Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/2005'Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 13 " file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn05- 19- 05.htm 06/24/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Commissioner Cole arrived at 6:36. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patrick Alford, Acting Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on May 13, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of May 5, 2005 were approved as ITEM NO. 1 Minutes corrected. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve the minutes. Approved Ayes: Eaton, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: Cole Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Red Rock Chili Company (PA2005 -061) ITEM NO. 2 401 Newport Center Drive, Suite A106 PA2005 -061 Request for a Use Permit pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordinance (ABO ) Approved o authorize the sale of beer and wine (Type 41 ABC License) for on -site consumption at an existing eating and drinking establishment located within the Atrium Court a " file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn05- 19- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 Page 4 of 13 ichard England - asked what the status is of the neighborhood parking permit ,hedule; how will the parking be accommodated during construction; where will the arth hauling trucks line up; and, who will monitor these vehicles. ublic comment was closed in absence of community association representation. Ir. Campbell, Senior Planner, at Commission inquiry noted the following: • The parking permit schedule fee has not been addressed. • In terms of demolition and construction, the Construction Management Plan was reviewed and approved by the Commission. • The Parking Management Plan was also reviewed and approved by the Commission. • The hours of operation are set forth in the Noise Code. • The supervision of the structure will be done by the applicant. • In terms of compliance, the Code Enforcement as well as the Police Department can be called as the City will be responsible for monitoring the activities. In Rich Edmonston, Transportation Manager, added: • Some of the area around Newport Harbor High School requested that a residential permit program be instituted several years ago. • The boundary is designated by the residents who supported this request at that time. • The program allowed the homeowner to obtain three permits a year so they could park longer than two hours. • This program will not change during the construction period. ommissioner Toerge asked about the action the City would or could take under the irrent entitlement if the policy of the school District changed on the non - educational arking allowed at the high school. Ir. Campbell answered that St. Andrew's operates under Use Permit 822 that has a )ndition specific to that. If they lose that ability for parking at the high school, it would :quire an amendment to the use permit and would have to come back to the ommission for review. hairperson Tucker noted that the difference between the new use permit and the xisting use permit is the language is clear as to what would happen. He then noted a range to condition 4. All that exists now is a good neighbor policy, not an greement. He then-suggested, remove, ....'overall parking demand', and just use the ord, 'occupancy'. And, after, '.....off- street parking,' put in, '(i.e. number of spaces mes 3).' The condition now reads: n the event that the Church should lose the right to use parking within the 15th Street arking lot at Newport Harbor High School, the Church shall immediately modify its otivities and occupancy to reduce occupancy to that commensurate with available ff- street parking (i.e., number of spaces times 3) and may file for an amendment to its use permit to provide alternate, adequate and comparably convenient off - street arking at a separate location." This addresses the importance of the off - street arking. " file: / /N:1Apps\WEBDATAI Intemet lPlnAgendas120051mn05- 19- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 Page 2 of 13 Island. Wood noted that Mr. Gregg Ramirez has been selected as the newest ner. He will be working less with the Planning Commission but will be re responsibilities of Ms. Tamara Campbell. Currently there is an it iotional recruitment to fill Gregg's position. Cole arrived at 6:36 p.m. :gg Ramirez noted a revised resolution that organizes the findings and clarity. Collis, applicant, noted that he has read and understands the findings lions contained in the staff report. comment was opened. is comment was closed. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve Use Permit No. 2005 -014, subject to the findings and conditions of approval. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Project (PA2002- ITEM NO. 3 65) PA2002 -265 600 St. Andrew's Road Recommended Consideration of amendments to Resolution No. 1655, adopted December 9, 2004 for approval recommending approval of the St. Andrew's Church expansion project. The applicant requests changes to the required parking provisions to facilitate on -site or off -site parking. Chairperson Tucker gave a history of the application dating from December 2004 to present, noting the conditions of approval had required the Church to obtain an off -site parking agreement with the Newport Mesa School District. The Planning Commission had recommended that the Council defer taking action on the Church plan until the District had acted on the parking proposal of the Church and the Planning Commission subsequently approved any agreement. Council had concurred with this recommendation. The District has since declined the parking proposal until the City has resolved the land use issues with the Church property. The Church is here tonight o revise the requirement for the parking requirement on the District site. The City Council has referred this matter to the Planning Commission to consider the request of he Church. This hearing will deal with the request of the Church to change the requirement of an off -site parking agreement with the District as set forth in operating condition number 3, and any other issues relating to parking. No other conditions, no design or operational detail will be discussed tonight. He then gave an overview of the Planning Commission's responsibility on behalf of the City Council. In conclusion, he noted that the City Council will be taking this matter and will deal with all the aspects of his application; and asked the public to address their discussion on the parking issue "file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn05- 19- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 Page 3 of 13 McKitterick, representing the applicant, noted the following: • Gave an overview of the background on the St. Andrew's proposal to the Newport Mesa Unified School District and a review of the conditions of parking. • A 30 year parking agreement with the Newport School District was a condition of approval at the December Planning Commission meeting included in Resolution 1655. • Since that time many meetings have been held to follow through with that condition, both with the community and District. • The Church has used its best effort to obtain this condition; however, was unable to achieve it due to the vigorous negative public input to the District at the public hearing of April 12th. • April 12th, the Board of Education tabled further consideration of the matter until the City Council takes final action on our application. • He then noted that the Church is requesting that the changes be made so that they may satisfy parking on site or off site and not be limited to a parking agreement with the District. • The changes are necessary to achieve a more flexible parking arrangement. following changes to conditions in Resolution 1655 were requested by the • Finding 7 - the parking requirement of 600 spaces, which is a combination of both on and off site, will remain. This results in a net increase of 100 to 150 spaces above the current parking condition. The on -site parking will be no less than 250 and no more than 400. • Finding 7f - St. Andrew's will retain the option to seek an agreement with the District for the use of spaces in excess of the 250. • Condition 2a - St. Andrew's has volunteered a reduction of occupancy one night per week from the approved 1300 to 1200 to satisfy the parking needs on site for every day of the week except Sunday. • Condition 2 - The total campus occupancy will remain limited to available parking. • Condition 2c - Memorial services will be conducted before 1 p.m. as long as the occupant parking ratio is maintained. conclusion, Mr. McKitterick noted: lith the changes requested by St. Andrew's, there will be between 100 and 150 more )aces than exist today and the project will be constructed within a limitation on the .irrent occupancy, which is in the conditions. If the Church builds 400 on site spaces, will only need off -site spaces on Sunday. The St. Andrew's Youth and Family Center ill not be tied to the potential future agreement with the Newport Mesa School istrict. The applicant accepts staffs recommended change on Section 1, 7A iaintaining the original language. comment was opened. in opposition of the application: " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn05- 19- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/1912005 Page 5 of 13 issioner Cole asked about any impact on traffic flow if the Church builds a 400 parking structure. Campbell answered that the Traffic Management Plan was developed with the use a 400 space parking garage and additional times between services; therefore, staff s no concerns. Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell noted that the Commission could look at a ferent alternative than what the Church was considering, which would be different rking lots in the area to provide that several hundred parking. Street parking would more convenient than that and therefore it is not really a viable alternative. Staff is t recommending a shuttle service for parking, other than during the construction iissioner Toerge asked about condition 2 and the removal of ...'the legal' right. kind of right is it, if it is not legal? McKitterick answered the reference makes it consistent with the existing litional use permit. It is a right to use, so the purpose is to make it match the ting verbiage. It would introduce ambiguity if the word 'legal' was left in. comment was re- opened. in opposition to the project: I Dunlap, representing Cliff Haven and Newport Heights Associations, noted the • Referring to 7f and 7g, the part that is deleted regarding the agreement with the school District and the reduction of the on -site parking spaces reducing the amount of on -site grading is problematic. • Allowing a change in conditions that the applicant can not satisfy does not set a good precedent. • Referring to a letter from Mr. Paul Reed regarding the recommendations of Dr. Barbot of the School Board, it states they are not ready to issue a parking agreement with the Church; therefore, there is no parking agreement in place, even for the current 250 parking. . The school can expand their campus at anytime. . The community believes it is too big a project and do not want it. Adams, Vice President of the Newport Heights Improvement Association, read a in letter from the association in opposition to this project. t Colyer, resident of Kings Place opposes for similar reasons previously stated. Adler, resident of Kings Place opposes for similar reasons previously stated. i Courtney, resident of St. James Place, opposes the project adding that rtv was zoned as R -1. n Karmach, resident of Cliff Drive, opposes the project due to parking. He referred and discussed the letter previously discussed dated April 18th from Mr. Reed. He "file:HN:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Intemet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn05- 19- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 Page 6 of 13 discussed FAR's of the project as compared to the Crystal Cathedral, St. James ch, Our Lady Queen of Angels and Hearst Castle. Talbot, resident of Signal Road, noted his opposition for similarly stated masons. rbara Wallings, resident of Tustin Avenue; read an excerpt from Planning immission minutes of May 23, 1985 wherein Chairman Winbern stated, "...that she mid support the motion of the church expansion (at that time) but noted her concern the continued expansion of the Church in a residential area." comment was closed. Cole asked about the FAR issue. Campbell answered that in terms of FAR, St. James has a higher floor area ratio an off -site parking lot to support that function. Eaton noted: • He is concerned with the responsibility charged to the school District parking lot. • The Church would be better off building their own garage and satisfying the requirement. • He noted his concern with what is being asked of the Planning Commission tonight, which is to continue the existing situation where the Church is inadequate on the Code required parking, let alone the real need that is greater than the Code. • He noted what the Commission should do is require the Church to build their 400 space garage and to acquire the remaining 60 spaces in another off -site location on Sundays, and then to allow the school parking lot to provide that supply, which is actually needed above and beyond the Code required 1 to 3. • He would also require the Church to provide 80 spaces for students in lieu of existing condition 45. • He opined that it is something that both the community and the Church could live with in combination with all the other measures put in place. • He offered verbiage to these issues and noted that if the conditions are not changed he would not be in favor of this project since there is not an assurance that Code required parking is provided. Tucker noted: • There are 250 spaces on site. • They are proposing to add 22,000 square feet, which would equate to another 6( spaces. • They would have 316 spaces if they complied with the existing situation, plus they would have to park the addition by Code. • The applicant is really adding an additional 80 spaces towards addressing their Code shortfall, and they are still short 66 spaces even with that additional 80 spaces. er Eaton answered, if you assume they continue their non - existing non- e think they should be brought up to Code. "file:HN:\Apps\WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn05- 19- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 Page 7 of 13 Tucker noted his support for what the Church has proposed noting the • The best case scenario is the set of conditions already approved in December that addressed parking with neighborhood relief on school days as well as on weekends. • The concept was the Church would make its case with the school District; however, the school District has since tabled this matter. • The Planning Commission needs to send a recommendation to the City Council with conditions that work properly, even with an alternative parking arrangement. • The Council has the option to approve or not approve this recommendation on this project in that they determine if the project with the conditions and impositions make the project more compatible with the neighborhood than what is there today. • If the Council approves the project, as set forth in the revised conditions, hopefully the neighbors and the Church will work together with the District to get an agreement because that is a better result than having 400 spaces on the site. • He suggested that the Church move the gym out of the parking field to the current location of Dierenfield Hall. The new facility should be stacked for a smaller net increase than the 21,714 square feet and would reduce the need for underground parking. • He recommended again that the neighborhood community and the Church work together on this matter to reach a compromise prior to the Council meeting. • The Council will be making the final decision. concluded by saying that the off site parking spaces as suggested by nmissioner Eaton would not add much. Hawkins noted the following: • The Commission did not place the School District in an untenable situation. • The Commission attempted to mitigate an existing problem with conditions and used the resources that were out there, which included the District parking lot. • He shares the concerns about the lack of specificity; however, the environmental document analyzed the parking and found no significant impacts. • The environmental document together with these conditions places us in a box. • He indicated his concern about parking and requested that the Commission hear Commissioner Eaton's suggestions. • He then asked to look again at Exhibit A, which is the requirement for a development agreement and leave that requirement in this project to be viewed at some point in time. Selich noted the following: • Supports the Chairperson's comments. • Does not believe having a remote off -site facility is practical. People will park in the neighborhood and not use a shuttle. • He supports the proposal before the Commission. • The School Board should have been able to act on the parking issue only and that would have allowed the Council to act on the whole package with all the facts. • He concluded by stating he supports the proposal. " file: / /N:\Apps1WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn05- 19- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 Page 8 of 13 nmissioner McDaniel noted the following: • He expressed his concern that the neighbors and the Church were not able to come to some compromise on this project. • Parking has remained the major concern. • He noted his support of the Chairman's remarks. nmissioner Cole noted the following: • He agrees with the Chairman's remarks. • The Commission is asked to focus on the parking and the Church is asking to shift what was a requirement of having the majority of the parking at the high school back towards at least the ability to have more of it on site, which he was originally a proponent of. • He believes more people would use parking in a structure as opposed to across a street and keep people off the surrounding streets. • This results in improved parking for the community with increase site parking and an in depth Parking Plan. Now in place for the community is an occupancy limit that will have the ability, if there is not compliance, a way to have the Church be enforced from an occupancy standpoint. • He would recommend approval of this resolution to the City Council. nmissioner Toerge noted the following: • He noted the conflict of an applicant spending money to build a facility based on the reliance of a short term, maybe not legal, parking arrangement. • The operating conditions that the Commission has imposed are unmanageable and perpetuate the policing of the operation by the neighbors. • The prior application was not supportable and the current application is worse. • He noted that he does not support this application. nmissioner Hawkins noted condition 45 that the Church shall consider increasing lent parking on its own lot. This was suggested to be mandatory with a specific nber mandated. With this modification it would preserve the community benefit we ught we gained with the increased parking spaces on the school site. *person Tucker answered he is not in favor of modifying condition 45, but if the dicant feels it is something they can do between now and when this comes before City Council that would be great. It would add more spaces, but it is up to the dicant to volunteer that condition. I agree with Commissioner Toerge's comments, is a worse project than the one we approved, but I think it is approvable. The ielopment Agreement condition was based upon the agreement with the school. Commission recommended that the Council not act on this matter until that eement was done and approved by the Planning Commission. Now, there is no uirement with an agreement with some third party so the necessity for a ,elopment agreement does not seem to be there. If the Council wants a ,elopment agreement, I am sure they will let staff know. tion was made by Chairperson Tucker to modify conditions of approval to Use •mit 2002 -265, the findings in Exhibit A and the staff report with the exception that edition 3 '....as described in the Traffic Management Plan.....'; the changes on edition 4 as discussed, and condition 15, '.......remove, under the terms of an " file: //N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas \2005 \mn05- 19- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 Page 9 of 13 :ement with..., replace with by....', and the proposed changes by the applicant. McKitterick noted the applicant agrees to these changes to the conditions. iirperson Tucker noted that the unwritten agreement and good neighbor policy is er these conditions and that if that was ever revoked there would be a sequence under these conditions. McKitterick answered yes. Campbell asked if the motion includes leaving Finding 7a as originally drafted. iirperson Tucker answered yes. nmissioner Eaton noted he is not in support of approving this expansion without inn the nroiect un to code. yes: Cole, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: Eaton, Toerge bsent: None bstain: None iJECT: General Plan Update - progress report ITEM NO.4 General Plan ew of trip generation and fiscal impact analysis assumptions related to the land Update - alternatives. Progress Report Wood stated that the Planning Commission and the City Council both had Discussion Item ewed and made changes to the Land Use alternatives that were developed by the Only feral Plan Advisory Committee. We wanted to do environmental analysis on those I run them through both our fiscal impact model and the traffic model. However, re were 12 or 13 sub -areas and each one of them had 3 to 5 different options, so i imagine the permutations of all those, we would be analyzing forever and ever. needed a way to define what would be a minimum and a maximum so that we Id set a range. The method we chose for that was the daily trip generation. At the t meeting we will have the complete traffic report for you and the consultant will be ilable to explain it and answer any questions. She then noted that tonight the nning Commission will be focusing on Tables 20 and 21 in the traffic report. Table shows the three options analyzed with the models, one being the true minimum ;re we took the lowest average daily trips for each sub -area, whether it was the sting General Plan or whether it was one of the alternatives developed by the AC. The next was the sub -area options only minimum. In that case we ignored the >ting General Plan and chose in every case the lowest trip generation alternative i was suggested by the GPAC. Finally, the sub -area option maximum, which is ;re we took the highest trip generating alternative from each area. Tonight's sentation will be the results of the fiscal impact analysis of these alternatives, tha be followed up at the next meeting with the traffic model results and the othe ironmental impacts. She then introduced Doug Svensson who made th ig Svensson of Applied Development Economics gave a PowerPoint :he Newport Beach Fiscal Analysis of the General Plan Alternatives. presentation, he noted: " file: //N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas\20051mn05- 19- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 Page 10 of 13 . The Fiscal Analysis is based on the fiscal model developed earlier in the • Does not account for inflation - the analysis is intended to compare the land use mixes in the options within a common framework. • The fiscal analysis is not a market analysis. • Does not address infrastructure needs at this time. following topics were then introduced as charts: . Overall Cost- Revenue Impact; . Impact of Visitors; . Economic and Fiscal Relationships in Newport Beach; . Cost - Revenue Impact of General Plan Buildout; . Citywide Alternatives; . Citywide Alternatives by Major Land Use; . Citywide Alternatives by Major Subarea; . Subarea Options: Airport Area; . Subarea Options: Balboa Village; . Subarea Options: Banning Ranch; . Subarea Options: Cannery Village West; . Subarea Options: Cannery Village East; . Subarea Options: Corona del Mar; . Subarea Options: Lido Isle; . Subarea Options: Lido Village North; . Subarea Options: Lido Village South; . Subarea Options: Mariners Mile; . Subarea Options: McFadden Square East; . Subarea Options: McFadden Square West; . Subarea Options: Newport Center /Fashion Island; " file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Intemet \PlnAgendas\20051mn05- 19- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 Page 11 of 13 • Subarea Options: Old Newport Blvd; • Subarea Options: West Newport Hwy Block C, and • Subarea Options: West Newport Industrial flowing a discussion by the Planning Commission, it was determined that the ssentation of the graphs would be more meaningful if the same scale was used in all them as suggested by members of the GPUC. Mr. Svensson said he would do what could in order to make it more understandable to the general public. It was also termined that the numbers for the Mariners Mile marine alternative would be dewed. >mmissioner Selich asked for a copy of the presentation. iblic comment was opened. iilip Bettencourt, noted the following: . Cautioned that the resort component that is analyzed in the Newport Banning Ranch, the model used was the Montage. . If you compared the most optimistic scenario of a hotel on the Banning Ran you get a view of Coast Highway, the Sanitation District Treatment Plant, the fields; on the Montage you get a whitewater view and shopping in Lagu Beach. . In any circumstance, this should not be viewed as an economic analysis of a hotel at that location, that is not what this is about. . This is a hypothetical hotel and it is hard to conclude that the sort of ecor performance that would be achieved here with the large issues to deal with a land use point of view. . It is not unworthy of study; however, those revenue yields are highly and ambitious. comment was closed. r. Wood noted her agreement with Mr. Bettencourt's comments that this is not ar onomic or feasibility study. This is if all of these uses that have been suggested fo rdy were developed and occupied, what would be the fiscal performance of them. are now starting to talk about the implications of this and the traffic information an( environmental information on the land use planning for the future. We are starttinc look more closely at the subareas, what land use is giving the good or bad impacts iat land use is impacting an intersection level of service from D to E, so that we car rrt some refinements. When we get to a preferred land use plan then we can do the rrket study and go ahead with it. " file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA \Internet \PlnAgendas \2005 \mn05- 19- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 Page 12 of 13 City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood noted that at last week's meeting, the Lexus BUSINESS project was approved on a vote of 4 to 2, the concern of a councilmember was the driveway onto MacArthur Blvd. and he was not comfortable with having an exit as well as an entrance. The condition was tightened up to make it clear that the Traffic Engineer gets to review the design of the driveway as well as the onsite circulation. This item will be back on the next two Council agendas for adoption of the ordinance and the second reading. There was direction to continue with a new city hall design; and on June 14, there will be an amendment to the Subdivision Code regarding parking standards for condominium conversions. Parking requirements will be discussed. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Developn Committee - there was a presentation on the expansion of Hoag Hospital that be coming before the Planning Commission. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Upda Committee — at the last meeting there was a follow -up on the traffic model that � be discussed at the next Commission meeting; there was a discussion on t schedule with the possibility of all day GPAC sessions on some Saturdays; a Planning Commission and City Council review at joint vs. separate Study Sessioi Ms. Wood added that there will be separate sessions if that works with t schedule. Discussion continued on timing, logistics and scheduling preferences. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Certification Committee - no meeting. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - none. Chairperson Tucker asked if the City had a pol where applicants sign indemnities for environmental documents in case the City sued. He was answered not as a standard procedure; however, wh Development Agreements are done that is one of the conditions. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda action and staff report - none. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - none. Project status — Chairperson Tucker noted the Lexus project may have a n change to provide for some landscape treatment on a blank wall where they c put vines on it. The blank wall was on the ramp going up on the site. There I been three meetings of the Marina Park Committee with another one in June will probably be all the rest of the alternatives; this should be finished in July. Sign Code will be back to the Commission for action within three weeks. Queen of Angels application is a use permit and will be reviewed by the Plan Commission in 6 to 9 months, no Council action is required. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 9:15 P.M. JADJOURNMENT JEFFREY COLE, SECRETARY " file: / /N:1 Apps\ WEBDATAI InternetlPlnAgendas 120051mn05- 19- 05.htm 06/24/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 13 of 13 " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATAI Intemet lPlnAgendas120051mn05- 19- 05.htm 06/24/2008