minhead.gif (11357 bytes)

Approved 6/28/00

May 31, 2000
JOINT MEETING - LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
AND EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
Eugene City Council Chambers - 6:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Lane County Board of Commissioners: Commissioner Peter Sorenson, presiding with Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison and Cindy Weeldreyer.

PRESENT: Eugene City Council: Mayor Jim Torrey, presiding with Pat Farr, David Kelly, Bobby Lee, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Pape, Gary Rayor and Betty Taylor.

1. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. 5-00 Amending Chapter 10 of Lane Code to Adopt a Revised and Updated Version of the Eugene Land Use Regulations for Application to the Urbanizable Lands Within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses.

Commissioner Peter Sorenson reconvened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners. He introduced the Board Members. He noted that the Board met earlier in the evening to discuss the procedure for the hearing.

Mayor Jim Torrey, City of Eugene, opened the Eugene City Council Meeting. He introduced the council members.

Torrey requested the written record be left open until Monday, June 19, 2000 at 5:00 p.m.

MOTION: to keep the written record open for the City of Eugene until Monday, June 19, 2000 at 5:00 p.m.

Lee MOVED, Taylor SECONDED.

VOTE: 8-0.

MOTION: to keep the written record open for the Lane County Board of Commissioners until Monday, June 19, 2000.

Morrison MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

Torrey explained that there was an opportunity for those who were not able to stay for the entire meeting to go to the East Wing Conference Room, to leave comments or testimony. (See Attachment 1).

Sorenson noted that the Commissioners discussed the procedure for the additional public comment and information opportunities. He complimented the City on the process and said that it was experimental.

Torrey opened the Public Hearing for the City of Eugene. He indicated that the testimony that will be received would be on the Eugene Land Use Code Update and on amendments to Eugene Code Chapter 6 Tree Regulations. He noted the County is present for the Lane Use Code Update and is not dealing with Chapter 6 issues.

Sorenson opened up the Public Hearing for the Lane County Board of Commissions on Ordinance 5-00.

Teresa Bishow, City of Eugene, reported that there are key policy issues to be addressed by the elected officials as they review the draft code. She noted that the primary policy issue is whether the draft code achieves the overall objectives of the code update and implements the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. She commented that another issue the Eugene City Council will be looking at is whether the draft code adequately implements the growth management policies adopted by the City Council in 1998. She added the City conducted an analysis of how the April 2000 draft code helps implement the growth management policies. She noted that following the hearing, the Eugene City Council is scheduled to conduct a series of work sessions to consider the public testimony and changes to the April 2000 draft code. She added that, following action of the Eugene City Council, the Board of County Commissioners will consider this matter. She reported the earliest target date for the new code to take effect is January, 2001.

John Hammer, 1820 Elkhorn, Eugene, requested that motorcycle sales and services be added as either a permitted use or conditionally permitted use in the I-2 zone of the Eugene Code. He stated it would be appropriate because motorcycle sales and services are similar to other uses currently allowed in the I-2 zone. He noted the following uses are allowed in the I-2 zone: agricultural machinery, sales and service, heavy equipment truck and tractor sales, rental and services, recreational vehicles sales and service and repair garages. He said motorcycle sales and services would be consistent with the nature of uses currently allowed in the I-2 zone and would not be interjecting a use inconsistent with the stated description and purpose of the zone. He said--of the uses discussed--both have commercial sales and industrial service components that are similar in businesses associated with them. He added the uses above are also similar to motorcycle sales and services in that they require similar fuels and lubricants and have similar equipment for services upon the product sold or serviced. He said motorcycle sales and services would not interfere with other uses in the I-2 zone and would be compatible with other uses allowed in the I-2 zone. He noted if motorcycle sales and services were allowed in the I-2 zone, it would prevent the potential loss of Mr. Johnson’s business, located at 1110 Ocean Street, zoned I-2 under the current Eugene Code. He added the City had received no complaints on the business or interference with neighboring uses. He asked the elected officials to consider the reasonableness of this request.

Paul Vaughn, 180 E. 11th, Eugene, addressed the code amendments that are opposed to the I-1 campus industrial zone that is named the Special Light Industrial Zone. He said there are five of those zones in Eugene. He had concerns about office uses in the proposed code, as they are ambiguous. He added that the code is moving away from a campus business park.

