Day 1999.06.01PC

Also Present: Community Development Director Rowland, City Planner Emerson, Senior Planner Macaulay, Senior Planner Traut, Associate Planner Duffy, Associate Planner Trippi, Building Official Turgeon, Deputy Director of Public Works Hom, Deputy Director of Public Works Aggarwal, Senior Recreation Supervisor Fox, Housing & Redevelopment Project Coordinator Smith.

Senior Planner Macaulay reviewed the proposal and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that the amendment pertains to the adoption of Appendix Chapter 34 Division III of the California Building Code. Appendix Chapter 34 Division III deals with requirements for repairs to buildings after a natural disaster. Adoption and implementation of this Appendix Chapter and Division by local jurisdictions is optional. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration (File No. 99-065), which adequately described the impacts of this project and meets the requirements of CEQA.

Building Official Turgeon clarified that these standards apply to both public and private structures. He noted that a licensed real estate appraiser would determine the value of the structure and the Building Official would determine the extent of the damage. Mr. Turgeon noted that the intent of this ordinance is to be proactive and create safer buildings. He stated that they have not received any indication that insurance companies will not follow these policies.

Commissioner Williams noted that there are different provisions that apply to insurance companies and earthquake damage in California. He reviewed the new legislature that was adopted two years ago. Mr. Turgeon noted the difference between FEMA funds and private insurance money that may be available for natural disaster relief.

Commissioner Williams moved, Vice-Chairman Minkler seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 99-099, recommending that the City Council approve the Reaffirmed Negative Declaration and adopt Appendix Chapter 34 Division III of the California Building Code. Motion approved 7-0.

Associate Planner Duffy reviewed the project and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that this is a request to allow construction of a 6’ high wooden fence in the required front yard of Lee’ s Mobile Home Park, rather than the 3’ fence allowed by the Land Use and Development Code. The address of the mobile home park is 1037 E. Monte Vista, but the proposed fence would be located at the Scoggins Lane entry to the site.

City Engineer Baird clarified that there are no sidewalks on either side of the street, and the City has no jurisdiction to require that a sidewalk be installed as part of a fence variance. Staff clarified that the fence would become the responsibility of the mobile home park once it is constructed.

Commissioner Drake moved, Vice-Chairman Minkler seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 99-092, approving a Variance for the Lee’ s Mobile Home Fence height, subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit A. Motion approved 7-0.

Senior Planner Traut reviewed the business item and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that this will be a review of the 1999/2000 Capital Improvements Project (CIP) program. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the CIP Program’ s consistency with the General Plan. Ms. Traut reviewed how the funding sources are distributed and where the funds come from.

Deputy Director of Public Works Hom reviewed the development impact fee study and how specific items are funded. He noted that money is designated for specific items, and if the item is not completed, the money goes back into the fund balance. The City Council has to approve how those funds are distributed.

Commissioner Williams noted concern about when the sidewalk along Elmira Road would be installed as part of the Corporation Yard improvements. He added that if a private developer were proposing a project, they would be required to install the sidewalk at the time the project was constructed. He felt that the City needs to be held to the same standards that are required for a private developer. Commissioner Williams also noted concern about items that are not on the list, specifically the installation of a traffic signal at the corner of Browns Valley and Wrentham. He felt that the intersection is a safety hazard and questioned how the Commission can request that a signal at that location be included in the CIP.

Deputy Director of Public Works Aggarwal reviewed how traffic signal locations are identified and how the studies are conducted and locations are prioritized. He also reviewed how state warrants are used in determining sites. Mr. Aggarwal noted that a left turn pocket will be added at Browns Valley and Wrentham as well as three other areas along Browns Valley which will help alleviate rear-end accidents. He clarified for the Commission that a light was installed at Allison and Browns Valley because of a major change in traffic pattern resulting from the installation of the Allison Interchange.

Commissioner Williams noted another area of concern was that an item in the General Plan that was not reflected in the CIP was the extension of Vaca Valley to Farrell Road. He agreed that it is a long term project but felt that the City needs to acquire right-of-way now, when the land may be less expensive so that it is available when the extension is needed.

