Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/20/1992CONTINUED CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PUBLIC HEARING: MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20,1992 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. at the Plan South Coast Air Quality Management District , 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Liz Myers. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Li, Meyer, Vice Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Flamenbaum. Also present were Community Development Director James De5tefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Lloyd Zola, of the Planning Network, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. MATTERS FROM Ken Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star Dr., THE AUDIENCE: stated his concern of the traffic situation resulting from the development within the Country Hills Towne Center, and the existing development in the immediate area. He presented pictures to the Commission of a traffic accident that occurred recently in the area. He also stated that the signs, placed by the Wolff Company, are not to code. CONTINUED CD/DeStefano reported that the Plan for Resource PUBLIC HEARING: Management incorporates the open space element and the conservation element of the General Plan. The Draft General Plan for Resource Management has been developed to Plan create and retain an open space system which will conserve our natural resources, preserve our scenic beauty, promote a healthy community atmosphere, provide open space for outdoor passive/active recreation, and protect the public safety. The document was first reviewed and drafted by GPAC in the middle of 1991, and returned to GPAC for further review the fall of 1991. The Plan for Resource Management was reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission in the latter part of January and the first part of February of 1992. The GPAC proposed and approved the final changes, contained in the document, on April 9, 1992. The Public Hearing was declared opened. The Public Hearing was declared closed. The Commission concurred to review the document page by page. A. Introduction VC/MacBride suggested that bullet three, page 2, of the Introduction, omit the first word "To". B. Existing Conditions April 20, 1992 Page 2 1. Open Space and Visual Resources C/Meyer suggested inserting the word "opportunity" to the third line from the bottom so that it reads "...open space opportunities and visual resources". VC/MacBride stated that the last line of Open Space and Visual Resources is awkward and needs to be reworded. He suggested that it be phrased to read, "The natural slopes and ridges enrich and identify our City.". The Commission concurred. 2. Biological Resources VC/MacBride suggested that' the syntax in bullet one, page 3, last sentence, be corrected to read "...raccoon, coyote and, occasionally, mule deer."; and that the word "of" be deleted from the last sentence of bullet four. Chair/Grothe suggested that the word "plants" be deleted from the last sentence of bullet three. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the last paragraph be worded more strongly. Lloyd Zola suggested the following wording, "There is a potential for sensitive plants.... Undisturbed areas such as Sandstone Canyon are in the historic range of sensitive plants such as .... Rare or endangered animal species are not generally found within the City, although sandy soils, especially in the previously identified natural areas...". The Commission concurred. 3. Parks and Recreation CD/DeStefano explained that the Parks and Recreation Commission, concerned with the potential misunderstanding of a previously prepared matrix regarding usable and unusable, developed and undeveloped, City parkland, suggested the changes in the statement, on the top of page four, that increased the minimum requirement for parklands base upon 1,000 residents. If adopted, it will lead to specific changes to our Quimby fee structure, as well as the requirements for cash contribution, or acreage, for future park development. VC/MacBride suggested that the end of the last sentence, second paragraph, as indicated on page four, be amended to read, "...the need of residents". In regards to the following sentence, April 20, 1992 F-' I Page 3 he questioned the use of the phrase 11470.8 acres of recreational facilities". Lloyd Zola suggested the wording "• ..470.8 acres of recreational land, including 59.4 acres of developed park land". CD/DeStefano explained that the Parks and Recreation Commission tried to identify that although there is 470 acres of land, there is actually substantially less acres per 1,000 residents because of the 133 acres of "The Country's" private parkland, and the 75 additional acres of undeveloped parkland. C/Meyer suggested that the section identify and clarify the parkland available, and the parkland privately held. The actual numbers should be summarized, as indicated in table II.N.2, within the Master Environmental Assessment. The Commission concurred that the numbers should justify that there is a severe shortage of parkland. VC/MacBride suggested that the statement, referring to quasi -public parkland, be amended to "...may require user fees;...". Upon C/Meyer's suggestion, the Commission concurred that the second paragraph from the bottom of page four should be changed to indicate the "distance", that the City is located within regional recreation areas, rather than the "time". 