HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-10-86MX#UTES
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMZSSZON
REGULAR I~ETZNG
FEBRUARY 10, 1986
CALL TO ORDER:
7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present: Net1, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy
Absent: #hire (resigned to run for election to Council)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGZA#CE/ZNVOCATIO#
PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC CONCERNS: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes from Planntng Commission meettng January 27, 1986.
Puckett moved, Baker second to approve the Consent Calendar. Morton carried 4-0.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY
B.
C.
0.
DRAFT EIR 85-2
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1a, b, c.
ZONE CHANGE 86-1
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8/EAST TUSTIN
Applicant:
An application filed jointly by the city of Tustin and Montca
Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company.
Location:
An area bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) to the south,
existing residential development in the city of Tustin and the
unincorporated communities of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights to
the west, unincorporated land to the north, and unincorporated
area within the sphere of influence line (Myford Road) for the
city of Irvtne to the east.
Request:
To amend the General Plan, Zoning and enact a specific plan to
permit the development of 7,950 dwelling units, plus
neighborhood commercial, general commercial, mixed use (which
includes commercial, office, research & development) and related
public facilities on 1,740 acres.
Presentation:
Ed Knight, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Minutes
February 10, 1986
page two
After informing the audience of the 3 minute speaking limit, Chair Well opened the
public hearing at 7:43 p.m.
John Asder, 13075 Ranchwood Road, concerned with agriculture preserve withdrawal
areas scheduled immediately to the east of East Tustin and the impact it would have
on the residents of Tustin especially along Future Road.
Jeffrey Oderman, Rutan and Tucker, representative for 100 properties in
unincorporated area west of specific plan area. The plan still has the same defects
as at the last meeting and his clients still have the same concerns involving: the
design and location of the future northward extension of Jamboree Road; the four east
west connector streets; problems with compatibility with existing neighborhoods;
density; and, schools. Requested the Commission continue the matter until staff can
report on the final decisions of staff and Irvine Company representatives regarding
issues raised on the EIR.
Ron White, 14431 Ralntree Rd., submitted a letter dealing with circulation, density
transfer, parks, capital facility construction, community services operating cost,
and obligation to implement mitigation measures,
Larry Ahl, 1871Riverford Rd., Colonial Bible Church, inquired about plans for church
sites
Roy Gold, 11872 Simon Ranch Rd., concerned with the I-5 freeway congestion and the
impact from East Tustin on existing residents. Homes should not be built until there
are sufficient transportation facilities for existing residents.
Karlyn Boppell, 10931Saddlery, expressed concern with the Lower Lake connector road
and the impact of additional traffic on existing neighborhood.
Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chairman Well closed the hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Don Lamm explained this meeting represents a continuation from the last Planning
Commission meeting. The request was made to continue the hearing to allow ample
opportunity to see the final written comments submitted on the EIR. The EIR review
period ended January 31st; all written comments have been received and included in
the document entitled Comments and Responses Section to the East Tustin Specific
Plan. Every written comment submitted has a written answer to it. It is available
otr6~-the public and will be on file at the library, planning department and the police
department. Loaner copies will be available.
Ed Knight explained that one Commission request was to include in the staff report a
summary of basic issues. All the public testimony boiled down to about 17 major
issues which have been addressed in the staff report. In accordance with the MOU
involving the School District and Irvine Company a condition has been proposed for
Section 3 of the Specific Plan which reflects the language of the agreement and talks
about certain financing for schools and the conditions the city will place to ensure
the facilities area constructed. Staff recommended a condition be put into the draft
resolution deleting Racquet Hill Drive from the land use plan. Language has been
added to the draft resolution for the circulation element designating La Colina as a
secondary highway from Browning Avenue to Future Road but restricts the improvement
to only two lanes in the city of Tusttn.