Mr. Hom clarified that the Vaca Valley Extension is not a priority project, and is not anticipated to be constructed until 2010 or beyond. He added that they anticipate that right-of-way dedication will come from developers, so the property will not need to be purchased.

Commissioner Drake stated that he shares the concern about installation of a sidewalk in front of the Corporation Yard, adding that a private developer would be required to install the sidewalk at the time the development is constructed. Regarding project #3, he questioned the calculation for the unmarked vehicles for the Police Department. Mr. Drake also questioned if the improvements to the corner of Leisure Town and Sequoia would include a traffic signal.

Mr. Hom noted that the installation of a sidewalk in front of the corporation yard is included in this CIP program, clarifying that these projects will occur in the next project season. He reviewed the figures for the patrol cars. Mr. Hom also explained that the proposed improvements to Leisure Town in this CIP budget include the initial funding for design, right-of-way acquisition, etc. He added that next years CIP will include the funds for the actual construction that will include a traffic signal at the corner of Leisure Town and Sequoia.

Commissioner Turpen noted that because the General Plan has not been updated, it would be beneficial for the City Council to hold a public hearing on the CIP budget and to use the Planning Commission to hear these issues. The Commission’ s job is to look at CEQA and see if the General Plan is consistent with this budget. He stated that it is important to draw the public into the process. He noted that there are numerous development impact fee items, and questioned how often they are updated, adding that it needs to be done in a timely way so that the fees are not lost. He noted concern about the trend that development impact fees are set in Sacramento.

Mr. Hom noted that historically, the Planning Commission has the responsibility for General Plan consistency and environmental impacts. He agreed that the development fee study needs to be updated and reviewed how those updates occur. He noted that a study session could be held to decide how often the update should occur.

Mr. Hom noted that the skateboard park would be constructed as a reimbursement, not a CIP project. He also clarified that the wastewater treatment plant improvements would be included as a budget amendment. He added that budget amendments don’ t generally come back before the Commission unless it is a new project. He noted that quarterly reports give a status of projects in the CIP and the Commission could be provided copies.

Commissioner Turpen clarified that the development impact fee updates are part of the CIP and it is one of the few things that is under CEQA as a significant unmitigated impact. If development impact fees are being put off and lag behind the budget, then under CEQA that is an unmitigated impact.

Commissioner Williams noted that it is important to explore projects and focus on the developer’ s share of impacts and that the city shares the responsibility for infrastructure. He requested that the Commission endorse two considerations to be forwarded to the Council. First, he noted that in the CIP there are only two traffic signals designated for each year, which he felt is inadequate, and that more funding needs to be designated for the installation of traffic signals. Second, he requested that the Council look at the need for the extension of Vaca Valley Parkway. He noted that there has been significant growth in the north area of Vacaville, both residential and industrial and there is a strain on the existing traffic system. He added that residential development has caused a strain on the school system, and if the extension were installed, it would be easier to transport students to other areas of town. He added that if executive housing is recommended in the north part of the city, it would provide a cross connection to the city that would be critical. He noted that the extension is designated in the General Plan and should be reconsidered.

Vice-Chairman Minkler stated that he supported Commissioner Williams’ s comments. He noted that as part of the PCS antenna approval on KUIC Hill, there was an indication that funds were available for undergrounding of the overhead power lines. He questioned if this was addressed in this budget. Staff noted that they would research the situation and report back to the Commission.

Commissioner Williams stated that he understands their narrow review authority, but they have the opportunity to amplify where they have concerns, adding that the Commission is the principle policy advisor to the Council regarding land use issues, and he is concerned about transportation not meeting the needs of the General Plan. He stated that he appreciated Mr. Aggarwals clarification about the installation of traffic signals and would withdraw his request for the signal at Browns Valley & Wrentham.

Community Development Director Rowland reviewed how the General Plan update would occur, adding that the budget includes an update to the City’ s development impact fees, which include traffic, and the Council’ s should occur within the next two years. A comprehensive update for roads will occur and the strategic plan will look at the circulation in the City. He noted that the Vaca Valley Extension is not currently funded by an impact fee, and another project would have to be moved down on the list to accommodate this project and needs to determine which items are the most important.

Mr. Rowland noted that an update to the master plan would coincide with review of the executive housing proposal. He noted that citywide improvements are paid for by impact fees, and individual areas are paid for by development fees.

Commissioner Williams moved, Vice-Chairman Minkler seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 99-100 including that the comments made by Commissioner Williams and endorsed by the Commission be passed on to the City Council. Motion approved 7-0.

It was the sense of the Commission that they wanted to forward to the Council their desire that the process be expedited as it relates to the traffic circulation plan. Commissioner Turpen stressed the importance of involving the public in the budget process and being able to receive public comment about their concerns and priorities. He felt that there needs to be a relationship between development fees and the public hearing process regarding the CIP budget. Mr. Hom noted that the development impact fee study which determines items on the CIP is reviewed in a public forum.

Associate Planner Trippi introduced the study session, noting that it would be a review of the City of Vacaville “ Mural Project” . The project includes development of a City policy to guide in the design and location of murals. The murals would be painted on selected building facades and/or walls to depict contemporary and historic life in the City. After adoption of the policy and any implementing codes, two buildings would be considered for the first murals: Heritage House restaurant at 303 Merchant Street; and Merchant and Main Grill and Bar at 349 Merchant Street. This study session includes an update on the Mural Project Committee work efforts, review of mural projects in other cities, consideration of appropriate building facades/walls in the downtown, and a preliminary review of the first mural proposals. This study session was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of May 18, 1999.

Mr. Trippi provided background on the Cultural Arts Advisory Committee and the two subcommittees that are working on this project. He provided illustrations of murals in other communities and examples of the types of uses in Vacaville. Mr. Trippi noted that the policy that will be adopted will apply to the whole city, but they intend to begin the Mural Project in the Downtown.

Donna Fox, Staff Liaison for the Cultural Arts Advisory Committee, stated the intent is to provide quality artwork that can be maintained. She stated that the murals would be appropriate and historic in nature in the Downtown. She stated that they hope to have the guidelines developed by August of this year. She noted that the idea is to create an area that will possibly promote a walking tour of the murals and artwork and add an ambiance to the Downtown.

Vice-Chairman Minkler questioned how the Heritage House had been selected, noting concern that the location seems large, and questioned if the whole surface would need to be used. Ms. Fox noted that the Committee is interested in that location, adding that if the mural were smaller it may be too narrow. She clarified that the murals would not change and that signage would not be included within a mural. Commissioner Williams commended the members of the committee who were in attendance at the meeting. He agreed that it is important to have a vibrant downtown, adding that murals should tell a story and history of the community.

Meryl Nesbitt, Chairman of the Cultural Arts Committee, noted that the example that was provided for the Heritage House was only to illustrate the size and space of the area. The artwork chosen would reflect the history of the Pony Express stop and would be quality artwork. She noted that the intent is to make the City known for the quality of its public space. She stated that the committee members would select the artwork, adding that public art can be many things such as statues, fountains and landscaping.

Commissioner Aldrich thanked those in attendance, adding that this will be a great contribution to Vacaville. She agreed that murals should tell a story, and it is important to consider the proportion of the building. She questioned if local artists will be given an equal opportunity to submit artwork. Ms. Nesbitt noted that they would and clarified that once a site was selected, bid specifications will be set for the type of artwork that is wanted and reviewed the interview process. Ms. Aldrich encouraged the use of local professional artists.

Commissioner Drake applauded the committee for their work, adding that he would help in the process when possible.

Vice-Chairman Minkler noted his support for the concept and commended the committee for their efforts. He added that he was anxious to see this type of project and encouraged the committee to avoid contemporary, political commentary. He suggested that they capture some of the history of Vacaville that is no longer here, such as Basic Foods and the Nut Tree. He suggested that some murals may be changed to keep the process alive.

Ms. Fox noted that they would proceed carefully and choose appropriate artwork. She noted the potential that professional artists could design the mural and a sign company would paint and maintain the mural. She also added that they are working with the Downtown Business Association and may approach businesses or community groups to sponsor murals, as well as raising money from the sale of prints of the artwork.

Richard Gideon, a member of the committee, noted that many schools have murals done by students, but they are not under the jurisdiction of the public art policy.

Commissioner Williams questioned if the Commission would be part of the review process since they have Design Review authority.

City Planner Emerson noted that the policy is still being developed and the Downtown Historic guidelines will be reviewed by the Commission.

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. Mr. Rowland reviewed the executive housing process and how the City Council would proceed.

Commissioner Williams questioned the process for executive housing developments and asked if it would be a “ beauty contest” . He stressed the importance of the Commission maintaining their role as land use advisors to the Council.

Mr. Rowland noted that the Commission’ s involvement may depend on how many proposals they receive. He noted that they will look at suitable areas and consistency with planned orderly growth.

Commissioner Turpen noted that there is a profound difference about how this is being approached as opposed to other developments in the City. He felt that this is a positive way to provide a range of guidelines to achieve a solution and then set up a competitive opportunity to solve the problem and select the best solution. He noted that it would be in contrast to trying to get what you want only through zoning.

Mr. Rowland noted that they would notify adjoining property owners when developments are proposed, and that the executive housing project is intended to be positive and restore housing balance.

Commissioner Turpen noted that the billboard at the Peabody Road exit was extremely damaged in recent winds and questioned if there is a policy to clean off the site since it is a non-complying use. Mr. Rowland noted that under the current sign ordinance, the billboard would not be able to be rebuilt. He added that the building department is looking at it as a health and safety issue, and will report back to the Commission regarding the status. He noted that they are also working with the City Attorney’ s Office regarding the issue.

Commissioner Williams asked for clarification of how many signs would be removed as part of the approval for Eller Media. Mr. Rowland noted that six sign faces were approved and nine sign faces would be removed.

Commissioner Aldrich noted that Corby’ s Collision was open and operating and has no handicap parking, and that there is a lot of rubble in front of the building. She also questioned the status of the landscaping at Red Carpet Carwash. Mr. Emerson noted that they continue to be in contact with the property owner of Red Carpet Carwash, and they would research the status of improvements at Corby’ s Collision.

Commissioner Drake noted that the creekwalk project is well under way and looks great. He also noted that the Walmart parking lot has been restriped and is a great improvement.

Vice-Chairman Minkler noted that the residents at 313 Timber Drive have started leaving business-related vehicles at their residence again.

Chairman Wilkins noted that on eastbound Ulatis to Nut Tree, there are three lanes and people continue straight through the intersection from the right turn lane. He suggested that traffic install more signs in the area to designate the lanes.

Commissioner Williams noted that he and Commissioners Minkler and Aldrich had attended a conference recently, and he had met with Community Development Director Rowland to pass on the information they received. He also noted that he would be meeting with the City Attorney to discuss the CEQA review process. Mr. Williams noted that many cities set a deadline for information/correspondence that may be submitted for items being reviewed by the Commission, and that no information is accepted after that date. He felt that this policy might also be helpful and may prevent the Commission from trying to read correspondence that is presented at the meeting. He added that they also have the option of continuing an item if correspondence is received after the set date. He noted that the conference was beneficial and encouraged everyone to attend in the future when possible.

In response to Mr. William’ s comment about setting a date to receive information, City Planner Emerson noted that often petitions or letters are received in response to staff reports.

Commissioner Turpen felt that there has not been a problem in the past and suggested that they could also pause the meeting to allow the opportunity to read materials that were submitted.

Commissioner Aldrich agreed that it is often hard to read through materials that have been submitted at the meeting.

Commissioner Drake noted that it is their job to review any information that is received.

Chairman Wilkins stated that they don’ t currently have a problem, and they could wait and set a policy if it becomes a problem.