4. Water Resources C/Li requested that the first sentence, second paragraph, be changed to indicate, "Three Valleys Municipal Water District". He also requested that a statement be added about the existing reclaimed water situation. 5. Energy Resources Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the Gas Company and Southern California Edison be changed to refer to public utilities, and the word "its" be changed to "their". VC/MacBride suggested changed to read, "The section...". 6. Solid Waste that the seventh line be strategies provided in this April 20, 1992 Page 4 u� CD/DeStefano explained that this section was rewritten by Troy Butzlaff, the City's Solid Waste expert, before the Parks and Recreation Commission or GPAC's final reviews. VC/MacBride stated that the words "pose" and threaten", in the last paragraph, should be corrected to "poses" and "threatens". 7. Agriculture C/Meyer suggested that it should be spelled out clearly, in the existing conditions, that there isn't any prime soil types in Diamond Bar. Lloyd Zola stated that the last sentence in the j first paragraph indicates that none of these classifications are in Diamond Bar. However, the last sentence of paragraph three should be amended to read, "Therefore, the remaining agricultural (grazing land) within the City will eventually be phased out." 8. Mineral Resources r. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired why oil is not mentioned as one of Diamond Bar's significant mineral resources. Lloyd Zola explained that there is a specific law that this is done by. It will be added in order to clarify this section. VC/MacBride suggested that the second to the last line omit the word "anyway". The Public Hearing was declared opened. The Public Hearing was declared closed. C. Resource Management Issues CD/DeStefano explained that the existing setting is summarized, and then the issue, that needs to be addressed, is identified. 1. Open Space and Visual Resources C/Meyer suggested that the second line to bottom 'd omit the word "local".�� C/Flamenbaum suggested that the sentence, "This is especially true for the future development on the Tres Hermanos,...", be deleted because the locations of these properties are not identified. s n.. ,. April 20, 1992 Page 5 C/Meyer explained that the Park and Recreation Commission included these properties to serve as examples of the intent. The location is identified elsewhere in the document. CD/DeStefano suggested the wording, "This is especially true for the future new development in canyons such as...". The Commission concurred. VC/MacBride inquired why the deleted section, of the Issue Analysis, refers to protecting open space lands, yet the rewritten portion now refers to providing a balanced open space pian. C/Meyer explained that the Parks and Recreation Commission changed the concept because the term "protect" is somewhat ambiguous. "Protect" could mean that a fence is built around the property to keep the public from using it. The Park and Recreation Commission determined that open space should be used to meet the recreational needs of the community. They are trying to balance active recreational activities with the need to preserve certain areas in a more natural state. CD/DeStefano stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission recognized that there are a variety of pressures upon the open space resources within the community. The statement was to address all the different issues in terms of protection, recognizing future development, and a need for additional recreational space. Lloyd Zola suggested the following wording, "There is a need to provide a balanced open space, preservation, and recreation plan...". The Commission concurred. 2. Biological Resources VC/MacBride suggested that the statement, "In addition to the sphere of influence (Tonner Canyon)", be deleted because it may lock the City out of potential sphere of influences. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the sentence be reworded to read, "The City, and it's sphere of influence, contains...". The Commission concurred. Following discussion, the Commission also concurred to delete the last sentence, "There is no trail system linking these facilities...", from this section. 3.Parks and Recreation April 20, 1992 Page 6 VC/MacBride suggested that the word "actively" be omitted from the Issue Analysis. C/Meyer stated that there should be some verbiage that plans for a trail system that would link our open spaces and recreational facilities. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the sentence, deleted from the Biological Resources, could be added here stating, "There is also no trail system linking these facilities together - and to plan for a trail system linking these facilities." 4. Water VC/MacBride suggested that the word "additional" be deleted from the Issue Analysis. He also suggested that the first sentence be amended to read, "Water is a scarce, expensive, and natural resource." 5. Energy VC/MacBride stated that he preferred the deleted sentence, "The City could make itself a laboratory for testing new energy technologies.", over the new sentence added. CD/DeStefano explained that the Parks and Recreation Commission was specifically concerned with opening the door to any technology, especially unknown technology of the future, being testing within our community. VC/MacBride, upon hearing the explanation, accepted the statement as written. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the statement, "work with local utility companies, schools, etc. to", be omitted from the Issue Analysis. 6. Solid Waste VC/MacBride noted that solid waste is not just a regional problem but one of national,state, local, and regional concern. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested amending the first sentence to 'read, "Disposal of solid waste is a significant problem. Recent legislation has... He further suggested that the first sentence be deleted from the Issue Analysis and be amended to read, "The City should outline an integrated waste management... solid wastes, and household hazardous wastes as mandated by State law." April 20, 1992 Page 7 7. Agriculture Chair/Flamenbaum, noting that earlier in the document it was indicated that the City did not have any prime agricultural land, suggested that the Issue Analysis be changed to state, "...to deal with the conversion of grazing lands to other land uses." Chair/Flamenbaum called a recess at 8:25 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:34 p.m. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Greg Hummel, a member of GPAC, residing at 23239 Iron Horse Canyon, referring to page 8, Energy, stated that the intent, of the sentence deleted, was to encourage the City to be progressive and to open the door to the possibility for being a laboratory to alternate energy resources or sources. He requested that the item be reworded to incorporate this concept into the new concept added by the Parks and Recreation. C/Grothe suggested that the item be amended to read, "The City should avail itself of environmentally safe methods of resource conservation, and encourage testing of new technologies." The Commission concurred. The Public Hearing was declared closed. D. Goals, Objectives, and Implementation Strategies Goal 1: VC/MacBride suggested that the word "conserves" be changed to "conserve". Objective 1.1: VC/MacBride stated his concern that the City is assuming the responsibility of preserving visual features visible from the City. We do not have the ability to preserve something beyond our sphere of influence and the City limit. C/Meyer stated that the City does have a responsibility to respond to environmental notification supplied by the County and by adjoining cities. Our response would be couched under the preservation of the hillsides. It is not under our direct control but we do have the obligation to provide input. April 20, 1992 Page 8 Strategy 1.1.1: Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that "within the State Route 57 Scenic Highway corridor" be deleted. Lloyd suggested that the statement be included to the end of subsection 1.1.1.a, to read "...Tres Hermanos property; Upper Sycamore Canyon; Sandstone Canyon; the south end of "The Country" and the State Route 57...." CD/DeStefano stated that GPAC made a specific statement in striking Sandstone Canyon from subsection 1.1.1.a to be replaced by subsection 1.1.1.b. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that subsection l.l.l.b does not fit within strategy 1.1.1 which deals with grading ordinances, and land form contours. He proposed that "a." be eliminated and that strategy 1.1.1 read, " ..and hilltops. Require contour or landform grading... prominent slopes, but this applies, and that this applies, but is not necessarily limited to the Tres Hermanos property, upper Sycamore Canyon, Sandstone Canyon, and Tonner Canyon.". The last sentence, "Such requirements should also ... Tonner Canyon (sphere of influence)", should be deleted because it is just another example. Strategy 1.1.4: Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that, "Retain existing vegetation" be changed to "Preserve to the maximum extent possible, existing vegetation within hillside..."; and add the name of the approving agency to the end of the sentence, "...approved fuel modification program, as approved by...". He further stated that he does not like the way the whole paragraph is written. CD/DeStefano stated that staff will reword it, if