Connie Berglund, 2577 Harris, Eugene, stated she spent time working on issues around the land use plan. She added that many hundreds of people deserve a great deal of recognition, especially the planning commission. She said voices and concerns were heard that created the ideas and compromises that the plan contains. She asked the elected officials to have clear and open eyes to the impact to each neighborhood of the land use changes. She noted that each neighborhood has a special character, unique housing, buildings, transportation, and differing levels of growth. She said they must be considered so the quality of life and viability can be maintained or improved by the document. She asked the elected officials to tread carefully over the homes of Eugene as they represent the biggest investment of time, energy and money most people will ever make. She said what makes Eugene special are the neighborhoods and they all deserve respect and should not be turned into human sardine cans.

Dorothy Anderson, EWEB Planning Commissioner, read her letter into the record. Please see Attachment "1."

James Cunningham, 1190 W. 26th, Eugene, addressed the Land Use Code on the refinement plans that exist and those that don’t. He said he was concerned when he found out at the end of April the need to codify the refinement plans to make them applicable under new state law. He noted there is the exemption for needed housing that has a potential to gut all of the existing refinement plans. He urged the council to address that issue. He said that he lives in the Friendly Street neighborhood and they don’t have a refinement plan. He said that he recently reviewed the existing refinement plan and came up with 11 pages of policies that have citywide implications. He urged the elected officials to read it and dedicate staff time and the planning commission to creating a citywide refinement plan as a low cost alternative to spending millions of dollars it would take to create a refinement plan for each city neighborhood.

Robert Walker, 2575 Jackson St, Eugene, stated he was opposed to the density issues addressed in the updated code. He said he was opposed to the lowering of minimum lot size in established neighborhoods. He was also opposed to the concept of alley and flag lots. He noted the denser the neighborhood, the more cars, fireplaces, lawn mowers, noise pollution, water lines and sewer increases. He said livability is another issue as lowering the lot size will not contribute to the quality of life in Eugene.

James Seaberry, 3294 Stark St., Santa Clara, complemented the staff. He asked why his property was being rezoned to R1 from RA and asked for the automatic rezoning to be turned down

Russ Svingen, 51 Hileman Lane, Eugene, read his letter into the record. Please see Attachment 2.

Greg McLauchlan, 2401 W. 22nd Avenue, Eugene, thanked everyone for working on the process. He said that the code is far superior to the current one. He urged the elected officials and staff to consider ways in which the code might be significantly improved. He said there are key areas in which the code could be improved that will shape Eugene for decades to come. He referred to the Friends of Eugene document, recommending 62 specific changes. He said that the planning commission adopted five of the 62 changes in one form or another. He noted the others were not adopted because of the rush to get through the final version. He urged the elected officials to consider that they are unnecessarily restrictive towards quality commercial and residential development opportunities in Eugene. He said the area involving commercial development standards could be improved in the C-2, C-3 and general office GO zones. He noted if the code is implemented as written, there will still be zones that resemble the automobile dominated zones on West 11th and Delta Oaks. He suggested requiring all new buildings in such zones to come up to the street scale. He said it would help end the strip mall development. He asked the elected officials to consider the quality of the commercial zones because they are the center of the community’s social and interactive life.

Linda Fuller, 2401 W. 22nd, Eugene, supported the new provisions in LUCU concerning nodal developments, traffic impact analysis and protection of waterways. She thanked everyone on the planning commission and the volunteers. She commented on the inequitable treatment afforded to the 5th Avenue special zone. She said these are nice amenities and are written into the current code as "to be provided at public expense." She said such uses of public funds should not be fixed into the city’s land use code, they should be determined elsewhere through a public process. She found it objectionable that other special area zones that serve a less affluent clientele such as the Blair Boulevard zone, have no public monies written into the code. She said the 5th Street district shouldn’t be singled out for special treatment as all zones deserve equal treatment by the government.

Don McRae, P. O. Box 5860, Eugene, read a letter into the record. Please see Attachment 3.

