Month 1999.10 October.


Day 1999.10.05PC


PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Planning Commission - Regular Meeting
City of Vacaville
7:30 p.m. - Council Chambers    October 5, 1999

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

A.    ROLL CALL:
Present:    Vice-Chairman Minkler, Commissioner Aldrich, Commissioner Dimmick, Commissioner Turpen, and Commissioner Williams.
Absent:    Chairman Wilkins, Commissioner Drake.
Also Present:    Community Development Director Rowland, City Planner Emerson, Senior Planner McDowell, Assistant Planner Behvand, Project Manager Hubbell, City Engineer Baird, Deputy City Manger Werner.

C.    COMMUNICATIONS:
1.    Letter from Vaca Valley Leasing regarding Item H.1. Alza Security Fence.
2.    City Planner Emerson introduced Trya Hays, a new Assistant Planner in the Community Development Department.

D.    APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Commissioner Dimmick moved, Commissioner Aldrich seconded to approve the agenda.  Motion approved 5-0.

E.    APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Dimmick moved, Commissioner Turpen seconded to approve the minutes of September 21, 1999.  Motion approved 5-0.

F.    CONSENT CALENDAR:

1.    DOWNTOWN SERVICE STATION TIME EXTENSION –  ACRC Inc., applicant
File No. 99-051
A.    Conditional Use Permit
B.    Reaffirmation Environmental Assessment
Proposal for a one year time extension to a previously approved conditional use permit to construct a 2,000 sq. ft. convenience market and gas station with four dispenser pumps, at the southeast corner of East Monte Vista Avenue and Cernon Street. Additional access is provided from the public alley adjoining the site to the east. Building materials proposed for the gasoline service station/convenience market include a concrete tile roof and stucco exterior.  Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is within the scope of the previous Negative Declaration for the Downtown Service Station (File No. 97-154), which adequately described the impacts this project and meets the requirements of CEQA.

COMMISSION ACTION:

Commissioner Williams moved, Commissioner Dimmick seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 97-154, approving a one-year time extension (File No. 99-051) of the Downtown Service Station and Reaffirming the Findings of the previously adopted Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit to operate a gas station and convenience mart at the southeast corner of E. Monte Vista Avenue and Cernon Street, subject to the conditions previously approved in Exhibit A.  Motion approved 5-0.

G.    BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR:
None.

H.    PUBLIC HEARINGS:

1.    ALZA SECURITY FENCE –  Alza Corporation, applicant
File No. 99-177
A.    Variance

Commissioner Dimmick excused himself from this discussion because he is an employee of Alza Corporation.

Senior Planner McDowell reviewed the project and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that this is a proposal to raise the maximum fence height from 6 ft. to 11 ft. for construction 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 2 ft. of three-strand barbwire on the top.  The fence will enclose the existing outdoor equipment area located at the rear of the building.  The project also includes landscape improvements to increase visibility and improve site security.  This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of September 21, 1999.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED:
    John Shay, Facilities Manager, reviewed operations at the Alza manufacturing facility, adding that this is a pharmaceutical company, and differs from Genentech, which is a biotech company.  He stated that their reason for requesting the fence variance was to address Alza’ s concern about their product being taken illegally off the site.  He stated that they chose a ten-foot fence height, which would be within government security requirements.  He stated that the fence will only be a portion of their security upgrade.  He noted that the Police Department is in support of their proposal, adding that they want to make the facility safe for their employees and the community.  Mr. Shay noted that they will be installing surveillance cameras, but the existing trees block many of the views along the fence.  He added that Alza has security personnel that patrol the area at night and there is some lighting on the building.  He noted that they would work with SID to try and eliminate one of the fences so there would not be a two-foot space between the fences.
    Mike Powell, Vice President of Alza, stated that this request was a compromise on their part. He noted that aesthetics are important, but an 11-foot fence would meet their needs.
    Wayne Gallagher, Security Supervisor, also explained incidents where the plant was robbed of raw materials, and added that their concern is for the safety of the employees and the community.  He stated that the fence is their first level of defense and other measures are in place within the site.  He added that their intent is to prevent future thefts at the property.
    Public hearing closed.

COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Turpen noted that this is a unique business and questioned if there have been other variances approved that are similar to this request and staff responded that there have been none.  Mr. Turpen noted that it is important to accommodate special situations, but they also must consider the needs of the adjoining property owners.
Commissioner Williams said that he recognized the need for security.  He felt that there should be standards in place to address high security situations.  He stated that the height of the fence is immaterial if someone wants to get on to the site, and that they can find a way.  He felt that razor wire would be a more effective deterrent, but understands that aesthetics are an issue. He requested staff to develop standards for future projects that don’ t focus just on aesthetics.  He stated that he was in favor of a 10-foot fence, but felt that the issue of allowing razor wire should be revisited.  He also felt that if a fence is installed that creates a two foot area between fences, there should be access for clean up and maintenance.
Vice-Chairman Minkler suggested that lighting and security cameras be added.  He noted concern about the potential for a two-foot area between the two fences and requested that the issue be resolved between the property owners.

COMMISSION ACTION:

Commissioner Williams moved, Commissioner Aldrich seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-177 approving a 10-ft. height limit for the Alza Security Fence variance subject to the conditions of approval, recommending that the option of ribbon razor be discussed with the adjoining property owner.  Motion approved 4-0-1 (Dimmick abstained).

Commissioner Dimmick resumed his place with the Commission.

2.    CALIFORNIA DRIVE SUBDIVISION –  Mike Gasparini, applicant
File No. 99-183
A.    Tentative Map
B.    Planned Development
C.    Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Proposal to construct a 25-lot, single family home subdivision on 16.6 acres located on the west side of California Drive, at the intersection of Creekside Drive.  Lots will range in area from 10,000 sq. ft. to 24,460 sq. ft., and the applicant proposes dedication of 4.76 acres of hillside property to the City as permanent open space.  Seven house plans are proposed with floor areas ranging from 2,609 sq. ft. to 3,663 square feet.  Building materials include a variety of concrete tile roofing, wood and stucco siding, and decorative architectural elements.  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. This item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 19, 1999.

3.    SOLANO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT –  Solano Community College District, applicant
File No. 99-213
A.    Development Agreement
B.    Reaffirmation of Environmental Assessment

Deputy City Manager Werner reviewed the proposal and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that the Development Agreement establishes the terms for constructing and operating a satellite community college campus on 60 acres located at the northeast corner of Vaca Valley Parkway and North Village Parkway.  The satellite community campus was planned for in the North Village Specific Plan adopted by the City Council on January 25, 1995.  The Development Agreement will establish the rights and obligations of the property owner, Mission Land, the City, and the Solano Community College District.  Pursuant to Section 15168 (c) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is within the scope of the previously approved North Village Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (File No. 94-070).  No new effects would occur as a result of the proposed project, and the previous EIR adequately described the impacts of this project and meets the requirements of CEQA.

Mr. Werner reviewed the history of the development agreement, noting that the purpose of the agreement is to 1) establish future procedures and standards for the development of higher a education center, 2) incorporate past agreements and plans into one permanent agreement,  and 3) document city approval of the center for state agencies.  Mr. Werner stated that the key provisions of the development are to:  1) define permitted uses, 2) specify district entitlements, 3) establish city review procedures, 4) establish provisions for possible development, 5) provide a community facility that will be consistent with the North Village design standards, 6) require city discretionary review of other uses, 7) provide clarification of how higher education center will be affected by approvals, and 8) ensure payment of City development impact fees.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED:
    Stan Arterberry, Superintendent/President of Solano Community College, noted that this has been a long process that will eventually lead to a community college in Vacaville.  He noted that they are currently in their third academic year and provided a list of courses that are available as well as current enrollment at the site.  He reviewed their plans to obtain state funding, adding that they anticipate growth in their enrollment.  He provided a copy of their five-year plan, adding that they are happy to be in the community, and this agreement will help them reach their goal.
    Public hearing closed.

COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Williams stated that this is an exciting opportunity for higher education. He noted concern about a working relationship with Sacramento State and the City, and the potential for impacts in the area.  He added that traffic circulation and parking need to be addressed.
    Commissioner Dimmick agreed that this is an ideal site with easy freeway access.  He stated that he is hopeful that North Village will develop.
Commissioner Turpen noted that he works next to this site and will abstain from voting on this item.
    Vice-Chairman Minkler noted concern about parking, adding that it should be an emphasis for review of this project.

COMMISSION ACTION:

Commissioner Aldrich moved, Commissioner Williams seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-213 recommending that the City Council approve the Solano Community College District Development Agreement.  Motion approved 4-0-1 (Turpen abstained).

4.    ORCHARD AVENUE BAPTIST SUNDAY SCHOOL –  Orchard Ave. Baptist Church, applicant
File No. 99-198
A.    Planned Development Permit

Assistant Planner Behvand reviewed the project and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that this is a proposal to convert an existing single family residence located at 321 N. Orchard Avenue into a Sunday School for the adjoining Orchard Avenue Baptist Church.  The project is proposed as a temporary use, and only minor improvements will be made to the site and building, such as providing accessibility in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  Church classes would be conducted on Sundays during the day.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED:
Pastor Ken Doan stated that he lived directly north of the site.  He stated that their intent is to train young people and provide a comfortable setting.  He clarified that the house would be utilized by junior high and high school students for one hour on Sunday mornings.  He stated that there are two existing bathrooms and the bedrooms would be utilized as classrooms.  He stated that they are working on a master plan for the site, which will include an auditorium.  He noted that the house would be removed to accommodate parking.
Public hearing closed.

COMMISSION COMMENTS:
    Commissioner Aldrich noted that this is a nice plan for the house and there will be no increase in traffic.

COMMISSION ACTION:

Commissioner Aldrich moved, Commissioner Dimmick seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-198 approving the Planned Development Permit application for the Orchard Avenue Baptist School Expansion, subject to the conditions of approval.  Motion approved 5-0.

Vice-Chairman Minkler called a 10-minute recess and resumed the meeting at 9:00 p.m.

I.    STUDY SESSIONS:

1.    GENERAL PLAN UPDATE STUDY SESSION –  City of Vacaville, applicant
File No. 99-195
A.    General Plan Amendment
B.    Draft Negative Declaration

Project Manager Hubbell, reviewed the study session, noting that it would be an introduction and review of technical updates to factual information in the Vacaville General Plan.  The update is limited to revisions in information such as: population and housing data; status of public facilities that have been constructed since 1990, such as schools, parks, roads and sewer, etc.; and policy revisions necessary to achieve consistency with other policy documents.  A public hearing to consider the merits of the General Plan Amendment and Draft Negative Declaration is tentatively scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of October 19, 1999.

Mr. Hubbell reviewed the status of the General Plan update and the proposed revisions.  He noted the informational changes that will bring the document into conformance with current conditions.  He provided a map of the transportation improvements and the revisions to achieve consistency with other documents.

    Commissioner Williams referred to page 17, Golf Course Residential Community, and questioned if “ recreation center”  should be added to golf course, adding that the heading needs to be changed to be consistent with the text on Page 30-31.  He questioned if “ Boulder Valley” should be renamed to reference the Browns Valley school.  He stated that the situation regarding the schools is critical, and the table on Page 48 needs to have a listing of the schools, which includes the capacity, potential capacity and current enrollment.  Commissioner Williams noted that additional statements need to be included about why schools are over-crowded, such as class size reduction, and that the school district has passed on school sites.  He also questioned whether the Ridgeline Map Amendment was intended to reflect only the primary ridgelines.  Staff clarified that the ridgeline policy had been set by Council and the General Plan and Zoning need to be brought into consistency.  Mr. Williams noted that there should be consistency with policy direction they were given.  He commented that there is no reference in the text about a rail station, and questioned if plans still call for siting the station in North Fairfield.  Staff noted that the site selected by SDA serves Vacaville.
Commissioner Turpen referred to page 51, regarding school impacts, noting the text sets a broad range of abilities to mitigate school impacts before annexation.  The Negative Declaration section on page 24, schools are still listed as an impact category, and schools have a potentially significant impact.  He questioned why the box was not checked as a significant impact.  Staff noted the box was not checked because the amended language would not impact school funding.  Mr. Turpen noted that the overall disadvantage of the General Plan Update process is not having community involvement, but he knows it would be an expensive process to do a comprehensive update and is glad that the process is moving forward.  He suggested that future topics for Commission discussion could be the need for a “ living”  development impact fee process to keep pace with actual costs.  1) Are gated communities appropriate?  2) There should be soil map based planning to guide greenbelt boundaries.  He noted that 10% of the population is in prison, and questioned if this creates  potential health effects to the community. Regarding executive housing, he liked the proposal because it provides a competitive process and felt this could be applied to other areas such as high density housing to reach solutions.  He felt that through redevelopment agency funding, incubator biotechnical facilities within the industrial parks could be developed.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED:
    No comments, public hearing closed.

COMMISSION COMMENTS:
    Commissioner Williams questioned how the comments received would be addressed.  Mr. Hubbell noted that they will prepare an addendum or revise the document to reflect requested changes.
    Commissioner Dimmick questioned the final decision on executive housing and asked if the Rogers Lane will area be reflected on the General Plan.  Mr. Rowland noted that it would not be at this time, because a general plan amendment would need to be initiated.

COMMISSION ACTION:

No action required for this item.

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:

Commissioner Dimmick questioned the status of Jepson Parkway.  Mr. Rowland noted that they are currently reviewing what is feasible, noting that there will be additional review with affected agencies and residents.  He reviewed the timeline to select a location for the reliever route.

Vice-Chairman Minkler questioned if the Commission would be reviewing the Nut Tree Stadium.  Mr. Rowland noted that it would be a staff level approval within a Policy Plan, adding that information will be provided to the Commission.  Mr. Minkler noted concern with additional traffic and activities associated with unsportsmanlike fans.  Mr. Rowland noted that any entertainment use has to provide a security plan to minimize incidents.

Commissioner Williams requested that staff establish standards for high security type uses, which could include lights and cameras.  He felt that a more comprehensive plan should be available.  He suggested possibly contacting other cities to see how they address this issue.  He commended Community Development Director Rowland and Senior Planner Traut on their presentation on executive housing.  He sated that he enjoyed the presentation.  He noted concern about a plan being approved and the project fails because there is no demand for this type of use in the market.  Mr. Williams noted the Council discussed initiating a building improvement district for the downtown.  He hoped that if there were any requests for additional signage, that the Commission have the opportunity to review the proposal.

Commissioner Dimmick noted that Alza has spent a lot of money to upgrade their security, and the fence is a visual deterrent.

Vice-Chairman Minkler noted that on the northwest corner of Dobbins and Merchant there is a planter that is void of plants, and questioned if the corner should be modified.  He questioned the status of the powerpole on KUIC hill and when it would be undergrounded.  Mr. Emerson noted that they are working on the situation, and they will report back to the Commission.


L.    ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to discuss at this regular meeting of the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


Mary Page
Recording Secretary