the Commission agrees with the overall concept to preserve in the maximum amount possible. The Commission concurred. VC MacBride requested that the paragraph also designate who approves the fuel modification program. Strategy 1.1.5: Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the words "existing vegetation" be changed to "existing significant vegetation". April 20, 1992 Page 9 Strategy 1.1.8: Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the first sentence be changed to read, " ..and hilltops in and adjacent to the City and its sphere of influence.". The remaining sentence, indicating examples, should be deleted, otherwise, all the examples in 1.1.8 should be put in 1.1.1, for consistency. VC/MacBride inquired if there is a reason for putting in examples. CD/DeStefano stated that using examples in the document is helpful in terms of understanding exactly what the legislators had in mind. Chair/Flamenbaum indicated that he will defer to the professional planners. Strategy 1.1.9: Chair/Flamenbaum inquired why this strategy was deleted. Lloyd Zola explained that because it is part of the grading ordinance, it is not necessary to repeat it in the Plan. Chair/Flamenbaum, referring back to the statement regarding the preservation of Sandstone Canyon, stated that he is unsure where it should be placed, but that it should be deleted from this section. CD/DeStefano stated that the statement on top of page II -12, "Replacement of fresh drinking water...", is now Strategy 1.1.9, which replaces the strategy before it. However, after reviewing it again, it should perhaps be relocated. Lloyd Zola suggested that the statement might be better relocated as the eighth bullet in Strategy 1.2.1. The Commission concurred. CD/DeStefano stated that Strategy 1.1.10 now becomes Strategy 1.1.9. C/Meyer suggested that Strategy 1.1.9 should be amended to state, "Enact provisions and techniques that enhance ground water recharge and local water recovery.". The paragraph (a), under it, should then be deleted. C/Grothe, referring to the statement in Strategy 1.1.4, "retaining or preserving existing vegetation within hillside development", stated that any open April 20, 1992 Page 10 space left in a tract development would be better turned into green hillsides then leaving it in it's natural brown dead state. Lloyd Zola noted that the fourth bullet in Strategy 1.1.6 covers the intent of Strategy 1.1.4. Therefore, Strategy 1.1.4 may not be needed. The Commission concurred to delete Strategy 1.1.4, with the exception of the last sentence, "Vegetation may be removed as ...", which should become the fourth bullet of Strategy 1.1.6. Strategy 1.1.7: VC/MacBride suggested that "from within and without the project area" be deleted from the end of the sentence. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Greg Hummel stated that the intent of the statement, "Sandstone Canyon shall be preserved in its present natural state", is to fulfill Goal 1. He suggested that the statement be added as another�� strategy in itself. Martha Brusque, residing at 600 S. Great Bend, noted that people could choose not to maintain their slopes, under the pretense that they are being kept in its natural state, and thus creating a fire hazard. Don Robertson, a member of GPAC, residing at 309 N. Pantero Dr., stated that Sandstone Canyon must be included as one of the strategies in order to satisfy Goal 1. Gary Neely, referring to the statement regarding Sandstone Canyon, stated that since the City doesn't own the property, it will be difficult to preserve it if the developer chooses to develop it. The Public Hearing was declared closed. Lloyd Zola, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry, suggested that the Sandstone Canyon statement can be revised to indicate that "significant and environmental features within Sandstone Canyon shall be preserved in their natural state", and placed as a separate strategy. The Commission discussed whether there should be a specific statement, within the goals or strategies of the Plan, of preserving only Sandstone Canyon. io,.... �_ �, ,,.� M 'C_",T.....,.,-'.�� �� �,, , e,.. •y, I ...!:�I ,�I'�, Y4 '{� April 20, 1992 Page 11 The Commission concurred with the statement, suggested by VC/MacBride, "Preservation of canyon areas in their natural state shall be pursued." The statement should be placed as Strategy 1.2.5, under Objective 1.2. Strategy 1.2.1: C/Meyer suggested that the words "identified sensitive areas" be added to bullet six. Chair/Grothe suggested that the last two bullets be reworded to flow better when reading them. Strategy 1.2.2: C/Meyer suggested that the words "to the extent feasible within " be added after "Preserve existing mature trees and vegetation". VC/MacBride inquired if 1.2.2.d is too specific -in regards to the size of the replacement tree. C/Meyer noted that the strategy seems to be written in ordinance form. He concurred that the strategy is too specific. The Commission concurred to direct staff to rewrite the strategy, preserving the intent but losing as much of the specifics as possible. Lloyd Zola stated that the concept "of allowing removal of vegetation for fuel modification" should be added to strategy 1.2.2.a, in the interest of consistency. Strategy 1.2.3: Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the word "coordinate" be replaced by "participate in". Strategy 1.2.4: Chair/Flamenbaum requested that it be deleted and placed under Strategy 1.2.2. He noted that part of the strategy does not relate to trees at all, and should be reworded. The Commission concurred. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Greg Hummel stated that the General Plan should be specific enough to specify exactly the conditions and goals that the City wants preserved, without exceptions. He suggested that the Commission move April 20, 1992 Page 12 away from being general and get back to being specific. The Public Hearing was declared closed. objective 1.3: Following discussion, C/Meyer suggested the wording, "Maintain a system of public/private recreational facilities...". The Commission concurred. Strategy 1.3.1 In response to VC/MacBride's concern, Lloyd Zola suggested that the strategy be reworded to stated, "The development of a community center, traditional neighborhood parks, and community athletic fields should be pursued." The Commission concurred. VC/MacBride suggested that the word "actively" be deleted from bullet 5, and the word "through" be replaced with "within" in bullet 8. Strategy 1.3.4 C/Meyer stated that the statement is not written as a strategy, and it does not belong as part of the General Plan. It is asking the applicant to submit data that he may or may not have under his control, or have knowledge of. Lloyd Zola suggested the wording "As part of the Development Review process, require verification as to the existence of any potential...". The Commission concurred. Strategy 1.3.7: Chair/Flamenbaum stated that this strategy needs to be reworded to reflect back to the previous statement defining the parkland. Strategy 1.3.9: VC/MacBride suggested that the sentence be amended to read "...which analyzes present and future recreation and park needs.". The first bullet should begin with the word "Develop" rather than "Development". The Public Hearing was declared opened: Martha Brusque stated her concern that though objective 1.3 mentions facilities for residents of April 20, 1992 1 Page 13 all ages, there is no mention of Senior Citizens as an entity. C/Meyer explained that the issue of senior citizens are addressed in the Parks Master_ Plan and the Needs Assessment. Don Robertson stated his concern that the concept, of having sufficient park facilities convenient to all areas in Diamond Bar, is being deleted from Strategy 1.3.7. Chair/Flamenbaum assured Mr. Robertson that the Commission requested staff to repair the sentence so that it is consistent with earlier statements, and that there is no intention of deleting that concept. The Public Hearing was declared closed. Goal 2: C/Meyer suggested that the words, "and not abused", and the words, "that those", be deleted. Strategy 2.1.3: The Commission, upon Chair/Flamenbaum's suggestion that there be a statement added to subsection "g" encouraging the use of recycling lawnmowers, concurred that such a statement would be too specific. Strategy 2.1.4: Chair/ Flamenbaum suggested that the second sentence be amended to read, "Encourage upgrading...". Strategy 2.1.6 CD/DeStefano stated that the first sentence, "Develop and implement... the General Plan", was not intended to be placed in this section, and should be deleted. Strategy 2.1.5: C/Meyer, concerned with the use of the word �—� "ordinance", suggested a more generic term such as "regulations". The Commission concurred. 4 I The Public Hearing was declared opened. The Public Hearing was declared closed. April 20, 1992 Page 14 Strategy 2.2.2: Chair/Flamenbaum, referring to bullet 8, suggested that deciduous trees be better described as "drought tolerant deciduous trees". Lloyd Zola explained that as the reclamation program becomes on line, there will be some differs on the reclaimed water system on the planting plans. It will make no sense to continue the use of drought tolerant plantings when using water out of a treatment plant. The Public Hearing was declared opened. The Public Hearing was declared closed. Objective 2.3: C/Meyer suggested that there should be a statement referring to the Jobs/Housing Balance. Lloyd Zola explained that, given Diamond Bar's built out compared to the City of Industry, the intent was to purposely stay away from the Jobs/Housing Balance. Since the City has few jobs compared to the population, the statement refers to minimizing trips and getting them closer. VC/MacBride suggested that the comma after the word, "patterns" be deleted. Strategy 2.3.1 and 2.3.2: Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the statements within parentheses be deleted. Strategy 2.4.2.a: C/Meyer suggested that the verbiage be amended to be consistent with the concept amended earlier in the document. Lloyd Zola explained that it is not necessary to change the verbiage because the concept of the energy technology being environmentally safe is handled in the objective. VC/MacBride suggested that the sentence in strategy 2.4.2.a. be amended to read, "Cooperate with...", and the sentence in Objective 2.4 be amended to read, "Cooperate with...". The Public Hearing was declared opened. I �.. ..