Tom Slocum, 1950 Graham Drive, Eugene, said with regard to the commercial zones in the April draft, there is a long way to go. He noted that there is a limited amount of commercial property available. He said the original draft allowed housing in C-1 and C-2 zones on the ground floor. He explained that any housing that is done on top of a commercial building should be a commercial zone and treated as such. He said the areas outside of the downtown core would be affected by floor area ratios.

Terry Connelly, 1461 Willamette St., Eugene, represented the Eugene Chamber of Commerce. He said the chamber had been involved in the land use code update process from the outset. He said they presented testimony and input all along. He asked the elected officials to listen to what chamber members and other citizens have to say. He said that the April 2000 draft would result in many unintended consequences in the pursuit of urban development. He said it is the cumulative effect of standards that will deter or physically prevent the type of development to support the existing Eugene urban growth boundary and growth management policies. He said they have concerns about allowing single family housing in C-1 and C-2 zones.

Mike Roberts, 1919 Myers Road, Eugene, read his letter into the record. See Attachment 4. He urged the elected officials to direct staff to do an analysis on a site-by-site basis within Eugene to see if the outcome from the land use code draft is what the community wants.

Dan Montgomery, discussed the design standards for multi-family housing. He said they were counterproductive in producing more compact urban development and higher density. He noted that under the new requirements, 20% of the site is required to be open space. He added under LUCU, every ground floor unit must have 100 feet of private open space. He commented that a building like the 5th Street Public Market would not meet the requirement.

Philip Farrington, 132 E. Broadway, Eugene, read his letter into the record. Please see Attachment 5.

Milton Oiler, 845 Willamette, Eugene, echoed Paul Vaughn’s comments with regard to I-1 zones. He agreed with Dan Montgomery on landscaping and also agreed with Larry Singen, Don McCrae, Tom Slocum, Terry Connerly, and Michael Roberts. He said more time needs to be spent on lot analysis to see what could be done under the LUCU. He added it will be overburdensome and will slow down development and reduce tax revenues. He suggested making it easier to get permitting.

Rob Zako, 1280 B East 28th Avenue, stated he had not had a chance to read the document. He noted that he had read the Eugene Growth Management Polices and he supports them. He asked the elected officials to get the policies implemented.

Shawn Boles, 105 N. Adams, said there is an absence of a design review committee that is strong enough to provide the community with a quality of life that it deserves. He suggested having staff ask the elected officials if it is possible to establish a design review committee at the neighborhood level. He said that planning is a natural consequence of the growth policies that have been adopted. He said those who wish growth to occur should pay for planning by the permit process. He asked the elected officials to give careful consideration to an idea and design committee.

Alan Yordy, P. O. Box 79, Eugene, represented Peace Health. He said that medical clinics have been singled out in the proposed code revisions that would create additional requirement for medical clinics. He noted that 60% of the square footage of expansion needs to be residential space. He interpreted that to mean that up to 60% of the square footage would need to be dedicated to an apartment or rental-type residential space. He believed that would eliminate any further expansion or densification of the clinics. He said their proposed solution is to "grandfather" existing clinics in the written documentation they had provided. He said that other non-clinic uses could go into C-2 spaces without conditional use.

Tamara Miller, P.O. Box 10905, Eugene, represented Peace Health. She reported that Peace Health currently owns a 22-acre parcel on Goodpasture Island Road that is vacant. She said the Land Use Code Update as written, limit’s Peace Health’s use of the property for future development of retirement living and development of medical facilities on that site. She added the code is inflexible and doesn’t achieve density in residential zones. She said that Peace Health owns approximately 38 acres of property near Coburg and Crescent that is zoned residential but is allowed to be developed in medical facilities. She said that in the event the city will not consider doing away with the 60/40 requirement this site should be totally exempted as the Coburg Crescent site was from the 60/40 residential requirement. She said to place residential use above clinical use is not compatible. She said they question whether it is in the community’s best interest to encourage medical providers like Peace Health to compete with existing businesses by extending the scope of their mission to included housing. She noted that Peace Health wants to work in partnership with the City of Eugene to provide comprehensive accessible and affordable medical services to the community.

Jim Weston, P. O. Box 10905, Eugene, stated he represents Peace Health and sees no reason to change the requirements for clinics. He asked to extend the current code permitting clinics in commercial zones to hospitals, rather than the other way around. He proposed limiting the 10,000 square foot distinction in permitting other medical health treatment facilities in commercially zoned properties.

