Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0604 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - JUNE 4, 1991 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Bob Downs Rick Erwood Sabby Jonathan Jim Richards Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Jeff Winklepleck Kandy Allen Gregg Holtz Steve Smith Tonya Monroe Phil Drell IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: �r Consideration of the May 21, 1991 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the May 21, 1991 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz indicated there were no pertinent items from the May 23, 1991 city council meeting. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 91-3 - VILLAS AT DESERT FALLS, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment to Lot A, Tract No. 22690-7, in Desert Falls Country Club. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1991 Action• Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. TT 26970 - GEMINI DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 39 acres into 102 single family lots on the north side of Country Club Drive, 1300 feet west of Cook Street. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval . Commission asked for and received clarification regarding traffic issues and access. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. RICK MORELLI, applicant, stated that he did not have too any problems with the conditions. He explained that the access location was for aesthetic purposes, and was he not in favor of a side street entrance shared with commercial uses. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. GARY PIKE, engineer for the Holt Group, 275 N. E1 Cielo Suite D-3 in Palm Springs, described in detail the ingress/egress access and car stacking capacity on Country Club. He also noted that community development department condition no. 2 should be amended to two years, not one year. Staff concurred with the amended to condition no. 2. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1991 Commissioner Jonathan stated that his concerns would not stand in the way of project approval . He suggested some creativity w.w to eliminate having too many ingress/egress points on Country Club and with the amount of traffic in the area, the city should plan for it now. Commissioner Richards shared Commissioner Jonathan' s concerns and noted that this would take care of eight of the five acre parcels that would have had access. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1516, approving TT 26970, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 91-9 - OLIPHANT/LIZZA, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow two restaurants with liquor license totaling 8, 000 square feet ow to be located in the Highway 111 fronting building of a 40, 000 square foot retail/office complex at the northeast corner of Portola Avenue and Highway 111 . Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report. He noted that a letter had been received signed by 20 area residents with concerns relative to location of trash containers; Mr. Drell indicated the proposed restaurants were on Highway 111 and the only trash enclosures used by the restaurant would be in the lot on Highway 111 and none of the enclosures north of Alessandro would be used for the restaurant, which could specifically be conditioned. Second was parking; staff did not expect the traffic to flow into the Alessandro area relative to the restaurant. Staff noted that the residents suggested closing San Marino Circle and making it a cul-de-sac. Also an issue were late night noises in parking lots caused by these uses; staff suggested required valet parking as a possible solution and possibly closing that lot at 9 :00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. Concerns about overhead lot 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1991 lighting; no specific parking lot lighting other than landscape lighting was proposed. The residents did not have objections to the restaurants themselves, but overflow from commercial operations into their neighborhood. Staff stated that it was not their intent • to allow any uses to have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Downs suggested that rather than closing the back lot, make provisions that the front part of it would be left open and the back part near the neighborhood be blocked off. Mr. Drell felt this could be done. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. RICHARD OLIPHANT, 77-900 Avenue of the States, and MR. TONY LIZZA were present. Mr. Oliphant felt that staff had covered the issue of restaurants in these kinds of centers thoroughly. He stated that they were interested in working with their neighbors and had been working with them to assist with their concerns all along. He did not feel the project would impact them because it was only in the building that fronts Highway 111 and Alessandro' s traffic separated the project from the residents as well as a deep parking lot and two additional commercial buildings on the back. He stated that the trash containers for the restaurant were ' associated with the building in the front on Highway 111 and that building was a multiple tenant building with other tenants, including the upstairs portion that would be high-end office. He stated that they would maintain those containers because they were literally at the front door of the other commercial uses in that building. Regarding the parking lot in the back and blocking it off, he stated that Oliphant/Lizza owned only a portion of that lot; the other portion was owned by Ron Gregory and Associates and they would have two buildings on the corner and another 4, 000 square foot building. They couldn' t deny them access to their buildings after hours and those uses would be office uses. He did not feel they would be impacting the parking situation and they had reviewed it with staff. He indicated that as far as blocking San Marino Circle, that had been discussed since the project was approved. The city put up a barricade and eliminated the street being a thoroughfare and the residents liked that and felt the city should make it a 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1991 permanent closure. He did not feel it was their responsibility and their project was not the one w impacting them, but already existing traffic problems. Chairperson Whitlock asked how many parking spaces were in the block containing the two restaurants. Mr. Oliphant replied that there were 49 spaces in the same lot and six spaces in the frontage road on the side. Commission Richards stated that if the two projects were isolated and the back project was owned by someone else and the parking was someone else' s responsibility, how many deficient parking spaces were there in the front lot. Mr. Drell stated that Mr. Gregory was a signatory to the application and as a co-signor of the application the whole project was a part of this proposal. Mr. Oliphant clarified that the corner buildings and the 4,000 square foot building pads were owned by Mr. Gregory and all the parking was co- owned. They have a certain number of allotted parking spaces for their uses that Mr. Oliphant could not deny them the use of. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Richards noted that he was opposed to the original project and felt this was too much building for this area and did not like the idea of going across the street for parking and putting in a restaurant in an area that would be too much. He felt that the developer did an excellent job working with staff and the neighborhood, but was still opposed to the intrusion down Portola with commercial into the residential area and potential lack of sufficient parking. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he shared some of the concerns, but felt the applicant made good use of the location and the proposed restaurant use was not inconsistent with that area. He felt the concerns of the residents were valid and would be worked out, particularly the trash, parking, late night noise and lighting. He did not have a problem with the request. Chairperson Whitlock noted that some conditions needed to be added. After further discussion, Mr. Drell noted that only trash enclosures used adjacent to the Highway 111 building 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1991 would be used by the restaurant. Also, based upon recommendations from Palm Desert Disposal, an additional trash enclosure might be needed for the restaurants in that sometimes the health department required special design for wet garbage, so the condition could be based on Palm Desert Disposal ' s and/or Health Department' s recommendations. Relative to the parking and closure of San Marino, staff felt it should be referred to the technical traffic committee and not be made an imposition on this development. Commissioner Erwood asked for clarification that if the use became a nuisance, with the conditional use permit process it could be brought back to the planning commission. Mr. Drell responded that as a nuisance abatement issue, hours could be regulated for operation and from that obtain compliance relative to noise, and a condition could be added for future noise and/or traffic impacting that neighborhood and call for review of the conditional use permit and the addition of more conditions to address those issues at that time. Commissioner Erwood asked if there was a reason why the hours of operation were not being imposed now. Mr. Drell felt that most restaurants close about 10:00 p.m. and had not been a problem and if a problem developed, conditions would be imposed. Commission concurred. Commissioner Richards asked about valet parking being a condition. Mr. Drell stated that it was a suggestion by the neighborhood and felt that the larger restaurant would provide valet parking at night. Chairperson Whitlock felt that any problem could be solved by having a re- hearing if one occurred and Commissioner Downs wanted the cul- de-sac issue referred to technical traffic committee. Commissioner Jonathan also indicated that the overhead parking lot lighting issue should be addressed. Mr. Drell stated that a condition could be added that only low landscaping lighting be allowed on the rear lot. Mr. Diaz felt that the city' s parking lot lighting standards would assure that there wouldn' t be spillage into the residential area and would not recommend that it not be allowed in case they wish to request it a some time in the future. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was in favor of the project with the addition of the conditions and moved for approval. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1991 Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Richards voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1517, approving CUP 91-9, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Richards voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, referring the possible closure of San Marino Circle to the technical traffic committee. Carried 5-0. C. Case No. PP/CUP 86-50 Amendment - JAMES LAIER, JR. , Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to a precise plan and conditional use permit to convert 232 vacant mobile home spaces within an existing mixed mobile home/recreational vehicle park to 695 RV spaces. With the amendment, the 83 acre facility on the north side of Frank Sinatra 3400 feet east of Cook Street will include 893 RV spaces, 9 mobile home lots and a 9 hole golf course. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report, showed a video presentation, and read a letter that was attached to the staff report in opposition to the request. Staff recommended approval of the project. Mr. Drell clarified that the specific sites could not be sold at this time because there was no subdivision map. He stated that there would be additional landscaping provided because in terms of square footage of the building, each space being turned into three RV spaces, those three RV' s were probably no larger than a single, mobile home and the area of landscaping around the RV would exceed the amount on an individual mobile home. Commissioner Downs noted that in an RV park, they have a pad and grass around it; in a mobile home park they have a pad and rock around it. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1991 Chairperson Whitlock opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. BRUCE ASPINALL, 707 Second Street in Santa Rosa, stated that he was present with Mr. Laier. He indicated that most of the RV area was developed and a small portion of mobile homes had been developed, as well as a central recreation area, the nine hole golf course, the perimeter streets, and landscaping. He stated that the RV portion was successful, but the mobile home portion was a failure and felt this was because of the location to the railroad tracks and I-10. He felt that while an RV did not mind being next to them temporarily, a mobile home did not was to be placed permanently next to the railroad tracks and I-10 because of noise and vibration. He noted that in one of the city' s specific plans this issue was pointed out. He said the Mr. Laier' s proposal was to leave the RV park as it is, leave the recreation area as it is, and add three satellite recreation areas and keep the golf course and everything the same and only take the portion set aside for mobile homes and convert them to RV' s. It would not change the configuration of the site or the amount of developed area, but just the type of unit going on the site. He said there would be an increase in landscaping, which was included in their expanded statement of use; he felt there would be three times the amount of trees planted. He indicated that the conditions of approval were acceptable. Chairperson Whitlock asked what the applicant ' s intention was toward the existing models of the mobile homes; Mr. Aspinalli replied that the existing nine mobile homes would stay. Commissioner Downs asked if the applicant had joined Campgrounds of America, Good Sam, or other organizations of this type; the applicant indicated that he had. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1991 Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1518, approving PP/CUP 86-50 Amendment, subject to conditions. Carried 5-0. D. Case No. PP/CUP 91-4 - JOHN CANAVAN, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and precise plan/conditional use permit to allow construction of a two story 6876 square foot office project with a maximum of 2200 square feet of medical offices at 73-929 Larrea Street in the R-3 zone. Mr. Winklepleck outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval. Staff noted that two story was allowed in the R-3 zone and while the adjacent property built single story, it was allowed two story and would not preclude that property owner from building two story in the future if the single story building were eliminated at any time. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. err MR. CHRIS MCFADDEN, 44-850 Las Palmas Suite A, Palm Desert, stated that the project to the west was a two story R-3 multifamily project. Staff clarified that the lot directly to the west was a one story building, but there was a two story portion in the center that was part of that project. Mr. McFadden did not feel this building would dwarf the single story structure immediately abutting the property line and in the site planning analysis they could have gotten almost 8,000 square feet in this building by locating the entire building in the center with a 26 foot breadth building, but they felt their proposal would compliment the adjoining property as proposed. The property immediately next door was probably 32 feet to 35 feet height in pitch and was an A-frame structure. He stated that their building had been terraced back at that end to not dwarf the single story structure and they left the setback area open to keep the view for the multifamily building. He indicated that on the south 9 *AW MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1991 side of the building they incorporated some architectural relief. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony. Mr. Diaz asked if this project had obtained the Palm Desert Property Owners Association approval. Mr. McFadden replied no. Commissioner Richards expressed concern regarding the two story request sitting next to residential uses and was opposed to the project. He felt this area was supposed to provide a buffer and a lot of care should be taken before development. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Commissioner Richards was talking about the whole building and Commissioner Richards replied specifically the one next to the residents. Commissioner Richards felt that two story was not appropriate for this area or for the size of the lot. Mr. Drell informed commission that this street was in the Palm Desert Property Owners Association, which meant that it had to go to the association for approval. Mr. Diaz recommended continuance until the applicant received approval from the association. "0 Commissioner Richards clarified that the area in question was under a long standing commitment that was made many years ago that the area projects be reviewed by the property owners association and they have a committee that meets and reviews projects. Whether they grant or deny a project sometimes had no effect on the commission' s decision, but it had to be done. Mr. Drell indicated that the restrictions were part of the CC&R ' s, which was a contract between two private parties which the city was not a part of, but cooperation was encouraged by the city. He stated that the city could only enforce its own standards and ordinances. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were any restrictions on outdoor stairways. Mr. Drell indicated that in the professional office zone adjacent to single family, there were restrictions relative to sight and views from second floors. He stated that does not occur in multifamily zones because anyone can build two stories. He indicated that this person could be forced to build single story and if in five years from now the units were removed, a two story building could be requested. He questioned if the current project should be 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1991 penalized because the other owner chose not to avail himself of their two story option. Commission and staff discussed the requirement for elevators versus stairwells. The applicant indicated that in April of 1993 there would be a requirement for elevators. Chairperson Whitlock reopened the public testimony. After further discussion, it was noted that an additional continuance might be needed. Mr. Canavan approached the commission and the commission explained the reason for the continuance. Action• Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, continuing PP/CUP 91-4 to July 2, 1991 . Carried 5-0. E. Case No. CUP 91-8 - SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY CHURCH, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and conditional use permit to allow a 10,306 square foot expansion and remodel to an existing church at 73-251 Hovley Lane. �.r Mr. Winklepleck outlined the salient points of the staff report. Commissioner Jonathan asked why the church looked like it did and Mr. Winklepleck stated that the temporary buildings had been there four or five years and were put in before any of the other subdivisions were around. The applicants of the project indicated that the length of time for the modulars being replaced with permanent structures would take approximately six years until they had the money to do the type of buildings they wanted. Commissioner Richards did not feel staff should condone the dressing up of an illegal building as it stands now and would be more comfortable if they had to add large amounts of landscaping to screen the facility. Mr. Winklepleck stated that one reason the architectural commission was in favor of the proposal was because the landscaping that would hide the buildings. Commission noted that there were many deficiencies, including one fire hydrant being missing that should be done prior to allowing any expansion. The deficiencies should be brought up to date before any more building occurs. Commissioner Downs agreed. Commission and 11 �Yrr MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1991 staff discussed the history of the project and possible landscape requirements. tog Mr. Diaz stated that they would contact the fire marshal and if a violation exists, the building should not be occupied and noted that the original plan might have shown two hydrants. He stated that the commission might wish to condition this present approval that no permits of any type would be issued on this particular project until there was an architectural commission approved landscape plan and landscaping be installed on the existing buildings, so that would be done first. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. STEVE FRANK, the elder of buildings for Southwest Community Church, stated that he had been with the church for the past four years and the fire hydrants and other issues had also been brought to his attention. They were surprised that there was a fire hydrant that was planned and not installed. He stated that when they started the project they came to the city and asked what needed to be done. He indicated that they had endeavored to be a good neighbor. In regards to landscaping, what was approved by the architectural commission was installed along the east property line in a show of good faith that they were moving along that direction. They also installed curbs, which was delayed by the development occurring on the property across the street. He stated that their intent was to upgrade the building and do whatever the city wanted within the financial limitations of their church. He said they wanted to upgrade and be part of a more attractive community. Commissioner Downs asked him if he would be prepared to upgrade all of this before starting the new expansion. Mr. Frank stated that they would do anything requested of them that they could. He said that they had all the fire extinguishers in place and the only thing missing was the fire hydrant, and if it was required, they would do it. Mr. Frank stated that for them they were in the off season and they were trying to proceed on an accelerated schedule and they would like to do the improvements at the same time as the expansion. Commissioner Downs felt the sprinkler system could be done along the with some of the new construction, but all fire extinguishers, putting in the other fire hydrant and deficiencies like those had to be completed first. Commissioner Downs did not feel the project would be delayed 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1991 with the applicant providing the necessary improvements first. Mr. Frank stated that they would do it. Now Commissioner Jonathan felt that a building that size would normally require two hydrants, a sprinkler system, and alarm system and the applicant only -had one hydrant--nothing else. He stated that those requirements were typical for a building of this size with far less people at peak usage time. He was very concerned with this dangerous situation. Commissioner Richards noted that this was an illegal use. The temporary buildings were unsightly and needed to be addressed before any expansion took place. The current