Lois Jeffrey, deputy City Attorney, outlined the action needed by the Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 10, 1986
page three
Don Lamm addressed questions raised as follows:
1) Asder: The property between I-5 and Irvine Blvd., Myford to Browning, came out
of its agricultural preserve status in January 1984. The property north of Irvine
Blvd. and adjoining the county area came out of agricultural preserve January 1,
1986. The remaining strip, Sectors 2 and 6, will be released January 1, 1988. Until
those properties are released from the preserve they cannot be constructed upon.
2) Oderman: He raised the same comments made at the last meeting.
have been raised that are not in the response to comments documents.
No new issues
3) White: His letter is on file with the city and doesn't really raise questions
but makes position statements.
4) Ahl: The entire East Tusttn zoning allows churches subject to a Conditional Use
Permit--tn all of the residential zones and the two commercial zones. It does not
allow them in the mixed use area. All Sectors except Sector 12 would allow churches.
The community concerns that there be adequate churches to serve this area will be
passed on to Council by staff.
5) Gold: Terry Austin explained that this type of project doesn't change the
freeway situation very much. The best that can be done is to support the I-5
widening program.
6) Boppell: Staff has attempted to address this question as many times as possible
in the EIR response to comments and will address it again at the Council level. It
will probably be the number one policy issue for the Council to decide upon in its
relationship with the Board of Supervisors. Staff will continue to look at it.
Don Lamm concluded that since the last meeting staff has met with Mr. Oderman and
property owners in Red Hill Ridge area; the meeting was very constructive. He
outlined the procedures for the Commission to follow.
Commissioner McCarthy expressed concern with Government Code Section 65915 regarding
affordable housing and questioned if the city can waive that requirement. Lois
Jeffrey responded that there can be a development agreement between the city and
developer wherein an automatic density bonus can be waived.
Commissioner McCarthy continued by commenting on paragraph 2.C. of the school
facilities agreement. The Mello Roos Community Facilities District should spell out
that this will be the East Tustin property owners only and the boundaries of the area
designated as East Tustin so that future school boards and future Irvine Company
executives have a clear understanding of just what is designated as East Tusttn.
Lois Jeffrey advised that procedurally the Commission could make a recommendation to
the school district that there be such a change made in the agreement.
Commissioner Puckett is in favor of the EIR.
Commissioner Baker expressed concern with the flooding, density, and the possibility
of the Eastern Corridor being placed inside the specific plan area. He questioned if
it would alter the density of the plan.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 10, 1986
page four
Don Lamm responded that if the Eastern Corridor is planned to be within East Tusttn
it would wipe out all of Sector 7, probably 6 and down into 11 and 12. It would
cause a total rewrite of the specific plan. Whatever land that was deleted for the
corridor or freeway would be taken away from the density count.
Commissioner Baker clarified that there is a mechanism to amend the plan if it
becomes necessary and what is being recommended tonight is strictly a recommendation
and not the final issue.
Chair Wetl opened up the Commission discussion on Resolution No. 2300.
RESOLUTION NO. 2300
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 85-2, PLUS
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES, AS FINAL EIR 85-2.
Commissioner McCarthy recommended the City Council consider the following:
The EIR covers too long a period of 12-15 years. There are too many major areas that
are based on assumptions since the particular areas are still under study, or funding
has not been appropriated or identified such as: 1) Eastern Corridor; 2) Foothill
Corridor; 3) Santa Aha Fwy widening; 4) Bottleneck study; 5) Flood control; 6)
Geologic study; etc. There are too many major concerns of many residents that have
been answered with a lot of verbage but little to no substance. The implementation
of the specific plan should be realized in four to five phases. Each phase should
cover a three year buildout; with each phase a draft EIR will be required. The
expense will be more than satisfied by timely information. Building out East Tusttn
in phases, a current EIR will be more meaningful with more up to date data. A
project of this magnitude will be more easily accepted by the public if they can
review it in phases and observe that each phase has been completed to projected
estimations. The present draft EIR and mitigating responses may have validity for a
three year period.
