioned when homebuyers would be provided the information regarding school capacity. Mr. Phillippi clarified that the information is provided as part of a disclosure form that the homebuyer receives when negotiating the purchase of the home.

Assistant Director Rowland clarified that the proposed portion of the bike path is not part of the traffic mitigation fees, but funding could come from the developer or other grants.

Commissioner Aldrich stated that this is a nice subdivision and liked the suggestion of providing some side entry garages, which would help break up the neighborhood.

Commissioner Dimmick stated that it is important to disclose to homebuyers that there will be a bike path behind their property.

Commissioner Williams noted that the area for the bike path is under the jurisdiction of another agency and the issue of who is going to pay for the path needs to be resolved.

Commissioner Williams suggested that the developer install the path, then if funds are secured, the developer could be reimbursed.

Commissioner Turpen noted that obtaining grant funds is often a long process, and the funds are often better used for infill projects. He also noted concern about CEQA findings and disclosure of the school impacts resulting from this development.

Mr. Phillippi felt that because this is a regional facility that will connect to other areas, it should be the city’ s responsibility to install the path, especially since the developer does not own the property.

Commissioner Dimmick suggested that the developer set aside 50% of the cost and the city could be responsible for the other 50%.

Vice-Chairman Minkler questioned what the likelihood of the county approving this project would be.

Mr. Emerson noted that the Water Agency would be willing to recommend approval, but the Water Agency Board would ultimately determine if it would be approved.

Mr. Rowland noted that there are a lot of unimproved creekways in Vacaville, and funds are used more for higher priority areas, and this particular site would not be a high priority.

Vice-Chairman Minkler noted that this is an excellent project and encouraged that side entry garages be utilized where possible.

Commissioner Aldrich moved, Commissioner Williams seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-034 recommending to the City Council approval of the Planned Development, Vesting Tentative Map, Rezone and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the California Springs Residential Subdivision Unit 2, subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit A and the following modification to read as follows:

17. When feasible, as determined by the Director of Community Development, garages on corner lots shall be oriented toward the street side yard and side entries shall be provided for garages on large lots within the subdivision.

“ The local school may be near or at student capacity. School District policy may result in the transportation of students from this development to other school facilities with adequate capacity to handle additional students. For additional information, contact the Vacaville Unified School District at (707) 453-6100.”

27. Perimeter wood fencing (6’ high) surrounding the project site shall be installed by the developer along the property lines adjoining the creek. Cul-de-sacs at the end of Court “ C” and Court “ D” shall include access to the adjoining creek area, if a multi-purpose path is approved by the Solano County Water Agency. The design and location of the access shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner.

Associate Planner Duffy reviewed the project and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that Kaufman and Broad is proposing to amend the California Springs Unit 1 Planned Development permit to replace the approved house plans with new models. The proposed house plans for the RL-8 zoned lots consist of 1 one-story and 3 two-story models, ranging from 2,481 sq. ft. to 3,510 sq. ft. The house plans for the RL-6 zoned lots consist of 2 one-story and 4 two-story plans, ranging from 1,820 sq. ft. to 3,100 sq. ft. The California Springs Unit 1 subdivision is located north of Ulatis Drive and Cooper School Road, south of Ulatis Creek and the Stonegate subdivision. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is within the scope of the previous California Springs Unit

Commissioner Williams moved, Vice-Chairman Minkler seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-080 approving the modification to the California Springs Unit 1Planned Development, and reaffirming the Mitigated Negative Declaration subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit A. Motion approved 6-0.

City Planner Emerson reviewed the project and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that this is a proposal to amend the Burton Estates Planned Development permit to allow the City Planner to administratively approve reductions in the front setback for garages from 25’ to 15’ . The proposed reduction would only be permitted on side-entry, 3-car garages where the habitable portions of the house exceed the 25’ setback, and would not be allowed on adjoining lots. Burton Estates is located along Pintail Drive, south of Fruitvale Avenue and west of Ulatis Creek. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration for the Burton Estates subdivision, which adequately described the impacts this project and meets the requirements of CEQA.

Mr. Emerson noted that the applicant was requesting that Condition 6, requiring a on-foot reduction in rear yard for every foot decreased in the required front yard. Mr. Emerson stated that staff would agree to eliminate the condition because of the other restrictions that are applied to the development. He also noted that the same house plans would be allowed in limited circumstances and would require a significant difference in elevations. Mr. Emerson also reviewed the percentage of paving that would be allowed in the front yard, adding that decorative paving will also be utilized.

Will Layton, Centex Homes, stated that they were in support of staff recommendation with the modifications that were discussed.

Commissioner Dimmick encouraged the developer to provide side-entry garages where possible.

Commissioner Williams reminded the developer that the Title 24 calculations may need to be reviewed with the 3rd garage option.

Commissioner Turpen moved, Vice-Chairman Minkler seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 99-075, reaffirming the previous Negative Declaration and amending the Burton Estates Planned Development permit, subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit A, eliminating proposed condition of approval #6, and amending condition of approval #6 of Planned Development 98-155 to read as follows:

6. Each lot shall be developed with the house plan indicated on the master plotting plan submitted with this application, and dated August 21, 1998, except as noted by condition of Approval 7. The City Planner may approve reconfiguration of the house plans, so long as the following standards are met.

a. The same house plan shall not be placed on adjoining lots, except as approved by the City Planner the following situations:

i. On cul-de-sacs, if the adjoining houses have different front elevation plans.

ii. On other lot only if the adjoining houses include reversed plans and have different front elevation plans.

Assistant Planner Behvand reviewed the project and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that this project consists of the extension of the pedestrian/bike path from its current terminus at Marshall Road north to Hume Way. The path would follow the former railroad right-of-way. The proposed multi-use paved path is ten-feet wide. Pursuant to Sections 15063 and 15073 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study of potential environmental impacts has been prepared and circulated for this project. Based on the findings of the Initial Study, adoption of a Negative Declaration is recommended.

Mr. Behvand reviewed the history of the path and previous approvals. He noted the corrections to the conditions of approval, adding that native materials will be used on the shoulder of the path, rather than decomposed granite.

Assistant Engineer Casey noted that the path is designed to accommodate a bush truck and would not be damaged by maintenance vehicles. He reviewed where removable barricades will be installed, adding that they help control speed near the street intersections. Mr. Casey also noted that because of costs, as well as existing drainage that runs along both sides of the path, it would be difficult to meander the path.

Commissioner Williams noted a correction to the environmental assessment regarding noise impacts.

Commissioner Aldrich noted that she had received a call from Mr. Hal Alpert who was concerned about the potential for graffiti on the back of his client’ s building, and he was requesting that the building be fenced. Mr. Casey noted that in the past, they have not provided fencing around commercial buildings. He stated that with the existing path, they have found that vandalism and graffiti had decreased, and doesn’ t anticipate problems in the future. He also noted that the proposed path would be at least 40 feet away from Mr. Alperts client’ s building.

Vice-Chairman Minkler moved, Commissioner Turpen seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-063 approving the Marshall – Hume Pedestrian/Bike Path Design Review and Environmental Assessment with the amendments mentioned for the environmental assessment. Motion approved 6-0.

1. Community Development Director Rowland reported on City Council actions pertaining to Planning Commission items and reviewed the tentative schedule of future Planning Commission items and select items under staff review.

2. Mr. Rowland noted that a special meeting was being scheduled for June 29, regarding the New Urbanism. He noted that the meting would begin at 7:00 p.m. and that the City Council, other Commissions, and the public would be invited to the meeting. Mr. Rowland also noted a meeting with the Solano Transportation Authority regarding the “ corridor concept” .

3. City Planner Emerson reviewed the Commission Issues Status Report. He noted that significant progress had been made in the past few days regarding Normandy Meadows.

4. City Planner Emerson noted that a neighborhood meeting was scheduled for a potential use at the former Air Design site on Allison Parkway.

Chairman Wilkins questioned if the Commission was interested in having shirts with the City logo that could be worn at meetings or other events the Commission might attend. The Commission noted their interest, adding that they would make a decision at a later date. Mr. Wilkins noted that he may not be able to attend the next meeting.

Commissioner Turpen noted that there are pro’ s and con’ s to the General Plan update process selected by the City Council. He stated that it will save a large amount of money and staff would be able to do the update without involving a consultant. On the other hand, there may be less involvement with the community, adding that it would be important to find a way to draw the community into the process.

Chairman Wilkins agreed that community participation is important and they need to find ways to generate interest.

Community Development Director Rowland noted that typically in California, large studies are done with General Plan updates every ten years and it is not always effective. He felt that smaller reviews could be more effective and provides “ continuous planning” . He also noted that pieces of the General Plan could be reviewed along with the review of the strategic plan.

Commissioner Dimmick agreed that there should be the opportunity to make small adjustments as needed.

Commissioner Williams commended staff for the proposed remodel of the ARCO station on Orange drive. He felt that the proposal will resolve a major traffic problem. He questioned if Commissioner Turpen had received any feedback from the City Attorney regarding the school impact issue. Mr. Turpen stated that he had not received any response, but would keep the Commission informed.