Mitzi Colebath, 2230 Churchill St, Eugene, reported that at the meeting of the Churchill Area Neighborhoods, the Executive Board voted to forward to the Eugene City Council a recommendation that they send the land use code update to the Eugene Planning Commission for further study. She added the work includes refinement plans as listed land use decisions to study on citywide neighborhood refinement criteria. She said that the River Road/Santa Clara Refinement Plan was not provided and needs to be addressed in the process. She stated they were given three days before the planning commission to review this. She said that the citywide neighborhoods need to have the plans in place to assist them. She requested staff to respond in writing to the Churchill Area neighbors on why the zoning RA was being changed to R1.

Dave Pedersen, P. O Box 10543 Eugene, said the proposed change in the C-1 would have individual businesses limited to no more than 5,000 square feet of floor area. He said the planning commission wants uses in the scale of neighborhoods. He noted the problem is application of the C-1 zone around the city. He submitted alternative solutions.

Tom McDonell, 2795 Chuckanut, Eugene, stated he owns the Mr. Lustre business that will close on July 15, 2000 because he had no land to relocate on and his lease will not be renewed. He noted that he came to the City Council in January out of frustration. He was told that there is 185 acres of land available in C-2. He asked the City of Eugene to send him a copy of where the land was available. He noted there was actually only a few acres of land that he could build on and they were in poor locations. He added that 35 employees would be unemployed. He asked the elected officials to analyze the remaining land.

Robin Ingram, 4370 Willamette, Eugene, asked the elected officials not to adopt the April 2000 planning commission draft. She stated that the current draft represents a fractured reworking of old ideas and principles. She wanted a land use plan that is based on a new paradigm whose intentions are more in harmony with nature. She asked that an independent body design a new land use plan that would provide for the reinvigoration of the local climate, geology, hydrology and indigenous ecosystems.

Rod Johnson, 3535 Wilshire, stated with regard to Cycle Parts Triumph, that motorcycle sales and service should be included into I-2 zoning. He noted that other shops that sell motorcycle parts and accessories are already operating in industrial 2 zoning. He said it has less impact on businesses in industrial zoning than commercial zoning.

Charles Biggs, 2405 Willakenzie Road, Eugene, said his concern was with the refinement plans becoming obsolete if they are not included in the LUCU draft. He said his primary concern is the East Alton Baker Park Plan and the Willakenzie Plan. He said the citizens created the plans to ensure livability. He stated if they don’t incorporate them into the plan, the citizens will be worse off. He added that parks and open space have no on- or offsite parking required for it. He noted that there is no requirement about houses fronting a major street. He hoped that mixed-use development with multi-level parking garages doesn’t reoccur.

Paul Niedermeyer, 830 W. 22nd Avenue, stated he was finishing two properties in the Friendly Street area. He said he cares about the neighborhood and believes he is improving it. He said neighbors have become supportive about his projects. He noted that the latest draft of the code intends to cripple anyone trying to build on alley and flag lots. He recommends a special provision for cottage developments that would apply to alley and flag lots and other small developments.

Mike Butler, 836 McKenzie Crest Drive, Springfield, stated his company has built over 500 houses in Lane County. He said he was in support of the solar access code provisions. He said the public, city staff and the planning commission developed the changes after numerous hours of input. He said staff has developed codes that are workable by all parties involved. He encouraged the elected officials to accept the solar access changes.

Roxy Cueller, 1255 Pearl Street, Eugene, stated that most changes are improvements over current codes. She asked for the elected officials to think about what the goal is that is be achieved by the change. She said if the goal is to have nodal development that minimizes the use of the automobile and maximizes alternative transportation, 10 units per net acre is a good minimum, but there won’t be a lot of R1 within nodal if that is what they are attempting as there is not a lot of market for houses built at a density greater than 10 units per net acre. She added if the goal is to provide a means to reduce the need to expand the urban growth boundary. She asked the elected officials to think about the consequences under the tree ordinance for the critical root zone. She asked the elected officials to keep affordability in mind if there will be an additional fee assessment for small items.

Peg Waite, 34152 Del Monte, thanked the elected officials for the new document and asked that they support it. She said that future livability is more important than money. She said she supports the performance code instead of a prescription code. She supported Paul Vaughn’s remarks.

Holly Warren, 2490 Pershing, Eugene, stated she was a small developer. She addressed affordability. She said there needs to be more flexibility. She requested a variance allowed on hardship cases. She asked to give thought to urban wildlife. She suggested that once this gets instituted there be a moratorium on the zone change fee so people can get small lots into compliance.

Linda Lu, Co-Chair of the Neighborhood Leader Council read her letter into the record. Please see Attachment 6.

Jan Wastmann, 2645, Riverview, Eugene, stated the draft represents hard work by city staff, planning commissions and various community groups. He said the draft cannot be considered a finished document, as there are many areas where revisions are necessary before the land use code update could be complete. He noted the policies reflect changing priorities in the community concerning development. He urged the elected officials as they review draft to think about sections that still need work and to provide direction on how the growth management policies could be better incorporated into the land use code update. He supported the previous speaker. He said the elected officials need to look at this as manufacturing uses that generate air pollution and require a permit from LRAPA or DEQ should not be permitted in light industrial zones.

Linda Sampson, 1270 Irvington Dr. Eugene, stated she has a problem with a development. She noted that a developer put an easement in her backyard after she asked him not to. She said her trees were cut down.

David Sohm, 720 Mountain View Dr., Eugene, announced that he makes his living as a real estate appraiser. He said it was hard to make sense out of the land use code. He said there are problems with access to the streets and intersections. He echoed what Mike Roberts, Dave Pedersen and Dan Montgomery had said.

John Lauch, 714 West 4th Street, Eugene, read a letter into the record by Superintendent George Russell and submitted his own letter. Please see Attachment 7.

Greg Giesy, 42 W. 19th, Eugene, represented the Oregon Landscape Contractors Association. He said they have been working on the tree ordinance. He noted the switch to LUCU has made the ordinance more confusing and difficult to read. He said they would like to see the wording improved. He said they are seeing landscapes that are two years old dying from water retention. He said soil compaction is not allowed in other cities.

John Corliss, 2998 Washington Street, Eugene, stated he wants changes made that make the city a place to live for the rest of his life. He wanted to make sure that once decisions are made that they are carried out.

John Kline, 693 W. 10th Avenue, Eugene, spoke on changes in Chapter 9. He said the Eugene Tree foundation recommends a strengthening of Chapter 9 language concerning preservation and protection of significant on-site vegetation. He supported the comments of the Oregon Landscape Contractors Association on root compaction and development. He said trees must be protected and preserved to enhance the livability of the Eugene community and its neighborhoods. He wanted language establishing a percentage of trees to be retained and protected on site.

Robert Milks, 388 Dellwood Drive, Eugene, stated he is adjacent to the clear-cut that took place in the South Hills. He said there needs to be no exemptions from requiring a permit for tree removal for property owners, businesses and developers in the South Hills. He added it should be part of the CCR’s that show a unique coverage for that area.

Jonathan Brandt, 1821 Washington, Eugene, stated he is with the Eugene Tree Foundation. He supported getting the tree ordinance portion of the land use back to the City Council for action as soon as possible. He supported Shawn Boles and his recommendation for design standards. He supports the sections in the LUCU that pertain to landscaping requirements of 15% and 20% for certain types of lots. He commented that the key issue is livability and rushing into dense development will create problems

Lee Beyer, 1401 Willamette St. Eugene, read his letter into the record. Please see Attachment 8.

Kevin Matthews, 31728 Owl Road, President, Southeast Neighbors, stated he was representing neighborhood representation and a green space preservation slate. He said there is good work going into LUCU, but the code is not ready for approval. He added the code is not at a level where a few changes by work session would get it ready for approval. He said the public doesn’t know what is in this code. He said there needs to be an impact analysis.

David Hinkley, 1308 Jefferson, Eugene, stated his appreciation of the effort of the planning commission and the city. He noted that this version is a marked improvement of the others but it is not finished. He said the changes between this version and the November version are 200 pages and haven’t been reviewed. He stated that Eugene is a city and it needs to be developed on an urban, not a suburban model. He suggested a 7,260 maximum lot size. He noted that downtown is unique and needs its own zoning classification separate from major shopping centers. He said that every decision needs to have a local appeals step.

Tom Corey, 3666 West 11th, Eugene, stated he is a retired real estate appraiser. He said he owns the property at the south east corner of West 11 and Bailey Hill Road. He suggested that 10 uses be added back to the C-4 zone uses as they had been taken away over the past 11 years. He said it is getting harder to lease and conform to the zoning. He said he investigated rezoning to C-2 but there are two obsolete resolutions that were passed in 1984 that prohibit his proceeding with the zoning to C-2: Resolutions 3862 and 3885. He asked the city council to repeal these ordinances.

Doug McKay, 2350 Oakmont Way, Eugene, said he was concerned about the building orientation entrances and the maximum front yard setbacks. He noted that most retailers are attempting to satisfy the majority of their customers. He said over 90% of all customers of retail areas come by auto and they want to park in front of the store. He said entrances on the primary area would end with an entrance through a stockroom area. He said that the orientation problem would discourage redevelopment of existing areas and his Oakway Center is a good example. He said they are in the midst of a remodeling that will continue for two to three years, but if this code is adopted, everything that they would be doing would be non-conforming and would cause problems in financing and finding new tenants for the remainder of the development.

Lisa-Marie Di Vincent, 2955 McKendrick St., Eugene, said neighborhoods still exist and the leaders care enough to study these lengthy documents. She is concerned about the effects on her neighborhood. She said that Section 9.8 needs to be returned to the planning commission and city staff so the neighborhood refinement plans can be properly included. She supported all of the Friends of Eugene’s recommendations.

Mark Baker, 369 E. 15th, Eugene, represented Oregon Office of Energy, charged with the promoting the wise use of energy in Oregon. He asked that solar access provisions be removed outright from R-3, R-4, C-1, GO and PL zones. He asked that the solar access provisions that protect against future shade protection also be removed, that they would be exempted from steep south facing slopes and solar performance standards would be eliminated for PUDs. He said the outcome of the solar access code changes would discriminate protections based on income level. He said the proposed changes to R-1 and R-2 zones have a negative impact on solar access. He said the changes are in direct opposition to initiatives in the state and national level designed to increase the use of solar energy.

Evelyn McConnaughey, 1653 Fairmount, Eugene, read her letter into the record. Please see Attachment 9.

Bayard McConnaughey, 1653 Fairmount, Eugene, read his letter into the Record. Please see Attachment 10.

Brian Hawley, 3370 Bedix Avenue, Eugene, opposed any changes to the solar access ordinance that would weaken it. He said solar energy will be relied upon heavily in the future and anything done now has far reaching impact. He encouraged the use of the motorcycle shop on West 11th.

Vickie Tilberry, 2449 Kalmia, Eugene, discussed having more private ambulance service in Eugene and Springfield.

Sorenson mentioned that they tried an experimental procedure and wanted an analysis of how the experiment worked out. He suggested people could testify in front of a television camera and court reporter so the testimony could be read right back. He said the elected officials need to answer the questions about the plan being fair and good for Eugene and until that is answered, more work needs to be done.

Betty Taylor, City Councilor, City of Eugene, stated there needs to be more time to consider a number of things that have been brought up. She did not want to take up more time with the tree ordinance, as it should be acted upon quickly.

Weeldreyer stated the Jeffries (who couldn’t be present) submitted written testimony about their intent to expand the River Ridge Golf Course and they maintain that under the current draft 2000 plan, they are not permitted to expand the golf course but could conduct a sand and gravel operation instead. She said flexibility is key and that issue needs to be addressed by staff.

Torrey reiterated that anyone wishing to add additional comments has until June 19, 2000. He noted that the City Council will take this up in a work session on July 19 at 5:30 p.m. at the McNutt Room. He closed the Public Hearing on behalf of the City of Eugene and adjourned the Eugene City Council meeting at 9:10 p.m.

Sorenson closed the Public Hearing for the Lane County Board of Commissioners .

MOTION: to approve a Third Reading and Deliberation on Ordinance 5-00 for Wednesday, October 11, 2000 at Harris Hall.

Weeldreyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

VOTE: 4-0 (Dwyer left early).

Sorenson adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.

Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices