Month 1999.12 December.


Day 1999.12.07PC


PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Planning Commission - Regular Meeting
City of Vacaville
7:30 p.m. - Council Chambers    December 7, 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, Commissioner Aldrich, Commissioner Dimmick, Commissioner Drake, Commissioner Turpen, and Commissioner Williams.
Absent:    Vice-Chairman Minkler.
Also Present:    Community Development Director Rowland, City Planner Emerson, Senior Planner McDowell.

C.    COMMUNICATIONS:
1.    Recommendation that Item G.1, Cellular One Tower at the Nut Tree Airport be continued to a date uncertain.

D.    APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Commissioner Williams moved, Commissioner Drake seconded to approve the agenda.  Motion approved 6-0.

E.    APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Drake moved, Commissioner Aldrich seconded to approve the minutes of November 16, 1999.  Motion approved 4-0-2 (Williams & Turpen abstained).

F.    BUSINESS FROM FLOOR:
None.

G.    PUBLIC HEARING:
    1. CELLULAR ONE TOWER AT THE NUT TREE AIRPORT –  Bay Area Cellular Telephone Co., applicant
File No. 99-252
A.    Conditional Use Permit
B.    Reaffirmation of Previous Environmental Assessment
Proposal to replace an existing light beacon pole with a 95 ft. tall cellular telephone antenna monopole on the Nut Tree Airport property at 301 County Airport Road. Attached to the top of the proposed monopole are 9 panel antennas, which are 8 ft. high and 1 ft. wide.  The proposed antenna and accessory building would be located in a fenced enclosure on the southeastern side of the main parking lot for the airport administration building approximately 650 ft. from East Monte Vista Road.  Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is within the scope of the previous Airport Business Area Policy Plan and the PCS Antenna at the Nut Tree Airport Negative Declarations, which adequately described the impacts  of this project and meet the requirements of CEQA.  This item was continued to a date uncertain.

H.    STUDY SESSION:

1.     SECURITY FENCING STUDY SESSION –  City of Vacaville, applicant

Senior Planner McDowell reviewed the study session and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that it would be a discussion to consider design guidelines for the placement of security fences on private property.  The presentation and discussion will address construction techniques for various types of security fences and potential design issues such as aesthetic quality and preservation of neighboring property values.  The discussion will also focus on appropriate locations for the placement of security fences.

Mr. McDowell introduced Wayne Galaway, Site Security Officer for Alza, noting that he was available to answer questions from the Commission.

Mr. McDowell provided a background of the existing standards and reviewed the security/community design concepts.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION:

    Commissioner Williams noted that some businesses require a high level of security and it is important to allow a business to operate in a safe environment.
    Mr. McDowell provided pictures of existing security fences within the City.  The Commission questioned how existing fence violations may be addressed, especially when a fence adjoins previously vacant property that is now being developed with residential.
    Commissioner Drake suggested consulting with the insurance industry, which might be able to recommend other options.  Mr. McDowell also provided pictures of ornamental security fencing.  He reviewed the draft security design guidelines.
    Commissioner Williams noted that executives may want security fences around their homes to provide an added sense of security.  Mr. McDowell noted that the Commission may want to consider appropriate types of residential fencing.
    Commissioner Turpen stated that they need to weigh the value of what is being protected, using  proportional common sense, and not give the impression that the community is unsafe.
    Commissioner Drake noted that fences are designed to either protect what is inside or outside the fence, adding that surveillance and response are also important elements of security.
    Commissioner Aldrich questioned if it would be appropriate for the Commission to have authority to tell a homeowner whether they have the right to protect their property.  Mr. Emerson reviewed the section of the Residential Development Standards that provides regulations on safety hazards.  Ms. Aldrich noted that the standards should apply to all residential districts.
    Chairman Wilkins noted that the type of fencing used may depend on where the home is located and the size of the lot.
    Commissioner Dimmick suggested that residential fencing be considered on an aesthetic basis.
    Commissioner Turpen commented about the need for gated communities, noting that they create an impression of protection for the people who live in the subdivision, but can separate the community and cause a perception that the community is unsafe.
    Commissioner Williams commented about an adjoining property owner having to approve of the fence.  He noted concern about a business having a need for the fence and an adjoining owner protesting and blocking approval.
    Commissioner Dimmick suggested that the initial approval be at staff’ s discretion, then if there is a dispute with the adjoining property, the item could be reviewed by the Commission.
    Commissioner Williams stated that the condition that fences not be visible from the public right-of-way would constrain many properties.  He felt that sometimes the need for security will outweigh the aesthetics of the fencing.
    Chairman Wilkins felt that it would not be appropriate for them to know specifically why a security fence is needed.  He added that residential fences should be viewed for aesthetics and industrial fences for security issues.  He added that it would be appropriate to discourage the use of razor wire and barbwire adjoining residential properties where it may become a nuisance.
    Mr. Galaway stated that part of the effectiveness of a razor or barbwire fence is as a visual deterrent. He stated that fences are the first line of defense for security.  He also noted that the industrial park attracts uses such as Alza and Genentech, and the uses are set away from other normal city areas, and people expect them to look different.  Mr. Galaway said that there is a need to protect assets as well as employees.  He emphasized that it is important to evaluate the need for a fence before hard rules are established and to consider the needs of the company and impacts on the community.  He felt that in an industrial park setting, aesthetics should not take precedent over security.
    Chairman Wilkins stated that residential, commercial and industrial are all different and may each require application of different standards.
    Commissioner Turpen stated that they do need to be concerned within the industrial park about aesthetics, but the need for justification of the fence should be in broad terms about how the fence will function.  He added that other options are available such as enhanced surveillance.  He stated that Genentech is an excellent example of a high quality manufacturing facility, and would be concerned if an adjoining use next to the facility installed an unattractive fence, which would detract from Genentechs intended aesthetics.
    Commissioner Dimmick felt that they need to encourage other measures especially when adjoining mixed uses, and need to consider the visual impact on adjoining property.
    Commissioner Wilkins questioned if staff has reviewed standards from other cities, adding that it may be beneficial to look at similar uses in other communities.
    Mr. McDowell stated that staff plans to discuss the standards with industrial park businesses and the Chamber of Commerce, and ask for comments once the standards are more defined.
    Commissioner Williams congratulated staff for compiling the information provided with this study session.  He noted that the fence for Alza was the Commission’ s first consideration of this type of concept, adding that they asked staff to establish standards.  He noted that from his military background, he knows that fences are only one way to protect assets, and can be the first deterrent to slow down a perpetrator.  He felt that a complete package should be considered which could include lighting.  He noted that the layout of a site is often a consideration, and there are different reasons people want security fences.  He felt that an applicant should be required to justify why they want a fence.  He felt that the City Planner could make the decision for approval, with the Commission being the appeal body.  He agreed that there should be different standards for residential, commercial and industrial.  He felt that there should not be a separate section in the Code just for security fencing, but should be an element in each affected section.  He stated that this initial review was an excellent start.
    Chairman Wilkins noted concern about the City determining if the need for a security fence is justified.  He noted that the City could determine whether it is safe for the community, but didn’ t want the City to review security plans for particular businesses.
    Commissioner Williams stated that the City should be receptive if a business needs additional security beyond the standards.  He felt that the City needs to review a request and a business should note what they need to secure.
    Commissioner Turpen stated that there should be increased standards for high security facilities that can look good, but that may be expensive.  He agreed that a business should justify why they need a change to the standards.  He stated that they need to anticipate that some businesses may want to use the cheapest materials possible.  He felt that the Alza request was well justified for protection of their business.
    Commissioner Williams felt that commercial districts may include more problems, such as fencing around RV storage.  He noted that residential uses also have special needs.  He added that multi-family uses often want security fences, because a gate provides the perception of safety.
    Mr. McDowell thanked Mr. Galaway for attending the meeting and providing his professional input.
    Chairman Wilkins noted that Mr. Galaway’ s  comments were appreciated and well timed.
    Commissioner Williams suggested that their comments be taken into consideration and a revised draft be brought back for consideration.
    Mr. McDowell reviewed the possible ways to proceed, adding that they would report back with a second study session that would begin the process to amend any necessary code sections. He noted that they would emphasize that razor wire and barbwire are less desirable, but may have appropriate uses when justified.

COMMISSION ACTION:
No action required for this item.


I.    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.
2.    City Planner Emerson provided an update on U-Haul and the Royal Motel Sign.
3.    City Planner Emerson noted that there were currently no items scheduled for the meeting of December 21, 1999.  Commissioner Williams moved, Chairman Wilkins seconded that the meeting of December 21, 1999 be canceled unless a time sensitive item is submitted.  Motion approved 5-0-1 (Aldrich abstained since she will be out of town).

K.    COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Turpen questioned what CalTrans was doing on Interstate 505.  Mr. Rowland noted that it was part of a road surfacing process.  Mr. Turpen questioned if the oak trees in that area would be replanted.  Mr. Rowland noted that they would encourage CalTrans to replace the trees.
Commissioner Drake noted that it was Pearl Harbor Day, adding that the heroic acts of veterans  that day allow the Commission to be here today.
Chairman Wilkins stated that they owe a debt of gratitude to Commissioner Drake and all the veterans who have served our country.
Commissioner Williams noted that six of the Commissioners and two staff members attended a conference at Sonoma State.  He felt that it was an excellent opportunity to become current on land use issues.  He stated that he had briefed the City Council on the conference he attended in San Diego on Partners for Smart Growth.  He emphasized the need to plan for future growth, adding that the City of Vacaville is already doing some of what the conference suggested. He stated that our public process is good, and it is important to be aware of what the citizen’ s want and receive feedback on important issues.
Chairman Wilkins noted that this was the last meeting of the year, and thanked staff and the Commission for an excellent year.  He reminded the Commission of the City Holiday Party on the 11th and that Commissioner Williams and his family will be hosting a Winter Solstice party on the 22nd.  He wished everyone happy holidays, and a grand and glorious new year.

L.    ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to discuss at this regular meeting of the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


Mary Page
Recording Secretary