Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/01/10 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 10, 2007 Chairman Stewart called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stewart then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Lou Munoz, Cristine McPhail, Pam Stewart ABSENT: Rich Macias (arrived at 7:25) STAFF PRESENT: Mike Bell, Deputy Fire Chief; Peter Bryan, Fire Chief; Rebecca Coleman, Office Specialist II; Michael Diaz, Senior Planner; Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; James Troyer, Planning Director * * * * * ANNOUNCEMENTS APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Munoz, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to approve the minutes of December 13, 2006. * * * * * CONSENT CALENDAR A. RECOMMENDATION FOR QUIT CLAIM OF VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS ALONG ETIWANDA AVENUE FOR LOT 39 OF TRACT 12870 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. THIS PROJECT WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented 4-0-1 (Macias absent). The Quit Claim will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS, - carried * * * * * PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-01060 - PITASSI ARCHITECTS FOR THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - Review of Site Plan and Building Elevations for 40, three-Bedroom, apartment units on 1.75 acres of land in the Medium-High Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre), located immediately east of the existing Rancho Verde Village multiple-family residential development at the southerly terminus of Sierra Madre Avenue-APN: 0207-254-67 and 68. Related file: Housing Incentive Agreement for East Rancho Verde Village DRC2006-00916. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND HOUSING INCENTIVE AGREEMENT FOR EAST RANCHO VERDE VILLAGE DRC2006-00916- PITASSI ARCHITECTS—Review of proposed Housing Incentive Agreement to implement Development Review DRC2005-01060 by modifying certain development standards for the construction of 40 workforce apartment units on vacant property in Medium-High Residential District(14-24 dwelling units per acre), located immediately east of the existing Rancho Verde Village multiple family residential development at the southerly terminus of Sierra Madre Avenue-APN: 0207-254-67 & 68. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Mike Diaz, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He said that two members of the public who live on Main Street commented on the project and expressed a desire for the wall along the east property line to coordinate with their existing wall. He said that the City discourages two walls on top of each other and he believes that issue has been addressed. He also noted that the Engineering Department has asked for their Condition #8, found on B-70 of the agenda packet be deleted from the Resolution. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if to correct the wall situation if it would require the demolition of the existing wall first. Mr. Diaz replied that the developer is typically required to tear down the existing wall and replace it with the new wall in such a way that there are no gaps and no double walls. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Curtis Dahle, from Pitassi Architects, and representing the applicants, reported that over the course of 1 and % years, they have held two neighborhood meetings and during those meetings they listened to and accommodated them where possible. He said they also listened to staff and support their recommendations. He said he believes all the parties involved are in agreement with the conditions. Chairman Stewart reported that she had read the notes from the neighborhood meeting on June 22, and asked if the concern regarding the wall height on Sierra Madre and the buffer issue with a neighboring home had been resolved. Mr. Dahle stated that the concerns have been resolved. He said the wall height had been lowered considerably from the original proposed height. The wall will be 8 feet from the interior side, 6 feet at the north property line and on the east it will be 10 feet from the exterior of the site. He reported that the east side of the property will be buffered from the adjacent properties by garages and the north side with carports. Bob Leisure, 8745 Sierra Madre Avenue, expressed opposition to the project because of traffic impacts, access to the project, and because he fears the project will cause his property to have a lower property value. Chairman Stewart asked if he had attended any of the neighborhood meetings. Mr. Lesure stated he never heard about any. Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 10, 2007 Richard Reese, 8291 Sierra Madre, stated that the public notice for the Planning Commission meeting was the first notice he had received about the project. He expressed opposition for reasons of access, and the reduced height of the barrier wall located on the north side of the property. He said he believes reducing the existing wall from 10 feet to 6 feet would impact his neighborhood and would allow gangs to evade police or cause problems in the adjacent neighborhood. Larry Campbell, 8734 Sierra Madre Avenue, expressed concerns about holes being knocked into the existing walls and the possibility of more holes being knocked through the new walls. He presented some photographs to the Commission. He expressed concern about adequate fire protection, the vacant house on the property and related vandalism and activity there. He also stated he had not received notice of the project before receiving the one for this evening's meeting. Chairman Stewart stated the vacant house will be demolished. Mr. Campbell asked why it had not been cleaned up. He said it attracts criminal activity. Chairman Stewart asked if he believes the trouble with knocking holes in the walls stems from kids in the area. Mr. Campbell stated that is what he believes. Commissioner Macias arrived at 7:25 p.m. Dustin Huston stated he agrees with the previous speakers and that he said "community reflects city." He said he believes the project will increase crime in the area, that to take down the existing walls would create a privacy issue. He said Rancho Cucamonga should not have any more apartments for reasons of security and fire safety and if anything, they should put houses there. Bob Barlow, 8733 Sierra Madre Avenue, said he had not received prior notice of the project, that there is little police presence in the neighborhood now,that the project would impact the schools and increase a crime problem that already exists. Charlie Martinez, 9129 Candlewood, stated he was expressing views on behalf of his father, George Martinez, who lives on Sierra Madre Avenue. He thanked Leslie Edwards of Southern California Development Corporation for her help and for listening to their concerns. He said he had attended two meetings and appreciated the developer for modifying their plans for the cul-de-sac. He said he has called the City regarding graffiti on the walls and the problems with the vacant house(vagrancy, dumping, vandalism). He asked for the house to be demolished now and added that he would be glad if the complex was completely sealed off. Christine Saunders, 8339 Main Street, stated she had attended the second neighborhood meeting. She reported that she did not want the cul-de-sac opened as a thru street and that she was told there would be a high wall and garages separating the project. She concurred with the previous speakers regarding the vandalism and graffiti problems. She said the City comes out about once a month to clean the walls of graffiti. She said the notice for this meeting is different in that it speaks of family apartments and not low income apartments. She said they were told in the meeting that the project would be a mix of regular and only a few low income apartments which is different than what this notice for tonight's meeting states. Chairman Stewart asked the developer to be prepared to clarify of the definitions of low income housing versus affordable housing at the, conclusion of the public testimony as well as an explanation about the noticing. Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 10, 2007 Elisabeth Tadlow, 8814 Edwin Street, stated she had not been invited to the community meetings. She said she would have attended if she had known. She expressed concern about an increase in crime, traffic impacts and graffiti. She suggested a park or single-family homes instead of apartments. Leslie Edwards, Southern California Development Corporation stated the terms' are basically interchangeable terms. She said that this is not HUD housing and that the residents for this housing must have an income 60% lower than the median income for the county. She said that for a family of 4, it would most likely be an income less than $30,000 per year. She said this project provides needed family size units of 3-4 bedrooms that are not common in this area and is an extension of the existing project that will be managed the same. She noted that the existing complex has a mix of market rate units with the lower income units. Regarding the notices, she said the same mailing labels were used for all the meetings and she could not explain why everyone did not receive the notices for all the meetings. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked her if she is aware of the holes in the perimeter walls. Ms.Edwards stated she did not recall seeing any holes although she was made aware people have hopped over the existing walls at the second community meeting. She said they would not be changing the perimeter wall of the existing project except for the east wall that will be removed to extend the complex. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if the existing height is 6 feet or higher. Mr. Dahle stated that the new wall will be about 3 feet lower but that on the opposite side of the wall it is 6 feet. Chairman Stewart noted that the height of the wall is almost 10 feet from the outside measurement. 111 Mr. Dahle clarified that the new wall is 6 feet in height measured from the exterior and 8 feet high measured from the inside of the site and on the east and south sides it is 8 feet from the interior and 10-11 feet from the adjacent neighborhood. He explained the difference is in the grade of the land on either side of the walls. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if the mitigations have been discussed with the residents and if the concerns about the activities of the neighborhood kids in regard to the walls has been addressed. Ms. Edwards stated that adding the height to the walls in addition to the removal of the vacant house should help this situation. She said a good portion of the wall will not be one that could be hopped over because they would be hopping onto the roof of a garage. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if there is a maintenance program to address the holes knocked in the outside perimeter walls as well as take care of the graffiti. Ms. Edwards stated yes and that they would try to do that immediately. Commissioner Macias asked staff to clarify the requirements of the City to provide low income housing and if this is a Redevelopment project. James Troyer, Planning Director, stated that the Redevelopment Agency is part of this project and they are required to set aside 20% of property tax revenues to subsidize low and moderate income housing. Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 10, 2007 • Commissioner Macias asked if it is 20% of tax assessed from the site and if there is a need to satisfy a low income housing requirement and if this project provides for that. Mr. Troyer said it would contribute to our total requirement set by the State for low income housing goals. He said we have not yet reached that requirement. Vice Chairman Fletcher said the City is struggling to meet this requirement and that he believes that currently the City is nearly 2500 units short of the required goal. Commissioner Macias asked if this developer produces market rate projects as well. Ms. Edwards stated that some of their projects are a mix of market rate and affordable units. She said they are non-profit so most of their projects are affordable units. She noted that this one is 100% affordable units. Commission Macias asked if the majority of the affordable housing units are in-fill development. Ms. Edwards stated they are at this point. Mr. Diaz stated that the access at Sierra Madre and Main Street will not provide through street access. He said at Sierra Madre there will be a gate that will be used solely for fire safety access. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked how that gate will be opened and closed. Mr. Diaz stated they will use a knox box. He added that both streets will also have aesthetic improvements as a result of this project. He noted that vacant house will be removed soon as well as the vacant lot eliminating the attractive nuisance that is there now. He said the wall heights vary but that they will connect to the existing walls without any gaps. He said he believed the 8-10 foot wall heights were satisfactory to the neighbors. He added that the property owner is responsible for cleanup of graffiti and the holes in the walls and is stated on page 4 of the resolution. Commissioner Macias asked how many other developments does this developer have in the City and are they also low income housing. Mr. Diaz reported there are 5 according to the developer and that there is low income housing in all of them. Chief Peter Bryan, City Fire District, explained in regard to emergency access that on streets longer than 600 feet, a secondary access is required but that it can be a gate. He said the main gates in gated communities have electronic controls for police and fire access. He said the others can be controlled for emergency access as well. He said that more fire inspections of multi-family residential projects will occur in the future for fire safety. He said they would also be working with the police on graffiti issues. He said the Fire Department will be there regularly. He reported that this phase of the project is different in that it will require sprinklers and safety measures above and beyond what has been previously required. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. She then commented that Southern California Development is in charge of managing and maintaining the property. She asked if they take care of both sides of the walls and if they perform proactive inspections. Ms. Edwards stated yes, they both build and manage the property. She said they have maintenance people on the property who are constantly checking the property. Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 10, 2007 Chairman Stewart said she drove by the existing project and she noted there is a great deal of graffiti. She said since Ms. Edwards has indicated they are responsible for the cleanup, she was curious as to how those walls would get cleaned up. She asked how citizens who live in the surrounding neighborhood would get help with that. Ms. Edwards said they could go to the manager on site and if they do not get results then they could call the corporate office and tell the supervisor so that they could address that immediately. Commissioner McPhail asked Ms. Edwards to comment on the screening and behavior control of the prospective residents. Ms. Edwards said they must fall within the income range,they undergo criminal screening,they must sign drug free addendums and they will be evicted if they are found to be using drugs or in criminal activity. Commissioner McPhail asked if there have been many problems with people being evicted. Ms. Edwards said their problems have not been too severe compared to other units. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, stated that there is an affordable housing crisis in California. He said the State has asked cities and Redevelopment Agencies to 1) set aside 20% of all tax collected in the project areas for affordable housing. He noted that Rancho Cucamonga has been successful in this and has significant funds to use for affordable housing and 2) State law requires cities to provide a certain amount of housing for moderate, low and very low incomes, and 3) according to State law, the City can only use certain criteria of the application on which to base a decision; only the architecture, design and site plan portions of the project can be used. He noted that the decision cannot be based upon the income of people,that we must accomplish our housing 111 element/redevelopment goals required by the State and that we cannot discriminate. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked for an explanation of the consequences if those goals are not met. Mr. Ennis said that those unfulfilled goals roll over and become additions to the next period of review for the City which puts the City further behind. He said the City is precluded from down-zoning any residential properties to a lower density if we cannot accomplish our housing goals and it just becomes more difficult to meet the other goals and needs of the community of the City unless this is accomplished. Commissioner Munoz asked if there is a financial penalty. Mr. Ennis responded that the penalty suffered by our Redevelopment Agency could be substantial. Commissioner Munoz stated that these goals are required and are part of our General Plan which is , reviewed by the State every 5 years and if the goals are not met, the financial penalty could be accrued. Commissioner Macias asked if the goals are not met, could the City be sued by housing advocates. Mr. Ennis affirmed that is true and that the law is written in such a way that those litigation attempts are favored and if they are successful the City could suffer significant legal costs from defending such cases. Commissioner Munoz then summarized his thoughts regarding the opposition voiced about the project. He said the new development would improve the existing property, the City must meet these housing requirements and they must try to meet the stated goals. He said that being poor Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 10, 2007 does not mean someone is part of the criminal element, many low income families would like a decent place to live including those in Rancho Cucamonga. He said the project is an improvement over what is there today. He said he supports the project. Commissioner McPhail agreed and said that evidence shows that management programs such as those of Southern California Housing can make a difference in a neighborhood. She said she had been involved with a project in Montclair where the tenant screening and site improvements made a difference. She said because someone needs a little help does not mean they are criminals. She moved for approval of the project. Vice Chairman Fletcher noted that Southern California Development Corporation has an excellent reputation for taking over problematic properties and improving them. He said the existing problems on this site are largely due to the attractive nuisance situation. He said this is an in-fill project that is an extension of the existing affordable housing project. He said this one includes a community center portion that may alleviate some of the problems there. He added that regarding impacts on the schools, he noted that many schools in Rancho Cucamonga have declining enrollments because people cannot afford the housing in Rancho. He commented that for every development t hat comes through this process, the school district is notified. He commented that if there is a lack of police presence then the residents can call the police. He said the City graffiti hotline number is 481-7999. He added that there is a State mandate in force to provide affordable housing but in Rancho that is becoming more difficult because of success, growth and rising property values. It is difficult for developers to pencil it out and to make any profit. He said that he believes this project • will benefit and improve the neighborhood. Commissioner Macias said this is clearly a land use decision and voiced his support. Chairman Stewart commented that she agrees with all of her colleagues and that because she has an extensive background in law enforcement, she could say that there is not necessarily a connection between low income and crime. She said this will be an improvement to the area with new landscapes, lighting, walls, buildings, additional fire protection and people. She said if there are problems, call the police. She said they do not like lots of calls for service and if they are able to identify the problems they will come out to the neighborhood and work with the residents toward resolution. She added that the applicant has an on site manager to handle maintenance issues and that if that does not work they can contact their main offices here in Rancho Cucamonga. She said it is also a time to have more open discussion of the neighborhood residents. Commissioner Munoz clarified that the motion is for both B and C along with the environmental assessments. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Macias, to adopt the Resolution of Approval for Development Review DRC2005-01060 and to issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts and to recommend approval of Housing Incentive Agreement DRC2006- 00916 to be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18033 - ' WEINBERGER - A request to subdivide 9.9 acres of land into 13 lots in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located south of Banyan Street and east of East Avenue - APN: 0225-191-09 and 17. Related file: Tree Removal Permit DRC2006- Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 10, 2007 00309. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 25, 2006 MEETING. Chairman Stewart announced that the applicant has requested a continuance to an unspecified date. She allowed that there may be those wishing to speak on the item that may not be able to attend the future meeting. She therefore opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing none, she closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Macias,to continue Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18033 to a date unspecified. The item will be readvertised for a future agenda. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried « . . . . PUBLIC COMMENTS A citizen reported a problem with an alley in his neighborhood. He said the City has refused to "release" the alley and it is not being maintained. Chairman Stewart suggested he contact our Engineering Department. Dan James, Senior City Engineer invited the resident to call him to discuss the problem. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if this would be a vacation of property issue that would come back to 111 the Commission. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney stated that it would come back to the Planning Commission to determine it to be consistent with the General Plan and then the Council would have the hearing on the vacation. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if this was something the Planning Commission could get a staff report at a future date. Mr. Ennis replied that it is something that staff recommends. James Troyer, Planning Director, stated we do not know the feasibility right now. He indicated that staff needs to meet with the residents first. . . . . . COMMISSION BUSINESS/COMMENTS E. HIGH RISE ORDINANCE PRESENTATION BY THE FIRE DISTRICT Chief Bryan thanked the Planning Commissioners for allowing him to comment on Items B and C. He stated the Fire Code is adopted at the same time as the other codes and the Building Code. He pointed out that building requirements are adopted for the safety of the public and in "High Rise" buildings, smoke is the main known cause of injuries. He said the Fire Code goes through a due process with the State and that the requirements must be sound. He said the Fire Code makes specific provisions for the demand on resources. He noted that 20 years ago we knew we would not Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 10, 2007 have the resources needed in the Inland Empire to respond to mid-rise, high-rise emergencies. He said it was important for their requirements to be consistent with other west end agencies so that if Ontario, for example, responded to a fire first near our adjacent border, that their people and ours would be consistent in how they would operate. He produced an organization chart indicating the order of response to these types of emergencies. He said the response goes in this order: rescue, smoke control, fire extinguishment. He said exits and egress is very important. He said they ask people to exit via specified stairways and the fire personnel use other stairs to go up. He said in non-sprinklered buildings or if the sprinklers don't work, the problem gets bigger rapidly. He said smoke rises faster vertically than horizontally and resources must be deployed quickly. He noted that buildings are the best the day they are completed but they must be maintained to ensure optimum safety. Deputy Chief Bell said the High Rise Ordinance is part of Ordinance. He noted that a High Rise is defined as anything with floors used for human occupancy located more than 55 feet above the I owest level of fire department vehicle access or any building with more than 5 floors. He said the State code is 75 feet. He said the significant additional fire and life safety requirements are: 1) secondary water supply capable of supplying calculated sprinkler fire flow, 2) approved rooftop helipad, 3) fire control room, and 4) landscape restrictions to allow vertical access on two sides of the building. Chairman Stewart asked if the Fire District has worked with anyone from Forrest CityNictoria Gardens regarding future high rise development there. Deputy Chief Bell said no discussions had occurred yet with him but that the Fire Safety unit would hear first. He said the big concern occurred first in the early 80s when development was booming and there were some significant fires in Las Vegas high rise developments. Vice Chairman Fletcher noted that their codes are probably quite different in Las Vegas than here. Commissioner McPhail remarked that when a higher hotel building was suggested at the corner of Haven Avenue and 41h Street with more landscape opportunities with paseos and the like, and she was told that the Fire Department would not let them do that,that it was cost prohibitive, and the Fire Department did not want tall buildings. She said on another project the landscape plan was not sufficient and when questioned by the DRC,the applicants said that the Fire District would not allow any plantings around the building. She asked if this is true that the Fire District made all these decisions. Deputy Chief Bell said High Rise buildings are allowed but there are requirements. He said in regard to landscaping; that they use a 5/50 rule, meaning that there must be access for their vehicles to 2 sides of the building to allow for truck/ladder rescues. This means they cannot be competing with trees. Commissioner McPhail asked if there is no compromise regarding access. Deputy Chief Bell said there is room for compromise and the Fire Department could probably do a better job communicating their needs to the developers. He said the hard part is that we need room set up the truck and have room for the ladder to go up and down. He said the two sides of the building component was probably a compromise. Commissioner McPhail expressed appreciation for that information and said that she could come ask in the future if she is unsure of what the developer is reflecting as the Fire Department's requirements. She said it was good to know there may be other landscape solutions out there than just grass. Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 10, 2007 • Nice Chairman Fletcher asked how high their truck mounted ladders go. Deputy Chief Bell responded about 100 feet straight up and down. He said there is one in Tokyo that actually can go 220 feet high, but there are none like that in North America. Commissioner McPhail asked how low they can go. Deputy Chief Bell stated that it can go below the plane of zero. He noted that as the ladder extends higher, the truck must be closer to the building to reach the higher floors. Commissioner Munoz asked for an explanation of the 5/50 rule. Deputy Chief Bell said it relates to the geometry of the ladder. Chief Bryan said that if developers are telling you things, then they would come and answer questions if there are issues at the Design Review Committee meeting if invited to do so. He noted that Robert Ball is the new Fire Marshall and that he would be happy to answer the Committee's questions. Vice Chairman Fletcher remarked that the question about Victoria Gardens came up because of a presentation he attended that indicated there are plans for a future high rise at Victoria Gardens. He commented that if the City wants to attract Fortune 500 companies, we will most likely need higher buildings. He said driving down Haven Avenue you notice there is little variation in the heights of the buildings and that he would like to see a more interesting skyline in the future. Chief Bryan said the 2008 Fire Code will probably have changes that incorporates new technology that may in turn, allow the Fire Department to relieve some of the current requirements. He said hopefully the developers will be able to use their builders' dollar better in the future. Chairman Stewart commented that there is indication that Victoria Gardens will be its own City and may its own Fire Department may be necessary. Chief Bryan added that with higher density, increases in land costs and infill projects in the City, it is likely we will "go vertical" in the future. Commissioner Munoz stated the Fire Department does a great job and that the Commission is asking the questions so we can help them do what they do. He asked if there are buildings higher than 55 feet or is it 5 floors or above. Deputy Chief Bell said that is anything with floors used for human occupancy located more than 55 feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access or any building with more than five floors. He said the State Code is 75 feet. Vice Chairman Fletcher noted that to make a project economically feasible, a developer would have to go much higher in building height to make up for the cost of the Fire Code requirements. Chief Bryan commented that there is approximately 12 feet per floor level, so often there can be 7 floors before hitting the State requirements. He added there is no negotiation once they hit the State level of 75 feet. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked how our Ordinance stands in comparison to those of other Inland Empire communities. Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 10, 2007 Chief Bryan replied that when it was first written and adopted, it was consistent with 5 other neighboring agencies. He said that in 2008 for the update they will again seek consistency as much as possible. He said they do not want to make is so restrictive that the developers would rather build in a neighboring city, thus another reason to try to make them the same so it is equal. He said they will negotiate wherever possible but access is critical and must be met. Chairman Stewart heartily thanked Chief Bryan and Deputy Chief Bell for their excellent information and for answering their questions. At' * * * * ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by McPhail, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:03 p.m. • Re ectfully sub fitted, At^r„ James R. Troyer, AICP Secretary Approved: January 24, 2007 • Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 10, 2007 •