�..._ .,-...-.-.,, o. �M.rr✓.., «..——.....-,..��- - r �� �-,.��,l.ei.lill...lu�lWJ.knllixx,�.�.� i�, r �. ___ �_,_ - _.. _.�.--_..�__-_ April 20, 1992 Page 15 Gary Neely, referring to Strategy 2.3.1, suggested that, as a precursor to the Plan for Physical Mobility, the statement should also make reference to reducing the length of time, and the amount, of vehicular trips. Lloyd Zola suggested that the correct terminology for Strategy 2.3.1 would be, "Land uses in the City will be planned to reduce vehicular miles traveled...". The Commission concurred. Martha Brusque suggested that there should be mention of reducing the amount of noise created by cars, delivery trucks, and garbage trucks. She also informed the Commission that the bus stops are littered and have graffiti all over them. The bus stop at Diamond Bar Blvd. and Sunset Crossing blocks visibility. The City should take responsibility for the action it encouraged. The Public Hearing was declared closed. Strategy 2.5.1: Chair/Flamenbaum stated that there should be some quantification as to how big that commercial or industrial generator might be. The Commission concurred to delete the word "all". VC/MacBride suggested that the last sentence, "Incorporate this element...", should be deleted. Strategy 2.5.9: CD/DeStefano stated that the word "medium" should be amended to "median". Strategy 2.5.10: VC/MacBride suggested that the second sentence be amended to read, "Encourage the provision..." Strategy 2.5.3: VC/MacBride suggested that the sentence be amended to read, "Reduce wasteful packaging of products...". Strategy 2.5.2: VC/MacBride suggested that the last sentence, "Incorporate this element...", should be deleted. April 20, 1992 Page 16 Strategy 2.5.5: VC/MacBride suggested that the words "a multilingual promotional" should be deleted. The Public Hearing was declared opened. The Public Hearing was declared closed. VC/MacBride suggested including another Goal that states that there is a cost factor in achieving our goals and objectives. He suggested the following wording: Goal Three - Identify the financial resources, and the planning methods, which the City will employ, to support the goals and strategies outlined herein. The resources and methods will include open space zoning, public and private acquisition of open space, preferential assessments, conditional use permit exactions, Quimby Act applications to subdivision approvals, provisions for open space and specific plans, Development Agreements, plan unit developments, and a performance zoning ordinance. The Commission, concurring with the intent of VC/MacBride's suggested Goal, discussed if it should be appropriately worded so that it applies to each and every segment, or if there should be a general statement placed at the end of each issue. C/Meyer indicated that the issue of costs is adequately addressed in the Plan for Public Services and Facilities. CD/DeStefano suggested that, if the Commission concurs with the language suggested by VC/MacBride, it can be inserted in the Public Facilities Element. The Commission concurred. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Gary Neely stated that he objects to any references to increasing our taxes, and mention of such should not be encouraged within this document. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to make the corrections, as directed, and to bring the document back, for the Commission's review, in two weeks. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that the Public Hearing is continued to April 27, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. to review the Plan for Public Health and Safety. ANNOUNCEMENTS: CD/DeStefano reported that the Traffic and Transportation Commission (TTC) has been encouraged April 20, 1992 'Page 17 ADJOURNMENT: to attend the public hearing on May 4th, at which time the Commission will be reviewing the Plan for Physical Mobility. He inquired how the Commission would prefer to receive the TTC's comments regarding the Plan for Physical Mobility. Following discussion, the Commission concurred that the TTC should be invited to present their comments, and welcome one of their representatives to specifically summarize whatever data they may have. CD/DeStefano informed the Commission that the City has begun a recruitment process for a new City Engineer/Public Work Director. Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:OOp.m. Respectively, times DeStefano Secretary Attest: �,-."'��� .rte .'�• `Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman