Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No.1CMINUTES OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:04 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Metze. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Brinley, Bullard, Metze, Wilsey ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Neff. Also present were: City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner De Gange, Engineering Manager O'Donnell and Deputy City Clerk Bryning. MINUTE ACTION MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT WITH COMMISSIONER WILSEY ABSTAINING TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 18, 1993. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the Public Comment Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map No. 27821, Commercial Project No. 93 -4 "Camelot Center Phase II Theater" Variance No. 92 -2. MOVED BY WILSEY, SECONDED BY BULLARD AND APPROVED BY THOSE PRESENT TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 27821, COMMERCIAL PROJECT NO. 93 -4, "CAMELOT CENTER PHASE II THEATER" VARIANCE NO. 92 -2 TO THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1993. Commissioner Neff arrived at 7:08 p.m. 2. Annexation 65, Zone Change 92 -6, and Tentative Tract Map 27317 - Western Desert Corporation. Associate Planner De Gange explained that this item consists of Annexation No. 65 which is a proposal to annex 116 acres into the City of Lake Elsinore including 60 acres associated with Tentative Tract Map 27317. The project also consists of prezoning of 346 acres which includes the 116 acre annexation area of R -H (Residential Hillside) and 230 acres of a portion of the Woodhaven Tract. Also, included in this proposal, is Tentative Tract Map 27317 which proposes to subdivide a 60 acre portion of the project into 135 single - family residential lots ranging in size from 33,600 to 12,000 square feet. Mr. De Gange explained that this tentative tract map received approval from Riverside County on August 2, 1989 and was approved for 98 lots with a 20,000 size square ze wi h the same cir ulation pattern ascurrently propos d t Associate Planner De Gange stated the following special project concerns: Zone Change 92 -6 The R -H and R -A zoning classifications proposed for the project site accommodates the desired zoning for the tentative map area and seem to fit the existing residential areas. Residential Hillside (R-H) is potentially inappropriate for the undeveloped property along Machado and Grand (the Morris property). The Morris property is surrounded on the east and south by single - family residential lots ranging in size from AGENDA ITEM NO. ,AGE /OF. OF // Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1993 Page 2 6,000 to 12,000 square feet. When this property is subdivided it may be the owner's desire to do so with a density similar with the surrounding property. The City's current General Plan land use designation for this property, however, is Low Density Residential which allows for a maximum of three dwelling units per acre (14520 square foot minimum average lot size), subsequently to be consistent with the General Plan the area has been prezoned R -H which allows a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. Tentative Tract Man 27317 Several issues of concern have been raised by neighboring residents in the Woodhaven tract and in the area directly adjacent to the east of the project in neighborhood meetings hosted by the applicant. These concerns include: 1) compatibility of proposed lot densities and sizes with surrounding existing lots; 2) perceived potential loss of equestrian rights; 3) downstream drainage impacts; 4) down slope maintenance along the eastern project boundary; and 5) increased traffic on existing streets. Associate Planner De Gangs further explained that the project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been found not to have any significant impact on the environment or that any impacts will be mitigated. Subsequently, Mitigated Negative Declaration 93 -7 has been prepared and it is recommended by staff, that the Planning Commission 1) Recommend to City Council adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration 93-7; 2) Recommend to City Council commencement of proceedings to annex to the City of Lake Elsinore Annexation No. 65; and 3) Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 92 -6 and Tentative Tract Map 27317 based on the following Findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. and asked if there were any written correspondence. Deputy City Clerk Bryning reported there were 158 pieces of correspondence in opposition to the project on file with the Planning Department. Chairwoman Brinley then asked for those in favor of the project to speak. The following person spoke: Steve Parry, Hamilton Consulting, 3397 Silva Road, STE 320, Dana Point, spoke on behalf of the applicant and gave a brief overview of the project and explained the history of the project. He stated that the applicant has made adjustments to address the concerns of staff and the surrounding residents. Mr. Parry presented exhibits to better define the project. Chairwoman Brinley asked that Mr. Parry to conclude his presentation in order to allow others to address the commission and then he would be called upon after the public hearing is closed to address the issues and concerns of the commission. Steve Parry stated that in closing he felt that by prezoning the surrounding property it will be compatible with what is there now and further stated that the firm has designed the project to mitigate the concerns of the surrounding property owners. AG ivuA v ` %:D. PAGE = OF �I Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1993 Page 3 Chairwoman Brinley then asked for those in opposition to the project to speak. The following persons spoke: Donna Bejarano, 32831 Magdaleno Court, stated her opposition to the project and stated that there are three houses planned behind her home and with two homes as previously planned she would continue to have her view with three there would.be no view. She further addressed drainage problems which she is experiencing due to grading on the land behind her home which had been level previous to the grading. She stated that due to raising the level of the land eight feet behind her home it has created a loss of view as well as lack of privacy and drainage problems. She asked that Condition No. 66 be changed to read that all drainage facilities be complete before units can be occupied. Joseph Archer, 16271 Alvarado Street, spoke in opposition to the project and stated that he did not feel that the project would be compatible to the surrounding area and that a restriction to horses when at this time the surrounding property owners can have any type of livestock. He further cited potential drainage problems and stated that the property was purchased as part of the County area and he felt that it should stay part of the County. Patricia Lee Nolan, 30620 Plumas, spoke in opposition to the project and explained that she did not want to be forced to annex into the City due to an island condition (a potential requirement of LAFCO) and stated that there is possible traffic danger created by this project and that it will their country style living. Allan Knight, 30570 Brookstone, spoke in opposition to the project and stated his concerns regarding the traffic intersections on Grand and the dangerous traffic conditions that this will create. He further stated his concerns regarding equestrian trails and the use of their horses in the area. Lee Bulen, 14949 Toft Street, spoke in opposition to the project and stated that Brookstone Ranch Homeowners Association would like to have their letter of support made part of the record in support of the Woodhaven area as follows: Brookstone Ranch Homeowners Association Steering Committee Steering Committee C/O H. John Kelly, Team Leader 14585 Amorose Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 (909) 678 -5477 1 September, 1993 The Planning Commission 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 RE: Tentative Tract Map 27317 The Western Desert Corporation and: Proposed Annexation X65 Dear Commissioners: On behalf of the Brookstone Ranch Homeowners Association, the Brookstone Ranch Board of Directors and Steering _ IL4. PAGE %5 OF Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1993 Page 4 Committee would like to inform you that we support our neighbors in the Woodhaven area with regard to the following position: The entire north west side of Lake Elsinore and it's adjacent county neighborhoods will be significantly impacted by the Laguna Heights and Casa Suena Projects. All parcels proposed for annexation #65 will be severely affected by traffic noise, flooding, the destruction of the rural residential status, and more. It appears as though the proposal being considered this evening is an attempt by the City of Lake Elsinore in concert with the developers concerned to deny 211 property owners the right to vote on annexation. The City will achieve this by submitting a concurrent application to LAFCO for annexation #65 (The Casa Suena Project) with the Laguna Heights annexation #62. To prevent property owners from being denied their rights to protest annexation, they must be included in annexation #62 which will decide the fate of the entire area. Please respect our wishes as affected property owners by rejecting annexation #65, Tentative Tract Map #27317, and the prezoning proposed for the Woodhaven area. Yours truly, H. John Kelly, Team Leader Lee Bulen, Board President H. John Kelly, 14845 Amorose, spoke in opposition to the project and submitted 46 petitions in opposition to the project. David Locke, 15025 Monty Court, spoke in opposition to the project and questioned the prezoning of the Woodhaven Tract and he stated that he felt that if they are prezoned they should be included in the annexation in order to have a say in the entire project. Ace Vallejos, 15231 Cobre St., spoke in opposition to the project and asked that the General Plan be changed to conform to the surrounding residences. He further stated that street lighting and landscaping assessments are a concern as well as mandatory sewer hook -ups, the ability to have farm animals and all other City restrictions. He further questioned the increase in the number of homes proposed when the original called for 98 not 135 single - family residences. David Buchanan, 30881 Plumas St., spoke in opposition to the project and explained that he and some other people who helped him did an informal survey and ascertained that this project is not wanted and that Woodhaven does not want to be annexed. Richard Bejarano, 32831 Magdaleno Court, spoke in opposition to the project and stated that he felt that this project is not compatible for the area and he stated that the increase in the amount of lots are not acceptable. He stated that the main concern of the surrounding residences is not development, but rather density. Mr. Bejarano stated that the traffic circulation and intersection design could create a problem should there have to be an emergency evacuation for any reason and this should be considered. Jae PAGE OF �� Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1993 Page 5 Vance White, 15009 Eureka, spoke in opposition to the project and explained that he felt that it should be restored to the original 98 houses originally proposed with the County and cited the flooding problems in the area, traffic concerns for Eureka Street and who is going to pay for the costs for improvements to handle the traffic and a traffic study is needed for this area. Vivian Beaumont, 30630 Brookstone Lane, spoke in opposition to the project and stated that she felt that the hearing was an attempt on the City's behalf to destroy the rural areas and force the residents into the City. She further stated that this project would affect the quality of life due to high density and stated her support of Supervisor Bob Buster and explained that he felt that this area should remain rural. Hearing no further requests to address the project, Chairwoman Brinley closed the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley asked the representatives of the applicant to address Mr. White's concern over the traffic study and flooding on Eureka and who is going to provide for the widening of the street and the traffic signal. Mr. Parry stated that he would like to address the flooding issue and explained that drainage is the single largest cost of the project that is a condition of approval of the tract map. Fred Crowe, Keith Companies, explained that the calculations which show the flow from the subdivision to Eureka are approximately one third of the drainage and show that the 100 year storm be maintained within the right -of -way of the street and that the 10 year storm be maintained within the curb. He further explained that as the flows approach Machado it can be at capacity, but at the upper -end it will not be at capacity. Under standard flood control calculations the street is fine for carrying flows. The plans were approved in the County and has the same run -off. He further stated that the flows to Grand Avenue and the western part of the project will be handled by a piping system to the Lake. Mr. Crowe explained that there are no flows that go northerly or come from the north southerly that come from the Alvarado area. Commissioner Wilsey asked what the difference in construction that have been required between this project and the Brookstone project. Mr. Crowe explained that Brookstone left their channels in a natural state and were not conditioned to improve the channels and in his opinion they will continue to have erosion until that problem is addressed. This project will be picking up the westerly side of the Brookstone and Woodhaven property and they will be handled by drainage pipes to the Grand Avenue area. Mr. Crowe stated that there will be approximately $2,000,000 of flood control improvements. Mr. Crowe explained that at the time of the development of Brookstone and Woodhaven there were less strict standards regarding flood control and this project (as an infill) is picking up the expenses of the other developments that did not have to meet current standards. Ate- • • PSG S,OF_L -- Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1993 Page 6 Chairwoman Brinley questioned the concern regarding the bottle- necking of traffic which would make it difficult to do emergency evacuations and the increase in the number of houses in the project. Mr. Parry explained that the change in the economic conditions in the last few years have created a situation where 98 lots would not be economically feasible to create the project, and therefore it was necessary to raise the amount of residences to 135 to meet the costs of the drainage and other conditions of approval. Mr. Parry further addressed the ingress and egress of the project and presented an exhibit and explained that even with the increase in traffic the actual will be approximately one - half of what the streets is designed for. Chairwoman Brinley questioned the lifestyle of the residents and the restrictions regarding animals. Mr. Parry explained that the use for equestrian purposes will continue as well all other types of general livestock. City Planner Leslie defined the code and explained what can be allowed. Chairwoman Brinley then questioned the mandatory services and the tax and assessment issues. Associate Planner De Gange explained that the only raise in the property owners taxes or assessments would be the Lighting and Landscaping Assessment which is off -set by the fact that the property owners would no longer have to pay the assessment for the Ortega Trails Assessment. One Assessment off -sets the other. Mr. Parry explained that the Water District for water and sewer services does not conform to City boundaries and they level their own assessments and this is not ordered or conditioned by the City. He further explained that this also applies to the School District. Chairwoman Brinley questioned the fencing and drainage on Condition No. 66. Ray O'Donnell, Engineering Manager suggested that the condition read: "all drainage facilities should be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy ". City Planner Leslie stated that this is standard policy, but can be added to Condition No. 73. Mr. Crowe explained that a condition can be added to mitigate Mrs. Bejarano concern over the three lots behind her house that there be a lot line adjustment to allow for two houses behind her home which would address lots 13, 14, and 15, which will be Condition No. 33 a. Mr. Crowe asked that the fencing be addressed at the time of the Design Review process. Mr. Wilsey explained that this is addressed in Condition No. 14. Commissioner Neff addressed the traffic circulation and questioned the intersections and the amount of distance between the streets and how it came to be designed in this manner. PAGE- Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1993 Page 7 of heo presented l f landand lot usage exhibit M. Parry explained the necessity for the ingress and egress for proper traffic balance and how the lots were designed for best use of the available land. He further explained the distance which is 300 feet between the intersections and the affect on the flood control underground pipe which makes these streets necessary. Mr. O'Donnell explained that the concern would be the left turn into Plumas and Eureka, but there is a need for these "T" an straight n line hrun reason whihr would o create e intersection a short-cutting through other residential streets which is a situation the City discourages. Commissioner Neff asked why the prezoning was done if the area is not part of the annexation. City Planner Leslie explained that the applicants project, as it stands now, does not have a contiguous boundary with the City, so they can't annex to the City and the area proposed for annexation would be the logical area to draw in with the annexation due to the provision of services, access and drainage impacts. He further explained the reason for the prezoning due to concern by the residents in the area that even though they were not being proposed for this annexation, they may be proposed in a later annexation and wanted to clarify what those areas would be if they were to come into the City through annexation at some point in the future. Mr. Leslie explained that if LAFCO wishes to see this area annexed with the project then the prezoning is in place, although that is not being proposed at this time. Commissioner Neff questioned the slope areas and asked what will happen between existing tracts and this proposed tract. Mr. Parry explained the difference in elevations and how the slopes were addressed. He further stated that the maintenance of the slopes would be done by the property owners. He further addressed drainage from the slope which will drain to the streets. Commissioner Wilsey questioned the fact that this area of slope would end up a "no- man's - land ". Mr. Parry stated that in order to avoid a "no- mans - land" it was decided that the property owner would be responsible. Mr. Parry stated that the opposing slope, or down slope would be part of the easement and the maintenance would be done by a homeowners association. Commissioner Wilsey stated that fencing at top of the slope and address this in Condition No. 14. This should read "Lots 11 through 28 shall have fencing at the top of the slope. This fencing shall be constructed of masonry, decorative block, wrought iron or a combination ". Commissioner Neff asked how the equestrian fits into the project. Mr. Crowe explained the planned equestrian trail and gave a brief overview of how in fits into the trail system. The County trail does not go through the property, but is designed to go along Grand Avenue. This does not inhibit the trail system, but rather adds to it. PACE Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1993 Page 8 Commissioner Wilsey stated that it says that the applicant will dedicate this trail but it does not say that the applicant will build it. Mr. Crowe explained that it is on the street improvement plans. Commissioner Wilsey asked that Condition No. 19 read as follows: "Applicant shall dedicate and construct a multi - purpose trail along Grand Avenue for the purpose of tying into the Riverside County Regional Equestrian Trail system subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. The trail shall be built to the City's standards." Commissioner Neff explained that he had a concern regarding construction traffic and that he would not like to see the traffic go through a residential area which is Eureka and Golondrina St. with a condition to be added as Condition No. 75, to read that "All construction traffic shall be limited to Grand Avenue and prohibited from using Golondrina and Eureka." Commissioner Metze asked what improvements will be done to Grand Avenue. Mr. Crowe explained that the improvements will be standard improvements which will be 38 foot from center line to curb, with construction of curb, sidewalk and equestrian trail and block wall along Grand Avenue. There is also a requirement for road improvement from project boundary to Machado Street. Commissioner Metze asked that since the new flood control regulations that the lesser amount of lots is not feasible. Mr. Crowe stated that is correct. He asked if the flood water on Magdaleno Court will drain through the project. Mr. Crowe confirmed that it would. Commissioner Bullard explained that he has concerns on Grand Avenue and asked if it would be possible to move the street to the right two lots and make a "T" in the project to expand the distance between the intersections. Mr. Crowe explained that this could create the loss of two lots and it can cause problems with the drainage for flood control. Mr. Bullard asked that this be looked into and be brought back at final tract map stage. Mr. Parry stated that he will have his staff look at this concern and look at all the possibilities and bring the findings back to the Commission. Commissioner Bullard asked if this project will create street improvements down to Machado. Mr. Crowe explained that the improvements will end at the tract boundary and a transition of 32 foot of pavement to Machado. He further explained that the County recently did some improvements in that area and if the Morris family's agreement is honored this will be addressed by the County. Commissioner Bullard asked for a condition which would be Condition No. 76 to read as follows: "All right -of -ways associated with this project which undergo any trenching or underground work shall be repaved curb to curb, at the completion of the work subject to the approval of the City Engineer or his designee. Engineering Manager O'Donnell explained that potholing was a problem of the past, but that it is being addressed better now. Mr. Parry stated that his firm did not have a problem with this condition. PAGS__.L 0=_1L Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1993 Page 9 Commissioner Bullard gave the floor to Mr. Terry Byers, 30780 Plumas, explained that he had a concern regarding the construction traffic on Grand Avenue due to the children walking to and from the Withrow Elementary School. There was general discussion in regard to this concern with Mr. Hamilton, a representative of the developer, explaining that this project could go on for 2 years and monitoring would not be an effective method to address the problems. Commissioner Neff stated that the School District should be consulted to address this problem. Chairwoman Brinley consulted Commissioner Neff and amended his Condition No. 75, to read as follows: "Prior to the commencement of construction, the developer shall meet with the Lake Elsinore Unified School District and City staff (Planning and Engineering) to determine if school children accessing the site destined to and from Withrow school will be impacted. If it is determined that the school children will be impacted, appropriate mitigation shall be developed which may include the provision of a crossing guard at the expense of the developer. Commissioner Wilsey stated a concern with the equestrian units and the property owners who abut them. He asked that a condition be added to read as follows: 33 b. "A statement of acknowledgement disclosing that all properties adjacent to the north, northeast, and west have zoning designations which permits the keeping of livestock as an accessory use shall be presented and signed by all perspective home owners within this tract at the time of sale (prior to the close of escrow) . MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY WILSEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 93 -7, ANNEXATION NO. 65, ZONE CHANGE 92 -6 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27317 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS: 14. A masonry or decorative block wall shall be constructed along the entire tract boundary. In situations where views are to be considered a combination of wrought iron and block may be used subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager or his designee. All other fencing shall be provided subject to section 17.14.130 D within the Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance. A wall and /or fencing plan shall be developed which designates where the various fencing types are to be located, i.e., decorative masonry, or a combination wrought iron and decorative masonry prior to Design Review approval. Lots 11 through 28 shall have fencing at the top of the slope. This fencing shall be constructed of masonry, decorative block, wrought iron or a combination. 19. Applicant shall dedicate and construct a multi - purpose trail along Grand Avenue for the purpose of tying into the Riverside County Regional Equestrian Trail system subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. The trail shall be built to the City's standards. 33a. The placement of Lots 11 through 18 on the August 1993, version of TTM 27317 shall be adjusted so that none of the lots within the existing adjacent tract to the east will have more than two lots bordering them. AGENDA ITEM NO. .' PAGE 9 C- �� Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1993 Page 10 33b. A statement of acknowledgement disclosing that all properties adjacent to the north, northeast, and west have zoning designations which permits the keeping of livestock as an accessory use shall be presented and signed by all perspective home owners within this tract at the time of sale (prior to the close of escrow). 66. The Marina Channel shall be extended from Machado Avenue downstream approximately 2000 feet to the existing concrete lined channel maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control District, prior to construction of any unit of Tract 27317. Since this reach of required improvements is one of the projects which will eventually be funded by the Zone 3, Benefit Assessment Flood Control Bond Issue, the developer should plan to execute an agreement with the District to front its construction costs that are in excess of his Area Drainage Fee obligations, with payback via proceeds from the bond issue program over a 3 -year period; the payback to be anticipated in equal annual non - interest bearing amounts initiated 5 years after the tract is approved. 73. The developer, the City and the Riverside County Flood Control District shall enter into an agreement establishing the responsibility for design, construction, inspection, transfer of right -of -way and maintenance for storm drain facilities prior to final map approval. All drainage facilities must be constructed and be operational prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. 75. All construction traffic shall be limited to Grand Avenue and prohibited from using Golondrina and Eureka. Prior to the commencement of construction, the developer shall meet with the Lake Elsinore Unified School District and City staff (Planning and Engineering) to determine if school children accessing the site destined to and from Withrow School pedestrians will be impacted. If it is determined that the school children will be impacted, appropriate mitigation shall be developed which may include the provision of a crossing guard at the expense of the developer. 76. All right -of -ways associated with this project which undergo any trenching or underground work shall be repaved curb to curb, at the completion of the work subject to the approval of the City Engineer or his designee. PLANNING DEPARTMENTIS COMMENTS City Planner Leslie explained that the CUP that was granted for Elsinore Marina West for special events was suppose to return to the Planning Commission for review in six months to determine how long the CUP will be in effect. This item has not been reviewed to date and there have been some questions in regard to the type of events that Elsinore Marina West has had. Mr. Leslie explained that this is to inform you that the issue will be brought before Planning Commission soon. City Planner Leslie explained that there is a new Ordinance amending the Zoning Code regarding fencing in residential tracts of four units or more or less than 12,000 square foot lots where by all side and rear yard fencing now has to be masonry or block wall construction with no exception except by City Council. AGENDA ITEM NO. ._ ` • PAGE 10 C7 �� Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1993 Page 11 Commissioner Neff asked if painted wood fencing was discussed by Council. Mr. Leslie stated that Council specifically stated that they did not want any wood fencing. Chairwoman Brinley confirmed this. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Commented that if the proposed annexation this evening is completed the use of City parks and facilities will not be an issue for them regarding fees which is a positive for that area. Commissioner Neff No comments. Commissioner Metze Commented that there is no mandatory sewer hook -up and that he would like to know who is giving out this erroneous information. Commissioner Wilsey No comments. Chairwoman Brinley No comments. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY WILSEY, SECONDED BY METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 9:51 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Adria L. Bryning, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED, PAM BRINLEY, CHAIRWOMAN AG EM -DA t -D.-'-s 0 PAGE IL OF_ 11