Month 1999.09 September.


Day 1999.09.21PC


PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Planning Commission - Regular Meeting
City of Vacaville
7:30 p.m. - Council Chambers    September 21, 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 Aldrich, Commissioner Dimmick, Commissioner Drake, Commissioner Turpen, and Commissioner Williams.
Also Present:    Community Development Director Rowland, City Planner Emerson, Senior Planner Macaulay, Senior Planner McDowell, Senior Planner Traut, Deputy City Manager Werner.

C.    COMMUNICATIONS:
1.    Letter from Judy Webb regarding Item G.3, Water Works Planned Sign Program.

D.    APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Commissioner Drake moved, Commissioner Williams seconded to approve the agenda, continuing Item G.1, Alza Security Fence to a date uncertain.  Motion approved 7-0.

E.    APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Dimmick noted a correction to his name.  Commissioner Dimmick moved, Commissioner Drake seconded to approve the minutes of September 7, 1999.  Motion approved 7-0.

F.    BUSINESS FROM FLOOR:
None.

G.    PUBLIC HEARING:

1.    ALZA SECURITY FENCE –  Alza Corporation, applicant
File No. 99-177
A.    Variance
    Proposal to raise the maximum fence height from 6 ft. to 9 ft. 6 in. for construction of a new security fence along portions of the northern and western property lines of the Alza Corporation Development located at 700 Eubanks Drive.  The proposed fence includes 8 ft. of heavy-gauge chain link fencing, and 1 ft. 6 in. of Type II Barbed Tape (razor wire) on the top.  The fence will enclose the existing outdoor equipment area located at the rear of the building.  The project includes landscape improvements to increase visibility and improve site security.  This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of September 7, 1999.  The Planning Commission continued the hearing to a date uncertain.

2.    FREEWAY CORRIDOR PLAN –  City of Vacaville, applicant
File No. 99-196
A.    Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Deputy City Manager Werner noted that this is a proposal to establish a policy for improving the appearance of Vacaville from Interstate 80 and 505.  The project includes concepts for landscaping upgrades, design requirements for future uses adjoining the freeway, public and private freeway signage concepts, and establishing gateways to the community.  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.

Mr. Werner provided a brief overview of the purpose of the proposal, which is to help improve the perception of the community from the freeway.  He reviewed the phases of the project, which include:  1) billboard relocation agreement, 2) City Gateway Plan, and 3) implementation of the plan.  He noted that no action would be taken at this time, and more information would be provided at the meeting of October 19, 1999.

Commissioner Williams commended Mr. Werner and Commissioner Dimmick for their time on the committee, and questioned the timetable of implementation of the plan.  Mr. Werner noted that there is not a specific timetable, because much will depend on private and public development.  He noted that most of the plan would be implemented within the next 10 years. Mr. Williams stated that this is an exciting vision and questioned if there is a need to revise the General Plan as a result of these policies.  Mr. Werner noted that the General Plan update may include some specific ties into this document.
Commissioner Dimmick thanked City staff who worked with the members of the committee, adding that this plan provides good direction for the City.

PUBLIC HEARING:
    No comments, public hearing closed.

COMMISSION COMMENTS:
    Commissioner Drake stated that this is an impressive effort and congratulated the members of the committee and staff.  He suggested that this be an ongoing process.
    Vice-Chairman Minkler stated that this is a great plan and commended those who worked on it.
    Chairman Wilkins commented that gateways have always been a concern, and these policies will provide a template to create attractive gateways.

3.    WATERWORKS PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM –  Richard Quinn, applicant
File No. 99-166
A.    Planned Sign Program

Senior Planner McDowell reviewed the project and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that this is a proposal to establish specific sign criteria for the Waterworks commercial services center located on Bella Vista Road west of Davis Street and immediately south of the Davis St. freeway off-ramp.  Tenants for the partially completed center currently include Lothrop Mini-Storage, Vacaville Bingo, and Stone Mountain Carpet Outlet.  The project will set sign provisions for building and ground-mounted signage in the Waterworks Center, including but not limited to, location, materials, height and area.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED:
    Dick Quinn, applicant, thanked staff for their work on the sign program, adding that he notifies all of his tenants that their signs must go through the building permit process.  He noted that Platt Electric is working on locating in one of the buildings.  He stated that he doesn’ t anticipate installing a monument sign at this time, but will consider one after the new sign code is adopted.  He stated that he would work with the Bingo tenants to install a permanent sign.
    Public hearing closed.

COMMISSION ACTION:

Commissioner Williams moved, Commissioner Aldrich seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-166 approving the Water Works Planned Sign Program.  Motion approved 7-0.

H.    BUSINESS ITEM:

1.    OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE SIGNS –  Fancher Development Services, applicant
File No. 99-168
A.    Modification

Senior Planner McDowell reviewed the project and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that this is a proposal to modify the Downtown Plaza Planned Sign Program to allow tenant identification signs on four sides of a freestanding restaurant building currently under construction at 521 Davis Street.  The Downtown Plaza Planned Sign Program presently allows tenant identification signs on three sides of freestanding, single occupant buildings within the center.  Existing major tenants for the Downtown Plaza Shopping Center include the Brenden Theater and Vacaville Skating Center, whose signage will not be affected by this proposal.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED:
    Bill Fancher, applicant, stated that they have signed a 20-year lease, hired a manager, and will hire 70 employees, so they are making a long term investment in this site.  He felt that the building will not be identifiable if there is not a sign on all four sites.  He stated that the restaurant business is an impulse use and identification is vital.  He noted that the fourth elevation would include a smaller sign, adding that they are not requesting the maximum square footage allowed.  He clarified for the Commission that he would be willing to not be identified on the monument sign if he were allowed the fourth building sign.  He stated that it is difficult to determine the amount of business he could lose if he were not allowed a fourth sign, but it could be around 30%.  Mr. Fancher stated that he has spent a substantial amount of money to change the design of the building to fit into the center and comply with the community standard.
    Patricia Ratke, 850 LaCruz Lane, noted concern about the large freeway sign and questioned if there will be similar signs installed elsewhere.
    Public hearing closed.

COMMISSION COMMENTS:
    Commissioner Turpen noted that you won’ t be able to drive to the theater without seeing the sign on the building.  He felt that as a business owner, he should follow the local sign ordinance. He stated that if a fourth sign is allowed, it would be setting a precedent for other businesses that have similar locations.
    Chairman Wilkins stated that he may be willing to consider the request of they did not advertise on the monument sign.
    Commissioner Dimmick stated that consistency in the center is important and he would be willing to approve the proposal if they did not advertise on the monument sign.  He noted that many businesses have illegal banners that they don’ t enforce.  He felt that it would not be setting a precedent if the applicant were giving up locating on the monument sign to be granted the fourth building sign.
    Senior Planner McDowell clarified the amount of signage that would be allowed by code, which would be three building signs, and identification on the monument and freeway signs.  He clarified that even if the applicant did not advertise on the monument sign, there would still be a monument sign for the center.
    Commissioner Turpen felt that it would be setting a precedent and they should not barter or trade for signage.  He felt that it is important to preserve the sign ordinance and that it would be unfair to existing building tenants who were not allowed four signs.
    Vice-Chairman Minkler asked for clarification of the signage that would be allowed.  Mr. McDowell noted that the applicant is requesting less than the allowable square footage.  He noted that if this building were to become another use, a new tenant could install signage at an increase of 25%.  Mr. Minkler questioned if there is a way that a fourth sign could be allowed without setting a precedent.
    Commissioner Drake stated that the sign program for the area should be followed.
    Commissioner Aldrich agreed that a precedent could be set, adding that other businesses have the same circumstances.  She felt that the allowed signage would allow a person to see a sign many times while driving into the site.  She added that people are very aware that this business is coming and there shouldn’ t be a problem with identification.
    Commissioner Williams stated that he is sensitive to the issue of signs.  He noted that if he were to eliminate an elevation, it would be the west side of the building.  He felt that the three signs on the building and a sign on the monument sign and freeway sign would be adequate.  He stated that the freeway sign was larger than appropriate, so he is very sensitive to signs at that location.

COMMISSION ACTION:

Commissioner Williams moved, Commissioner Turpen seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-168 denying the modification to the downtown Plaza Planned Sign Program to allow a fourth wall sign for the Outback Steakhouse.  Motion approved 6-1 (Dimmick no).

Chairman Wilkins called a 10-minute recess and resumed the meeting at 8:45 p.m.

I.    STUDY SESSION:

1.    EXECUTIVE HOUSING STUDY SESSION –  City of Vacaville, applicant

Senior Planner Traut introduced the study session, noting that it would be a discussion of the components of the Executive Housing Study currently being prepared by the City as directed by the City Council.  The City is considering proposals from several property owners for alternative sites for the development of executive housing.  Most sites are located outside the City limits and require annexation.


Senior Planner Traut reviewed the purpose of the study session, noting that the intent was to solicit the Commission’ s and publics comments and feedback.  She reviewed the definition of executive housing and the planning principles.  Ms. Traut outlined the public review process and the criteria for evaluation of the sites.  She also addressed how sites under the minimum acreage would be addressed and may be grouped with other parcels to meet the criteria.

Senior Planner Macaulay reviewed the sites that have been grouped into six areas including topography and physical features of each site.

Community Development Director Rowland reviewed the development of the definition, stating that they were intended to be guidelines, not mandatory requirements.  He added that the report that will be prepared will note if the sites comply with the guidelines.

Commissioner Williams noted that Area F had an island area and questioned why some property owners may not be participating.  Mr. Macaulay noted that all property owners had the opportunity to participate, and some chose not too.  He also noted that the area has high tension power lines that would be difficult to underground.
Commissioner Dimmick noted that most of the sites are outside the City limits and questioned what the timeline would be to annex the property.  Mr. Rowland noted that an EIR will take a year to complete, plus additional review by the City and LAFCO, so the process could take up to two years.
Commissioner Williams questioned how this would correspond with Proposition A.  Mr. Rowland noted that the proposition does not apply to property within the City limits, so if properties were annexed, the City would have the ability to approve a project.  He added that two of the sites are currently within the City limits.
Commissioner Turpen questioned if it would be the responsibility of the property owner to cancel any Williamson Act on their property.  Mr. Rowland noted that findings must be made and there is no guarantee that those findings can be made.  Mr. Turpen noted that the purpose is to define the City boundary, and questioned if development of a site could be linked to open space areas.  Mr. Rowland noted that in Lagoon Valley and a portion of other sites have hillside areas that are part of open space.  He added that all executive home projects would be required to have an open space element.
Commissioner Dimmick questioned the habitat conservation plan and if it would impact potential annexations.  Mr. Rowland clarified that they could not annex areas that are out of the sphere of influence or outside of SID, and most of the sites fall within one of those categories.


PUBLIC HEARING OPENED:
Dr. Jim Stevenson, 148 Ravenswood Court, stated that he has been a resident of Vacaville for 16 months.  When he purchased his home he did extensive research regarding the flood history of Alamo Creek.  He noted concern that there is a possibility of development upstream in Areas D and E that would affect water shed.  He noted that there are significant slopes in the area that if built on could affect the permeability, and create potential flooding.  He stated that there could be financial concerns for clean up of flood areas and the public at large will be affected by Alamo Creek.  He noted an area in Pleasant Hill where flooding occurred because of development on hillsides.  He added that he would seek recourse if his property were damaged as a result of development.
Mr. Rowland clarified that they are not asking the Commission to approve a specific project at this time, and extensive review would occur as part of a site selection.  He reviewed the current Hillside Standards, adding that they don’ t anticipate those standards being changed.  He noted that any of these developments could be a detriment to surrounding areas, or they could improve surrounding areas by reducing downstream flows.
Ernest Kimme, Chairman of the Orderly Growth Committee, thanked the Commission for the opportunity to comment on the plans for executive housing.  He noted that executive housing is one aspect of the City’ s Economic Development Policy, but the market for executive housing has been overstated.  He stated that a small project of about 30 homes would more than satisfy the demand for many years.  He noted concern about the mix of executive housing and production houses, and that it is a way for the City to build more regular homes.  He felt that a small project should be focused solely on executive housing.  Mr. Kimme noted the impact on overcrowded schools would be lessened with a small project, as well as traffic impacts.  He felt that there are sites within the City that would be excellent for executive housing, as well as good sites that would require annexation.  He requested that the City’ s research note those properties with prime ag soils, and that if land must be annexed for executive housing, it should not be prime ag land.  He stated that they are in favor of creating a permanent City boundary.
Steve Brothers, Land Development Consultants stated that he was representing four property owners in Area F (McMurtry Lane Area), who together own 200 acres.  He noted that other individual property owners may not be willing to act as a developer at this time, but may request to be added to a larger proposal at a later date.  He stated that off-site costs may be expensive for a project that is 100% custom lots, because the market does not move quickly.  He noted that they might need to include other components.  He stated that Area F is an attractive area with good access and could create an urban boundary, as well as being close to employment areas.
Gary Archer, representing property owners in Area B (East of Leisure Town Road) introduced Lori Moffett-Filbert from the Dahlin Group.
Ms. Moffit-Filbert commended staff for their presentation.  She noted that Area B consists of property just under 1,000 acres and is fairly unconstrained.  She noted two areas that staff included in Area B that would not be part of her presentation (referring to the other ownerships not a part of their proposal).  She stated that it is wise to mix executive housing with production homes to provide a strong community, which is better able to take care of the needs of all income brackets.  She stated that it is important to provide focal points and view corridors within a development.  For this site, she noted that they intend to respect the agricultural heritage of the area and utilize orchards to create a buffer.  She reviewed the conceptual plan, which would include a golf course, large community park, RV storage and possibly a swim and tennis club.  The proposal also includes 4 to 5 acre homesites in an orchard setting as a buffer to the agricultural area.  She noted that they may potentially provide an elementary school.  She stated that it would provide a recreation oriented life style with many pedestrian walkways.  Ms. Moffit-Filbert stated that at this time they don’ t know if it would be a gated community, noting that each City is different, so that would be determined at a later date.  She felt that the railroad tracks and overhead power lines could be addressed with proper buffering.
Dana Carpio, representing Joyce Moody, who owns 40 acres at the edge of Area B (East of Leisure Town Road), noted that they have expressed a desire to enter into an agreement with the other property owners in the area to the north.  She noted that the property is not in a Williamson Act contract and that the railroad tracks to the southeast create a logical boundary for the City limits.  She stated that in the 1990 General Plan, her property was designated for low density residential and is within the City’ s sphere of influence.  She also noted that the site would have easy access to sewer and water facilities.
Troy Burke, 842 Granada Lane, stated that his property backs up to the Rogers Lane property (Area E).  He stated that the view was a major factor when he selected his home.  He stated that if Rogers Lane were developed, it would negatively impact his property.  He added that views should be considered as part of the development process.
Cliff Poole, speaking on behalf of Lower Lagoon Valley resident Donna Harr, stated that executive housing is necessary for Vacaville.  He noted that the Lagoon Valley area (Area C) has good freeway access, as well as existing trails and hillsides.  He stated that the existing park could be improved as part of a development.  He noted that an EIR has already been done, so the project could come on-line relatively quickly, adding that it is already within the City limits.
Dick Bradish, 6925 Browns Valley Road, stated that his property (Area F) has been in his wife’ s family (Rogers) for many years.  He commented that the process does not encourage land developers.  He noted that it could be a large risk for landowners to share the costs of development, and that he did not join in the proposal because of the risks that are involved.  He noted that he is not in the land development business, but would be willing to sell his property at an appropriate price.  He added that Area F does provide access to major roads, views of the Sierra’ s, seclusion and panoramic views.
Anthony Farrar, 4470 McMurtry Lane, stated that Area F is close to City streets and services.  He added that most people would be willing to sell their property for an appropriate price.
Will Leighton, Centex Homes, stated that Area E (Rogers Lane Area) is being represented by Lenard and Centex Homes.  He noted that if their site is considered, they will produce a plan that will be sensitive to bordering neighborhoods.
Public hearing closed.

COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Chairman Wilkins stated that there needs to be a process for disclosure through this whole process, which would provide future buyers information from these meetings.  He noted concern about the potential for another North Village, where a project was approved, yet nothing was built.
Commissioner Turpen questioned how the 30-70 split was determined for executive and production homes.  Mr. Rowland stated that they are pushing the envelope of current market conditions, and that they can create a market that will attract people.  He noted that golf courses are not required, but are often a successful amenity.  He stated that they need a large number of homes to make the amenities feasible, and production homes would assist with that.  Mr. Turpen stated that the site process should remain competitive and should not prematurely be narrowed to one site.  He felt that if a site is prematurely selected, it may create mistrust that there was a forgone conclusion that a particular site would be chosen.  He felt that a competitive process will force quality.
Commissioner Dimmick stated that it is important to shape the future and determine where they want Vacaville to go.  He felt that areas should be designated in the General Plan as potential sites, and that Rancho Solano may not be a good example of what they are looking for. He noted that the Green Valley development has been slower, but is more diverse.  Mr. Rowland noted that their intent is to provide a project that is better than Rancho Solano and would have a higher percentage of custom and executive homes.
Vice-Chairman Minkler agreed that competitiveness should be part of the process for as long as possible.  Mr. Rowland noted that they need to determine what would be too much of a good thing, adding that two projects being developed at the same time could cause both to fail.
Commissioner Dimmick stated that 2-3 sites should be noted in the General Plan for long-term development, adding that the demand may become greater in the future, and it will be important to have sites designated in the General Plan.
Commissioner Aldrich noted her appreciation for the presentations, adding that schools are important and need to be included as part of a development.
Chairman Wilkins thanked staff for their presentation and those who spoke and participated in the meeting.  He also thanked those who didn’ t speak, but showed support by being in attendance.
Commissioner Williams stated that he had visited other communities that have executive housing, all of which had some type of natural boundary such as hills or streams.  He stated that no one site stands out more than the others.  Some have natural boundaries, but may require extensive infrastructure when annexed.  He noted that Area E (Rogers Lane Area) is close to City sewer and water, but may include parcels within Williamson Act contracts, and the City may not be able to meet the findings to cancel it.  He felt that it would be important to note which parcels are in Williamson Act contracts.  He also noted that the City had regulations that development cannot occur over the 220-foot elevation, which may affect some sites.  He noted that power lines and railroad tracks could be a visual as well as noise impact.  Regarding the Rogers Lane site, Mr. Williams noted that Vaca Valley Parkway might need to be extended to create a circulation route.  He noted concern with the criteria that the lots are as small as 1/2 acre, adding that they may be too small.  He stated that Vacaville already has executive housing within the County.  He noted that there are also pocket areas that would lend themselves well to this type of development.  Mr. Williams noted concern about market demand, considering that the North Vine Street Estates area is available and meets the criteria, but is not developing.  
Commissioner Turpen stated that you can promote a market that may not exist, but there is also the risk for the cost of annexations on a project that doesn’ t move forward.
Vice-Chairman Minkler noted that you don’ t know how successful a project will be unless you try.  He noted that a large development can address schools and large amenities.
Commissioner Dimmick stated that they need to have a vision for the future, rather than have the town develop piece meal.  He stated that if a large enough area is not designated to include amenities, there could be problems if a smaller site is developed and there is not additional space to provide amenities.
Chairman Wilkins stated that it is important to have a vision that can be refined over time.
Vice-Chairman Minkler stated that they have no way of knowing how the market may change in the future, and developers are aware of the risks.
Chairman Wilkins noted that the comments will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration.

COMMISSION ACTION:
    No action required for this item.

Chairman Wilkins called a 10-minute recess and resumed the meeting at 11:10 p.m.

J.    DIRECTOR’ S REPORT:

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.


K.    COMMISSION COMMENTS:

Chairman Williams asked if staff will be making a specific site recommendation to the City Council regarding executive housing.  Mr. Rowland noted that they will be forwarding the comments received at the public meetings.  The staff report will include summary of the comments received and specific elements of each site.  He stated that they don’ t anticipate ranking the sites, but will provide the pro’ s and con’ s of each site, and possibly recommend two sites with both long term and short term feasibility.  Commissioner Williams noted that the market value of the properties will go up immediately once two sites have been chosen.  Mr. Rowland noted that most of the sites with proper planning could work.  He stated that they will provide the Commission with a copy of the report, noting that the process will take a long time and include many public meetings.  Mr. Williams clarified that overhead transmission lines can be undergrounded, but it is very expensive.  He questioned if there are any General Plan policies in place that note that visual impacts need to be addressed.  He questioned what process the Renaissance Faire would go through to come back next year.  Mr. Rowland noted that a modification would need to be filed and reviewed by the Commission.  When asked if there is information on the economic benefit from the Faire, he noted that there are reports on sales taxes, but it would be difficult to know how much is connected to the Faire.
Commissioner’ s Drake and Wilkins noted that they would not be able to attend the next Planning Commission meeting.

L.    ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to discuss at this regular meeting of the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


Mary Page
Recording Secretary