Month 1999.07 July.


Day 1999.07.20PC


PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Planning Commission - Regular Meeting
City of Vacaville
7:30 p.m. - Council Chambers    July 20, 1999

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

A.    ROLL CALL:
Present:    Chairman Wilkins, Vice-Chairman Minkler, Commissioner Dimmick, Commissioner Drake, and Commissioner Turpen.
Absent:    Commissioner Aldrich, Commissioner Williams.
Also Present:    Community Development Director Rowland, City Planner Emerson, Senior Planner Macaulay.

C.    COMMUNICATIONS:
1.    Letter from Orchard Park Subdivision Homeowners requesting that they be notified of any development proposals on adjoining vacant property.

D.    APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Vice-Chairman Minkler moved, Commissioner Drake seconded to approve the agenda.  Motion approved 5-0.

E.    APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Drake moved, Vice-Chairman Minkler seconded to approve the minutes of July 6, 1999.  Motion approved 5-0.

F.    BUSINESS FROM FLOOR:
None.

G.    STUDY SESSION:

1.    HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN STUDY SESSION
File No. 99-114

Senior Planner Macaulay reviewed the study session, noting that it would be a discussion of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to be prepared for agencies receiving Solano Project water, including the City of Vacaville.  A HCP is a plan designed to preserve or mitigate for the loss of habitat for endangered species.  The study session will include discussion of the likely content of the HCP and a review of endangered species in the Vacaville area.

Mr. Macaulay reviewed the conservation plan and its purpose, as well as the interim and general conservation measures.  He also explained the proposed public input process for the HCP.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
    Commissioner Turpen questioned if developers are made aware of the list of endangered species.  Mr. Macaulay noted that as part of staff’ s review of a project, potential impacts on endangered species are analyzed and reported to the project proponent.  He also clarified that the state and federal endangered species lists are not the same.
    Chairman Wilkins complimented Mr. Macaulay on his presentation and staff report.  He questioned if there is any effort to determine if these species contribute to their habitat.  Mr. Macaulay explained that at this point it is difficult to determine.
    Commissioner Turpen noted that it is important to consider individual species and their contribution, and not just a dollar value on a piece of land, adding that it is important to preserve valuable resources.
    Vice-Chairman Minkler noted that because we don’ t know what these species do, it is important to keep a balance.  Mr. Macaulay stated that the intent is to create a document that is balanced and allows development activity to move forward in a way that also preserves endangered species.
    Commissioner Dimmick questioned if the goal of the plan is to find areas to reserve for habitat conservation.  Mr. Macaulay responded that large areas are more viable, but artificially created areas may not be as effective as small established areas.  Commissioner Dimmick questioned if areas are set aside, what is the impact on the property owner.  Mr. Macaulay responded that property would need to be purchased.
    Vice-Chairman Minkler questioned if mitigation areas are protected in perpetuity.  Mr. Macaulay noted that they would be guaranteed to be non-developable property.  Mr. Minkler questioned if there is an effort when a vernal pool is mitigated to take a portion of the existing pool to the mitigated area.  Mr. Macaulay explained that they do attempt to do that, but they cannot determine how effective it is when the soil has been disturbed.
    Commissioner Turpen stated that it would be easier to claim an area for agricultural land in a riparian corridor on the edge of town.  He felt that it would be nice to integrate the concept of conservation mitigation areas on the edges of town where there is both prime agricultural land and some justification to preserve the value of that land already.  He felt that you could place on top of that a financial mechanism to compensate landowners that buy development rights for conservation purposes and species preservation.  Mr. Macaulay noted that they would do that to the extent where possible, to make logical connections.  The challenge will be the cost of off-site mitigation.
    Commissioner Drake questioned if there is anything that would cause a reversal of an approval action.  Mr. Macaulay stated that you could not stop a development once it has been approved.
    Commissioner Dimmick asked if a timeline had been created to develop the HCP.  Mr. Macaulay noted that tentatively it would be completed in 3-4 years.  He reviewed the process up to this point and the involvement of various agencies that are stakeholders.
        Commissioner Drake stated that he would be in favor of establishing a target date with the understanding that it could be revised.
    Commissioner Turpen stated that his intent is not to rush the process, but questioned who is the most motivated to finish the process.  Mr. Macaulay stated that the City of Vacaville and Fairfield would be the most motivated so that they can allow reasonable development.  He added that many agencies are involved in the process.
    Commissioner Dimmick questioned if it is possible to obtain funding for the HCP grants to purchase property.  Mr. Macaulay clarified that funding sources have not been determined at this time.  Once the initial data analysis is completed, they can determine whether Vacaville will do its own HCP because our goals, issues and objectives are different from other communities.  Once the document is adopted, the HCP will define whether funding will come through grants or developer impact fees for mitigation banking.   Mr. Dimmick stated that the greenbelts would be an ideal area for an HCP area.  He felt that there should be areas designated for HCP and the agencies need to find the best place to put those, based on the habitats that they want to conserve.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED:
    Rulan Hatch, County resident, noted that there are a lot of restrictions on greenbelt areas as far as the number of animals that can be kept and they cannot be built on.
    Ted Swiecki, Vacaville resident, stated that there is value in parts of the earth other than areas that can be extracted.  He noted concern about the attitude that endangered species, and that they may not be important.  He felt that they represent habitats that have become extinct, or are critically threatened.  He encouraged the Commission to approach this with an open mind and move beyond an “ us against them”  attitude.  He noted that it is important to have a quality of life for the local and global environment.  He felt that the goal of the city should be to manage the land.
    Commissioner Dimmick stated that most of the Commission is not on either side of this issue and they try to balance various points of view.  He agreed that habitat conservation is important, as well as allowing growth and prosperity.  He stated that the Commission needs to represent the community and take into consideration everyone’ s points and reach a consensus.
    Mr. Swiecki felt that there are typically two groups, one that wants to develop and one that wants to stop development.  He stated that he hoped that the Commission does represent the community and accept diversity.  He felt that they need to make a conscious effort to draw in others who are not financially impacted.
    Chairman Wilkins stated that he appreciated those who took the time to attend the meeting. He clarified that the purpose of the study session is to inform the Commission on the issue and provide the opportunity to ask questions.  He noted that it is difficult to receive input when only a small number of people attend and voice their opinions.  He felt that it is important to consider the property owners needs and hopes to strike a balance.
    Mr. Sweicki stated that he organizes the Vacaville Tree Foundation, which is involved in city open space land.  He noted that it is difficult to maintain support and that many people in the community don’ t get involved in city government.  He questioned if a GIS would be created to map the HCP areas, adding that it is important to have resource information.  Mr. Macaulay stated that it will be in a GIS format, which will be compatible with Fish and Wildlife mapping.
    Public hearing closed.

COMMISSION COMMENTS:
    Commissioner Turpen stated that he appreciated the feedback from speakers, adding that they need to assure landowners rights without maximizing the value of the property.  He felt that economics is a prime motivator in participation, and they need to balance the process.
    Commissioner Dimmick applauded staff for their report and the balanced point of view.  He stated that the Commission volunteers their time to serve the community and they strive to educate themselves on the issues.
    Mr. Macaulay stated that staff would keep the Commission informed as the process continues.

COMMISSION ACTION:
No action required for this item.

J.    DIRECTOR’ S REPORT:
1.    Community Development Director Rowland noted that the City Council didn’ t take any actions pertaining to Planning Commission items at their last meeting.  He reviewed the tentative schedule of future Planning Commission items and select items under staff review.  Mr. Rowland noted that at the next City Council meeting, they would be reporting on the Executive Housing submittals.  He reviewed the sites that had submitted interest letters and the anticipated process and the potential Commission involvement. Commissioner Turpen felt that the process could be set up as a design competition and should not narrow the process down to one site prematurely.  He added that having a competition can join property owners together to present a site.  He felt that the process should not be limited to one site to achieve the best project.  Mr. Rowland noted that the City’ s approach is more with the compliance with standards and wants to design the process so that false guarantees are not made.  He also noted that projects are not always developed as they are presented.  Chairman Wilkins noted that individual property owners will design their own houses, but the layout of the project is very important.  Mr. Turpen felt that three sites could be acceptable, and stressed that there should not be a forgone conclusion, and a competition would drive that process.  He felt that it would be important to pass on to the Council the advantages of having a competition.  Chairman Wilkins stated that comments to the Council should not reflect individual ideas, and agreed that two sites would be preferable.  Mr. Rowland noted that it is important for staff to remain neutral and evaluate all the sites consistently.

K.    COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Drake questioned the status of the warranty repairs for Normandy Meadows.  Mr. Macaulay provided an update adding that it is a condition of approval for the subdivision that the repairs be completed prior to issuance of building permits, so they would need to be taken care of even if the project were sold to another developer.
Chairman Wilkins noted that they would be having election of officers at the next meeting and asked for clarification if reappointed commissioners need to be sworn-in again at the time of reappointment.  Staff noted that they would research and report back to the Commission. Mr. Wilkins added that he appreciated receiving information regarding their role as commissioners.  He stated that his role as Chairman has been to facilitate the participation of the Commissioners.  He also complimented Mr. Macaulay on his presentation of the HCP.

L.    ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to discuss at this regular meeting of the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary Page
Recording Secretary