Commissioner McCarthy moved the Commission not approve Resolution No. 2300, EIR
85-2. {This raised applause from the audience) The motion died for a lack of
second.
Commissioner Puckett stated that the document is good and represents a lot of hours
of work, very controversial; good for the city; agreed with staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded adoption of Resolution 2300 to recommend
approval to the City Council. Motion carried 3-1, McCarthy opposed.
Chair Well opened Commission discussion on Resolution No. 2394.
RESOLUTION NO. 2294
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1a, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT
TEXT AND DIAGRAM OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY THE SANTA
ANA FREEWAY (I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF
TUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE
WEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST; ENCOMPASSING
APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO)
Planning Commission Mtnutes
February 10, 1986
page ftve
Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to recommend adoptton of Resolution No.
2294.
Chair Wetl questioned a discrepancy on page 1.1 of the Specific Plan which reads 1820
acres and 8000 units; it should read 1740 acres and 7950 units. The Resolution
should reflect these changes.
Wetl moved, McCarthy seconded to amend the resolution to reflect 1740 acres and 7950
units and making the specific plan consistent with the Resolution. Motion carried
4-0. Motion to adopt Resolution 2294 carried 4-0.
Chair Wetl opened discussion on Resolution No. 2295
RESOLUTION NO. 2295
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1b, AMENDING THE CIRCULATION
ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY
(I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE
UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST;
UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE LINE {MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST ENCOMPASSING
APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES, COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED
HERETO)
Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2295. Motion
carried 4-0.
Chair Wetl opened discussion on Resolution No. 2296
RESOLUTION NO. 2296
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNDIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1c, AMENDING THE SEISMIC SAFETY
ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY
(1-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE
UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST;
UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE LINE {MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST ENCOMPASSING
APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES, COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHJIBIT "A"A ATTACHED
HERETO).
Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2296.
Chair Wetl moved, Baker seconded to amend the motion regarding Chapter 8 Policies.
a. to add, "slope stability analysis, including identification of bedding planes and
slip planes, the location of ancient landslides and the provision for surface and
sub-surface drainage control."
Tom Smith, Michael Brandman Assoc., explained that the addition suggested is not
unusual from an environmental standpoint. The question staff may address is whether
or not those are appropriate for a policy document such as the seismic safety
element. It would be a very specific engineering detail.
Motion on the amendment carried 4-0. Motion on the original motion carried 4-0.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 10, 1986
page si x
Chair Weil opened discussion on Resolution No. 2299.
RESOLUTION NO. 2299
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL THE REZONING FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY TO PLANNED COMMUNITY/RESIDENTIAL;
PLANNED COMMUNITY/COMMERCIAL; PLANNED COMMUNITY/MIXED USE AND PLANNED
COMMUNITY/COMMUNITY FACILITIES FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5)
TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE
UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST;
UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST ENCOMPASSING
APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES, COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED
HERETO).
Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2299. Motion
carried 4-0.
Chair Wetl opened discussion on Resolution No. 2297.
RESOLUTION NO. 2297
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION, BY RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL, SECTIONS 1.0 AND 2.0 OF THE EAST
TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8)
Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2297. Motion
carried 4-0.
Chair Well opened discussion on Resolution No. 2298.
RESOLUTION NO. 2298
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION, BY ORDINANCE, OR SECTION 3.0 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC
PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8) AND EXHIBIT "C" AS THE LAND USE PLAN.
Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2298.
Chair Wetl requested amendments the motion to reflect changes to Attachment "A" as
fol 1 ows:
7. The word "insured" changed to "issued".
10. Add "except in the case of special events in which case a city permit would be
required".
13. Reword to, "The Tustin Unified School District and The Irvine Company shall enter
into the necessary agreements to enable the school district to obtain financing for
the acquisition, construction and/or use of school facilities necessary to
accommodate the students generated by the East Tustin residential development. Final
approval of the residential maps shall be contingent upon this agreement or in the
absence of such an agreement upon the determination of the City Council." The basic
change gives the City Council the final determination in case there is an impasse
between the school district and the Company. Her main concern is that the school
district has been extremely cooperative to date, but there are 15 years until build
out. This development is in the city and the City Council is the final judge for the
city on any land use issue in the city of Tustin.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 10, 1986
page seven
14. In the Specific Plan, Section 3.0, page 3-19. O. Noise Attenuation. Add: "..
· highways or freeways and also under the Browning Corridor .... " Also add,
"Prior to any approvals for residential development under the.Brownin9 Corridor an
aircraft noise impact study reflectin9 the impacts of single incident events will be
completed and forwarded to the Commission." She is specifically looking for further
noise attenuation measures under the path of the helicopters
Vtnce Mestre, Mestre Greve Associates, noise consultants addressed the methods used
in doing noise studies by different agencies and the problems in doing single event
noise studies· He suggested the city look at specific single event noise levels over
the Browning Corridor and solicit information about what those levels are and how
they interfere with speech levels on the interior of the structure. The city could
then, with that information, put a condition on the homes in the corridor that the
homes be designed to provide a certain amount of attenuation for helicopter noise·He
further recommended the city look at known noise levels that interfere with face to
face conversation (percent intelligibility)· He suggested the city look at interior
noise levels and compare it to how it rates with speech intelligibility.
Chair Wetl then decided to delete the condition proposed at the end of the paragraph
O. but replace it with wording dealing with noise mitigation measures that would
mitigate the helicopter noise.
Commission and staff discussion ensued regarding the mechanisms to accomplish
mitigation measures for helicopter noise. It was decided that Section 3.0, page
3-19, O. including Chair Wetl's first amendment to tnclude the Browning Corridor
covers this issue. It was further decided to delete the addition to the end of
paragraph O.
Chair Wetl continued with amendments:
15. In the specific plan, Page 3-46, C. Residential Off-Street Parking
Requirements. Change the credit for guest on-street parking in categories Medium Low
and Medium Low & High Detached from 100~ credit to 50~ credit.
16. In the specific plan, Page 3-46, 3. Multiple Family (apartments). Change the
allocation for a two bedroom apartment to have two complete spaces rather than 1.8,
plus the .25 guest spaces either covered or uncovered.
Monlca Florian commented on three of the items:
School Agreement: The Company has negotiated and discussed the MOU in good faith
with the district. Obviously, the agreement doesn't bind the city. Since all the
parties are acting in good faith they will continue to work with the district and
find a solution that meets all the needs put on the table.
Noise Attenuation: If the proposed change is passed, the Company could address the
issue and resolve it.
Parking: The Company has some concern in raising the standard and supported the
existing recommendations in the plan.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 10, 1986
page eight
Commissioner Puckett supported the parking plans as they stand.
Commissioner McCarthy questioned how this would affect what has been changed already
in Phase II and the credit for off-street parking.
Don Lamm explained that in the first residential 1.8 was the standard applied to the
residential area for the apartments along the Auto Center/Jamboree Road - 2.0 for the
condominiums and townhome units. The guest parking requirement of .25 space per unit
is the same. The Commission raised the off-street parking for the Medium Low area as
a concern. The Bren Company site plans submitted allocate at least every other house
to have a driveway with parking on it which is equivalent to about 50%.
Chair Well clarified that Page 31 of the Phase II Residential has slightly different
wording, "no more than 50% driveways".
Commissioner Puckett has not seen a parking problem in the Irvtne Company projects;
opposed to 2.0 spaces, agreed with 50%.
Chair Wetl moved, McCarthy seconded to approve and amend Resolution No. 2298 as
outlined above excluding the 2.0 parking spaces for two bedroom units. Motion
carried 4-0.
Chair Well moved, McCarthy seconded to change the parking allocation for the two
bedroom apartment to 2.0 spaces per unit rather than 1.8 space per unit. Motion
carried 3-1, Puckett opposed.
Chair Wetl moved, McCarthy seconded, to approve Resolution No. 2298 with amendments.
Motion carried 4-0.
Chair Wetl recessed the meeting at 9:12 p.m. Convened the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. USE PERMIT 86-1
Applicant:
Loca ti on:
Request:
Thomas Caudtll
17361 Norwood Park Place
Authorization to retain an unauthorized installation of a ten
{10) foot diameter satellite dish antenna.
Presentation:
Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development
Chair Wetl opened the public hearing at 9:32 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak,
she closed the hearing at 9:32 p.m.
McCarthy moved, Baker seconded to receive and file. Motion carried 4-0.
Planntng Commission Mtnutes
February [0, [986
page nt ne
4. USE PERMIT 86-2
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Setsuko Takayagt
14460 Newport Avenue, Suite F
Authorization to obtain an on-site liquor license in conjunction
with a restaurant.
Presentation:
Jeff Davis, Associate Planner
Chair Wetl opened the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak,
she closed the hearing at 9:35 p.m.
Puckett moved, Baker seconded to approve Use Permit 86-2 by the adoption of
Resolution No. 2301. Motion carried 4-0.
5. USE PERMIT 86-5 AND VARIANCE 86-1
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Lincoln Properties
southerly terminus of Newport Avenue.
Authorization to develop 160 multi-family residential rental
units and a request to vary with the required amount of parking
spaces to reduce the number of guest spaces.
Presentation:
Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
Chair Well opened the public hearing at 9:42 p.m. The following people spoke:
John Withers, Lincoln Property Company, made himself available for questions.
Stephen Baker, 14802 Newport #11A, President of Sycamore Gardens Condominiums,
requested no variance be granted for the parking due to the already crowded parking
condition on Newport Avenue.
Don Lamm clarified the parking situation. Right now under present code two spaces
per unit times 160 units would be 320 covered assigned spaces for this project for
the tenants. Guest parking is one for every four units; 40 guest assigned spaces.
Reversing the situation, instead of the variance, the Commission could require the
same 40 guest spaces be required and only the studios be limited to one covered
assigned space per unit. There are 22 studio units and they are 22 spaces short in
asking for the variance. The two bedrooms would have two spaces per unit, the one
bedrooms would have one space per unit and it would still have the 40 guest spaces.
Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chair Well closed the hearing at 10:00 p.m.
McCarthy moved, Baker seconded to approve Use Permit 86-5 and Variance 86-1 by the
adoption of Resolution 2302 with amendments set forth below:
1) The above recommendation by Don Lamm regarding parking shall be included as
Condition 22 in the Resolution.
2) Chair Well requested dropping the option of redwood or cedar set forth in
Condition 1, leaving only masonry wall for sound attenuation and protection from
pollutants from the freeway. It would read, "The development shall be surrounded by
a masonry wall."
3) Chair Well also requested adding Condition 23 in the Resolution that the roofing
material will be of red concrete tile.
Motion carried 4-0.
Planntng Commission Mtnutes
February 10, 1986
page ten
ADIqIMISTRATIVE MATTERS
Old Business
None.
New Business
6. Tentative Tract 11370, Subdivision map for Use Permit 86-5
Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
McCarthy moved, Puckett seconded to approve by the adoption of Resolution 2304.
Motion carried 4-0.
7. Request for General Plan Amendment, 6th Street west of "B" Street
Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
Puckett moved, McCarthy seconded to direct staff to advertise for a public hearing to
include lots in Alternative 1. Motion carried 4-0.
STAFF CONCERNS
8. Oral Report on Council actions of February 3, 1986.
Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commended staff for their handling of East Tustin.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner McCarthy moved, Baker seconded to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. to their next
regularly scheduled meettn9. Motion carried 4-0.
,O0]~N~ ORR, RECOR~DING SECRETARY
~"--- ' CHAIRMAN