property needed to be brought up to code in all respects. Commissioner Erwood felt the priority was on the fire safety and alarm system. He said that in his eight years on the commission he had never seen anything like this. He could not act on the expansion without having the fire safety measures completed. Chairperson Whitlock suggested a continuance until the commission could be assured that the existing condition had been improved upon. MR. DARYL HALL, designer of the project, stated that when he received the fire marshal ' s report, he reviewed it with some members of the church and they were willing to live up to all the fire conditions. He indicated that they were asking to bring the temporary buildings to a permanent code, even though they would only be there a few years, and do a nice facility. He informed commission that he had just completed the Family Life Church in Rancho Mirage. He stated that with the landscaping approved by staff and with commission' s comments it would bring the project up to what the commission wanted the project to be. He wanted to handle the structure of the temporary buildings once they were made permanent, do that work and at the same time do the landscaping. Commissioner Richards felt that if the city' s codes were brought up to standards with those buildings, from his standpoint he felt it would be better to hide the buildings from the street with landscaping, rather than spending extra money on upgrading the modulars and then eventually removing them. If the facility was up to code and was not visible from the street or neighbors, it was not as much of a problem to him. Chairperson Whitlock noted that the project could be hidden by use of landscaping. Commissioner Downs stated that 13 i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1991 they would then be able to use this money on the fire system. Commissioner Jonathan stated that one way for the applicant to move forward was to accept the condition of approval that all the conditions of the fire marshal be completed and provide adequate screening through landscaping and/or slump stone fence so that the temporary structures were not visible. Commissioner Richards also suggested dropping the buildings down. Mr. Hall asked what the commission felt about the modular buildings and Commissioner Richards felt that they couldn't be tied-in with any real buildings and since the buildings were of a temporary nature, he suggested not spending a lot of money on the outside of the buildings and just screen them and this would eliminate spending extra spending costs. Mr. Hall asked if the screening had to be installed before anything was done to the temporaries or if they could do it with the condition that it would be done. Commissioner Richards stated that as long as it was completed before the certificate of occupancy was obtained for anything, even grading, and that those buildings be brought up to the conditions of approval. Mr. Hall stated that they were willing to accept that. Ms. Allen stated that the original condition read that no permits would be issued until the landscaping on the plan as approved by the architectural commission was installed. two Chairperson Whitlock stated that more landscaping was needed to hide the modulars and Commissioner Richards felt a continuance would be in order to allow the applicant to bring in a plan showing how the modulars would be hidden, where the new fire hydrant would be, etc. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that the commission wanted the applicant to come back and show the commission that they have met the concerns; show that the requirements have been done or were contracted to be done and would have no problem meeting them before the Certificate of Occupancy would be issued and have a picture of the landscaping plan with perspectives from Hovley hiding the modulars, and line of sight drawings. Mr. Hall stated that they could immediately start on the fire situation. Mr. Hall agreed with a two week continuance. Mr. Diaz also indicated that they would have to sit down with the fire marshal and find out how a certificate of occupancy could have been issued with only one fire hydrant. MR. FRED WALVERTON, the architect, addressed the commission and indicated that the age of the building had to be taken into consideration and the requirements for 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1991 fire sprinklers at that time. He felt the fire marshal conditions excluding the fire hydrant, appeared to be conditions of today, and they would bring the entire building up to code with fire sprinklers and fire extinguishers. He felt the size of the building might not have needed the fire sprinklers or alarms at that time. Mr. Diaz said that his concern was how the fire hydrant was missed. Mr. Hall stated that if it was necessary to install the fire hydrant they would, but if the fire marshal was willing to accept and was comfortable with the protection that could be provided to the building at this time without the fire hydrant, he would like to install the hydrant, alarm system, and sprinkler system during the course of construction. Commissioner Richards informed the applicant that they should bring a letter from the fire marshal that said everything was fine; they should bring a picture showing the lines of sight; and what would be done with the modular buildings was what commission wanted. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing CUP 91-8 to June 18, 1991 . Carried 5-0. r.r VIII. MISCELLANEOUS None. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS None. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1991 XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adjourning the meeting. Carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m. 41 RAMON A. DIAZ• Ac ary ATTEST: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson /tm 16