Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/01/13 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 13, 1999 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:11 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Ddve, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Para Stewart, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner;, Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Bill Cudy, Deputy City Attorney; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner;, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer;, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner; Cecilia Williams, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Bullet, City Planner, announced that there will be a meeting on January 30, 1999, regarding the Elena Winery. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Macias, carried 3-0-0-2 (Mannerino, Stewart abstain), to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of September 9, 1998. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Mannerino, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of November 10, 1998. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Mannedno, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of December 9, 1998. CONSENT CALENDAR A. VA(~ATION QF A PORTION OF CARNELIAN STREET AND AC(~I,)ISITION QF STREET RI(~HT-OF-WAY FOR CARNELIAN STREET - A request to vacate a portion of Carnelian Street along with the acquisition of street right-of-way for Carnelian Street in conjunction with the proposed realignment project from Vivero Street to 1,000 feet southerly. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, carried 5-0, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL'ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15207 - JERALD B. LAIRD - A subdivision of 5.5 acres of land into one parcel and a remainder parcel in the General Industrial District (Subarea 1311 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the east side of Chades Smith Avenue at San Madno Ddve - APN: 229-321-01. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public headng. There were no comments, and he closed the headng. Motion: Moved by Mannedno, seconded by Macias, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Parcel Map 15207. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carded C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15234- JOY'S FOR US, INC. - A subdivision of 11.2 acres of land into two parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 10) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the north side of 7th Street between Utica Avenue and Toronto Avenue - APN: 209-401-21. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no comments, and he closed the headng. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Macias, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Parcel Map 15234. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: MAClAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carded O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - ALLARD ENGINEERING - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 66 single family lots on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07 and 55 through 57. Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 13, 1999 Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and showed slides of the property. She discussed the additional materials which had been placed in front of the Commission for their information. She indicated that an April 1998 letter from the Department of Fish and Game referenced in the staff report was provided as well as the final Biological report which had been received on January 11. She pointed out that the Biological Report stated that neither the California gnatcatcher nor the San Bernardino Merfiam's kangaroo rat were found on the site; however, three species listed by the State of California as Species of Special Concern were found to be present and the loss of 58 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat may be considered significant. Ms. Van Buren referred to a petition opposing the project which was signed by over 50 residents of the tract to the south of the project which had been undeveloped at the time this project was approved. She noted the letter submitted by Gerald Braden, field supervisor for the Biology Section of the San Bemardino County Museum, expressed the opinion that the biological study was vague and inaccurate. She provided a January 13, 1999, FAX from the Department of Fish and Game expressing the desire for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR), especially since several California Species of Special Concern were detected on the site and the previous EIR was conducted over six years ago. Also included was a January 13, 1999, FAX received from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintaining that the property contains suitable habitat for the California gnatcatcher and supports several unlisted sensitive species proposed to be covered under the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). She provided a copy of a FAX from the Spidt of the Sage Council opposing land development or habitat destruction within the Cucamonga Canyon including the mesa and wash area. She provided a letter from Chades Buquet indicating he had been retained by the applicant and requesting a 90-day extension to address and attempt to mitigate concerns raised by the City, other agencies, and neighboring residents. She reported that Arthur Bddge had requested that the letter he submitted in 1992 be added to the record as being still relevant. Ms. Van Buren indicated a letter had been received immediately before the meeting from Matthew Pdce indicating that last summer he found a kangaroo rat in his swimming pool which is south of the proposed tract and expressing concerns about the wildlife in the area. She stated a letter had also just been received from Chds and James Kenny who live in the tract to the south of the project. She said the Kennys asserted that significant changes have occurred since the project was approved and expressed concerns about public safety issues of water quality, fire dangers, and the danger of the proposed water tank being damaged by a potential earthquake. Ms. Van Buran stated the agenda included a resolution of denial based upon information staff had at the time of preparation of the staff report and recent information received indicates that the potential of significant impacts previously examined may be more severe than previously thought. She said staff feels the decision makers and the public are entitled to a complete California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review which had not been completed. Commissioner Mannerino asked for confirmation that there are species that were not listed as endangered in 1992 and therefore were not studied for this site at the time of the initial EIR. Ms. Van Buran responded that the San Bemardino Merriam's kangaroo rat was listed after 1992. She said the final Biological Report dated January 8, 1999, states the rat is not present; however, the report indicates that three species were observed that are listed as California Species of Special Concern. Commissioner Mannerino asked if the applicant would have to start over if the time extension were denied. Ms. Van Buren replied that was correct. She said the project could be re-filed and would be processed as a new tract map. Planning Commission Minutes °3- January 13, 1999 Commissioner Macias questioned if there, have been changes in required CEQA protocols between when the project was initially approved and the present time. He asked if methodologies for looking for species have changed meaning that a comparing results from 1992 and the present -- time might be similar to comparing apples t.o oranges. Ms. Van Buren replied affirmatively. Chairman McNiel opened the public headng. Chades'Buquet, Charles Joseph Associal:es, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had been hired a week ago to try to find a reasonable solution. He commented that he was familiar with the project because he had been on the City Council when the project was originally approved. He stated that the Planning Commission has the responsibility to make findings based upon substantial information on the entire record. He acknowledged that staff had not had an oppodunity to review the final Biological Report pdor to preparation of the staff report because the report was not delivered to the City until after the staff reports were distributed. He commented that the map had previously been extended by the City and there had been no issues with regard to CEQA until this evening. He indicated that the applicant had previously reduced the number of acres to be developed to 60 acres with another 20 acres subject to grading. He stated there had been an effort to be sensitive to the concerns raised in 1992 when the project was approved and nothing has changed on the site since then. He said the developer and City knew about the coastal sage in 1992 and a study was done at that time before the City Council certified the EIR with the requirement that a significant portion of the site be preserved. He noted that staff had suggested a Supplemental EIR be prepared but said that a Supplemental EIR should not be required because there is no substantial evidence that changes have occurred and he stated that public controversy does not constitute substantial evidence. He acknowledged that the Biological survey reports were given to staff late and that was an inconvenience. He suggested a portion of the site could be sold to the County for inclusion in the County preserve if the County would place some funds in escrow for that purpose. He indicated the biologist who prepared the report was present. He said the changes to the final biological report were minor compared to the draft report which had been presented to the City pdor to preparation of the staff report. He reported the survey was a 19-week process and that was why the report took so long. He felt lhe City should be fair and he requested a 90-day extension to allow the developer to address the concerns. He said he had talked with the City Attorney late in the afternoon and found that it would be permissible to ask for a 90-day extension. He said the 90-days would not be used for any development of the site and the developer would be willing to indemnify the City for the extension. Jack Easton, LSA Associates, Inc., 3403 10th Street, Suite 520, Riverside, stated he is in charge of the Biological Department for LSA's Riverside office and he was available to answer questions. Commissioner Stewart observed that the City had notified the applicant that further studies may be necessary in February and asked why there was such a long time lag. Mr. Buquet replied he could not answer that question. Mr. Easton stated that focused surveys were performed to look for evidence of the California gnatcatcher and the San Bernardino Merdam's kangaroo rat and that the biologists who performed the studies are permitted by the California Department of Fish and Game. He pointed out that neither species was observed on site, which was consistent with the results of the previous survey conducted in 1992. He reported that the surveys were concluded in December 1998. He said they also studied the habitat and concluded that the loss of 58 acres of coastal sage scrub may Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 13, 1999 be considered a significant impact. He stated the final study report outlined suggested mitigations for the loss of the sage scrub including possible pumhase of off-site land or contribution of funds toward a MSHCP. He disagreed with points raised by Gerald Braden from the San Bemardino County Museum and said that observation of the species on nearby sites is irrelevant. He stated that the California Department of Fish and Game and U. S. Fish and Wildlife have not issued objections to the surveys. He noted that the letter provided by the Fish and Game refers to the presence of several species which are listed as California Species of Special Concern but noted that those three do not meet the requirements for preservation as they are not listed as rare or endangered. He acknowledged they are on the sensitive species watch list but said they are on the bottom of the watch list. Commissioner Macias said there may well be differing opinions on what species are or are not present. However, he observed the Biological report does indicate the impact to the coastal sage scrub habitat may be significant. He asked if it was the biologists's professional opinion that it would be significant. Mr. Easton replied that it up to the lead agency's discretion. Commissioner Macias again asked his professional opinion. Mr. Easion replied that he felt it would be significant. Commissioner Macias asked the possible mitigation measures, Mr. Easton said the possible mitigations range from preserving the habitat on site, to preserving habitat off site, or participation in the MSHCP, Commissioner Macias thought that Mr. Easton would routinely coordinate with Fish and Wildlife and Fish and Game and he asked his professional judgment on the process of formally coordinating with those agencies. Mr. Easton replied there is no formal protocol requiring coordination with those agencies when no threatened or endangered species are found on site. Commissioner Macias pointed out that there would be a significant loss of habitat and he thought that would require formal coordination with those agencies. Mr. Easton said it would be the lead agency's decision and they would have discretion to seek council from Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife. He observed that Fish and Wildlife had indicated suitable habitat for the gnatcatcher was located on site, and he agreed there may be suitable habitat on site but he reiterated that the bird was not found on the site. Commissioner Macias stated that the biologist had indicated the loss of habitat could be significant and he asked what mitigations the developer is proposing. Mr. Easton did not know if mitigations had been discussed. Commissioner Macias stated he did not consider himself a champion of endangered species; however, he is a champion of the appropriate processes and avoiding potential violations of CEQA. He asked where the CEQA process was. He noted that staff had done an initial study which identified potential impacts and the biological study had identified a potential significant impact. He asked where and when the proposed mitigations would be considered. Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 13, 1999 Bill Cudy, Deputy City Attorney, stated that normally the Commission would have that documentation before it when being asked to make a decision. He acknowledged that the Commission had an incomplete package for consideration because the final study and proposed Negative Declaration are typically subject to circulation, comment, and professional critiquing. He noted there may be mitigation measures and a monitoring process which should be reviewed by the Commission. He stated that map extensions are subject to the CEQA process and the City has been following that practice for the last year. He observed that the applicant was asking for a 90-day extension to pull together those documents. He stated the lead agency is charged with determining the satisfaction of CEQA requicements and may determine that an addendum to the EIR or a Negative Declaration should be required. He said the analysis is drawn from fact and professional opinions and the Commission needs to have that documentation before it because the action may be subject to challenge if the Commission did not consider that documentation. He stated the Commission could deny the extension without that documentation. He believed there was also adequate authority for the Commission to continue the matter but recommended the Commission preserve the discretion to act if it should continue the matter. Commissioner Macias commented that if the Commission granted the continuance, and the developer mitigated all impacts to a level of insignificance, there was a potential for a mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Mannedno asked when LSA was retained to perform the study. Mr. Easton replied they were retained in August 1998. Richard Bddge, 917 Butte Street, Claremont, stated he was representing his parents Art and Catherine Bddge who live at 8715 Banyan Street. He presented a letter from his parents requesting denial of the extension and asking that a new master plan be prepared for the area. The following residents also spoke in opposition to the project: Frank Schiavone, 8060 Crestview Court, Rancho Cucamonga Ronald Mikus, 4918 Crestview Place, Rancho Cucamonga Bret Hartman, 4910 Skyline Road, Rancho Cucamonga Otis Rodford, 4928 Skyline Road, Rancho Cucamonga Bdan Ridlon, 7712 Henbane Street, Rancho Cucamonga Chds Kenny, 5036 Crestview Place, Rancho Cucamonga Eula Mae Henderson, 5073 Crestview Place, Rancho Cucamonga Craig Berres, 10913 Manchester, Rancho Cucamonga Cynthia Nichols, 5018 Crestview Place, Rancho Cucamonga Marjode Kelsey, 7730 Arroyo Vista, Rancho Cucamonga They expressed concerns regarding adequate notification, in that the property was posted on December 24, but some wdtten notices were not received until January 2 because they had been erroneously sent to Upland addresses. They asked that the upper mesa and coastal sage scrub be spared from development and pointed out that the developer's own biologist had indicated it is high quality habitat. Itwas pointed out that a portion of the project is located in the Open Space Distdct and it was requested that it remain open space. They reported that the studies were not conducted at night even though the kangaroo rat is a nocturnal animal and that traps had not been set on either the upper mesa or the mesa directly north of existing development. Fears were raised that the 1,000,000 gallon water tank may rupture in the event of an earthquake because it is to be built along a fault line. Concerns were raised regarding increased traffic, response time by fire emergency vehicles, and the protection of wildlife. One resident felt that circumstances and processes have changed and something acceptable in 1992 is not necessarily acceptable today. Another resident indicated that the project is located within the San Bemardino National Forest. Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 13, 1999 Mr. Buquet stated that National Forest property cannot be privately owned. He acknowledged there are concerns that need to be addressed and requested that the applicant be given 90 days in which to address those concerns. He said that he was not an expert regarding the trapping of animals but stated that professionals conducted the surveys. Headng no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stewart observed that the project has been approved for six years. She did not feel the applicant had made a responsible effort to be compliant. She noted that a letter was sent to the applicant in February but the biologist was not contracted until August. She thought the issues could have been resolved without asking for a 90-day continuance. She expressed concerns regarding mitigations, CEQA requirements, police and fire response times, biological issues, community trail maintenance, the water tank, and whether the project is in compliance with the General Plan with respect to Open Space Disthcts. She did not feel 90 days would be sufficient to address all of the issues. She feared granting a 90-day extension would set a precedent. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that staff had notified the applicant in February of the requirements and the biological issues should have addressed prior to this time. He did not support an additional 90 days. He felt that the protection of natural habitat and protected species is critical and he thought a significant amount of coastal sage would be lost. He did not think buying habitat in another area would be acceptable because there is not much left. He did not feel the proposed mitigations would work. Commissioner Mannerino stated he had walked in the canyon numerous times as a child and again with his son. He said he would have voted for denial of the project in 1992 as he does not think it is suitable. He observed that staff had sent a letter in February 1998 advising of the biological requirements. He reported that he had spoken with Mr. Buquet earlier in the day. He noted that the applicant's own biologist had indicated the impact on the coastal sage may be significant. He did not support the 90-day extension. He did not feel there would be satisfactory mitigations for the loss of the sage scrub and said that he would not find it an acceptable mitigation to purchase land in another area. Commissioner Macias agreed. He felt that trying to prepare environmental documentation in the 90-day pedod would not be adequate time and would violate the spidt and intent of due process under CEQA. He thought there would not be adequate time to evaluate the old and new information. He noted that staff had prepared the initial environmental assessment and determined that an EIR should be prepared. He felt it would be damaging in the administrative record in the event of a lawsuit if the Commission were to ignore staff's recommendation. He acknowledged that as the lead agency, the decision is up to the City. He said he felt that due process must be followed. He thought there has been enough new information to wan'ant the preparation of an EIR or focused EIR. He agreed that an extension of 90 days would not be appropriate. Chairman McNiel concurred with the rest of the Commissioners. He agreed that the process must be followed. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Macias, to adopt the resolution denying Time Extension for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES; MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 13, 1999 Chairman McNiel observed that the Commission has rarely not granted a time extension but he said that most of the time there are not changes. He said that the action affects a decidedly different and precious piece of Rancho Cucamonga. The Planning Commission recessed from 9:18 p,m, to 9:30 p,m. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14875 - MODERN CORPORATION - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map and design review for the development of 36 condominium units on 3.56 acres of land in the Medium Residential Distdct (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast comer of Archibald Avenue and Church Street - APN: 1077-332-26. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report and suggested that Planning Condition I be deleted as the City can no longer require participation in a Mello-Roos district. He noted that a standard condition requires that the developer pay applicable school fees. Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant agreed to the proposed change. Mr. Coleman confirmed that he did. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Richard Ewing, project architect, stated they had received a listing of the areas where staff felt there were inconsistencies between the design of the project and the current development standards. He indicated they had worked with the project engineer and found that they can meet standards. He said they are redesigning the project and will present it to the City shortly. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public headng. Commissioner Tolstoy saw no problems so long as it could be redesigned to meet current standards. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Time Extension for Tentative Tract 14875 and the design review thereof. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MAClAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carded F. STREET NAME CHANGE 98-01- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON(~A - The proposed renaming of portions of the existing Highland Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and the 1-15 freeway. Tom Grahn, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 13, 1999 Lorraine Dexter, 13203 Highland Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she has lived on Highland Avenue for 22 years. She indicated that they have sent their name and address to many places, including to manufacturers regarding warranties. She acknowledged that there are only three occupied homes on the street, but still felt it is an inconvenience. She stated there are no homes on the new section and felt there will probably never be any homes fronting it. She did not think there would be any confusion to leave it as Highland Avenue. Scott Dexter, 13203 Highland Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned about the renaming of Highland Avenue and requested that the new street be named Highland Avenue South or some other name. He said he was speaking on behalf of his neighbor, who could not be there because of the lateness of the hour. Headng no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that any time there is a change of area code or zip code, it is inconvenient but it was also a matter of public safety and welfare because of the response of emergency vehicles. He observed that many people move and have to change their address even though it is inconvenient. He said he understood the concerns raised but felt the residents would be better off with a new street name. Commissioners Stewart and Mannedno agreed. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Street Name Change 98-01. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carded Commissioner McNiel felt it is a public safety issue. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that staff had worked closely with Police and the Fire Department. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that people may forget they live on Highland Avenue South when they are under stress when making an emergency call. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, indicated that the name change becomes effective on Apdl 1, 1999. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS G. REVISION TO THE UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAMS FOR TERRA VISTA'TOWN CENTER AND TOWN CENTER SQUARE - LEWIS HOMES - A proposed modification to the existing sign programs for both Terra Vista Town Center and Town Center Square. The existing developments are located along Foothill Boulevard between Haven and Elm Avenues. Debra Meier, Lilbum Corporation, P. O. Box 5741, San Bernardino, presented the staff report and indicated that the applicant had provided updated pages with suggested changes. She outlined the changes: major tenants could have a maximum of 3 wall signs (1 per elevation) plus 3 monument signs; every major tenant sign to be approved by the Design Review Committee, rather Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 13, 1999 than the Planning Commission; and signs for restaurant and theater tenants to have more leeway with respect to colors and styles, subject to City approval. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if the Terra Vista Town Center name will be eliminated. Ms. Meier confirmed that Town Center and Town Center Square would be eliminated as identifying characteristics. Commissioner Stewart felt the report was well prepared. She asked why colors would not require Design Review Committee approval. Ms. Meier responded that so long as the request is within the five approved colors and the letter height and area, the signs would require only staff level approval. Chairman McNiel observed that color and style deviation was subject to City approval and he asked if that would be staff approval. Ms. Meier replied that the intent was to have Design Review Committee approval for those variations. Commissioner Tolstoy said he was sorry to give up the Town Center and Town Center Square identifications. Chairman McNiel commented that he has been working in the City of Industry and Hacienda Heights dudng the past month where signs have every conceivable mix of color. He stated that the signs are virtually unreadable at night. He felt red works best. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct the applicant to submit the proposed revisions to staff for final review. H. DIRECTOR'S REPORT FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI - A review of a request to change the location of placing the La Fourcade arch on Building 5 - APN: 0229- 011-39. Brad Bullet, City Planner, announced that the applicant had requested that the item be continued because of the lateness of the hour. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stewart, to continue Director's Report for Conditional Use Permit 91-24 to January 27, 1999. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried PVBLIC CQMMENT$ There were no public comments at this time. Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 13, 1999 COMMISSION BUSINESS I. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP Commissioner Macias indicated he has taken on additional responsibilities at work and it will be increasingly difficult to make Design Review Comn~ittee meetings, He requested that he be replaced on the Committee. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that the schedule and appointments are subject to the Planning Commission's discretion. He suggested that the meeting date or time could be changed. Chairman McNiel stated he would better know his schedule on Monday. He felt that Commissioner Macias had done a great job on the Design Review Committee and would be missed. Commissioner Stewart volunteered to serve on the committee. Chairman McNiel stated he would try to work his schedule so the current meeting time and date could be maintained. He said they could discuss scheduling later. Mr. Bullet announced that the first meeting of the General Plan Update Task Force will be on January 20, 1999, at 5:00 p.m, ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Mannedno, seconded by Macias to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjoumed at 10:15 p.m. to a workshop immediately following in the Rains Room regarding Pre- Application Reviews 98-12, 98-10, and 98-11. The workshop adjoumed at 12:25 a.m. and those minutes appear separately. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 13, 1999