HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/07/1975A G E N D: A:
PETALUMA CITY PLANNING"
COMMISSION " .. „ OCTOBER 7' 1975
r REGULAR' MEETING
P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,,
CITY, HALL ' PETALUMA , CALIFORNIA
rPLEDGE'. ALLEGIANCE, TO THE' FLAG
ROLL CALL. Comm. Bond Head Hill' z "a Po
: oss Horc pp
Wat e r s
,
Wri ht
STAFF,:, Dennis,$oehlje, Planning, Director,,
.� APPROVAL OFI: "MINUTES` n
ELECTION' OF" !OFFIGER$�
CORRESPONDENCE`
„
NSENT_ CAL
CO, I L , ENDAR'•
.
1 �� lnc. „ � Si ..,design
to ment Co,
"
P .:
consideration for a r=
opo "sed lu` g and leatng
supply b'uilding "'to - e d _ , _ iol6' Lakeville:St,.
b" locate at
2) Site design review
g
• y
,,' g ,consider-
o a sto wilding ° `
atons` forransad'dtioi " ' raebJ
.I' ` °
�to 'bh'6. feed ' o elation 'located at.
3.0 Lakeville Street..
HARMAN~ MANAGEMENT CQ �:
"EI evaluation ;and' 's tee ' d esi �' ` .
Q gn ; � review coisiderat "io "ns fo,ri'
EIQ
.; ,
Kentucky
P. P parking Y
r W C �4hgtoh
k 701
SITE DESIGN
AREVI]m
Fried at E e treet.
I , FISK TERMITE CONTROL -
considerat�,o satin set back
_ 4 � ,
1 V e n from existing
VARIANCE'V3 -75 & SITE
, riance
re uireinents L zone: '
q. _
DESIGN* REVIEW:°
I ,
2 Site did i n •''review for` an 'existing ,single-, family
) $
- sidential ,structure to 'bgl converted tol,an, M -L
office use located at 587 Lakeville'Street.
I
1
of'prehminaryl plans fo r the specific
1
PREL MINARY
ProSectrAr: :eon
a .for iedewelo, ment ur oses desi nated
AREAL PLANS ~`e " '
wi4tlin, the '`delineat'e'd'; kedevelopment! Survey A
: I
d'7 4� ,
GENERAL° PLAN &'
g, d =ifica
n .of 'Public H ti
ao cnsiderg o ons
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN ,
to and Enrin
Plan 'i o
,���,,,� ,�PL "AN 'MODIFI�CATTONS ; .
effect conform it between .=
" y the eneral ".Plan,nEnvironmen
,
,. 6n
t si n Plan and the 2
al De ng Ordinance:
ADJOURNMENT :
I
-. .
0 '= ,' .
,+ t-r (i<i:,:4ab 9018 .,. at mulr:
7'/ y.2NQ
n 1 ,::
.0 qir jj t .cl MCI is 4,T!: 4'+ ni ;71t C' =! jZa:x t 1 0 lr"1gy2
'
.. �r:�:l.: tr ;J. .w
ogn {{
T �l f �.0 d t C J `
Of F in 1 1 R M~ 43 pQ,,I
b';°} 3psialla `_'da w
GE
LV. 1 i c "�. _ .. i C r . ..r , i
e� s < P'� ti l Ne : Y��.. ? S
.J
.� .rfJ 3.:i�lo-...t�..lJ��+ 'i' f%� °3
: > ii _ .f:...
.:
lr T • 1 ° Y '+ ..,u i ,., a ,'' i. ,_. t S. ? , Y- �_t'� fr iql un . _ z q ,h - 'Tt u ' heyoqm t dj
<R (/,, 3 1 174. r` • t i s • -° r
.
i.Ff. A _.,, �� t.-'
aT r• rc! r n AW
.f.. f t L .f ,-e r l �_? L `e "r..�.Y ° -.3 r "F; d� } ?; ^' f ia;l �, ;; 1Lt .t 'r.7r:. ..',.'1 r � �-
,..
,�.t. = " °�,. ,. T 1Nf�JJ
YY111.
1,'S
.� ��r •3s & >=1OV+(r
rt}'-
f
J� .,'�Y ,. �1. .:�w�.4jG >(t +. �� 1. +..JS� rk.a�.�, ; v t 1��t�
A� .! { `7 �.3,C'e C '_$...3 .. '. �- i•�T't l.i' 4i lti ��.iy rl ..,ttt 1. b G3't c L1:! )T>':• '{ � .. 3'4J '!
19 l ^ 1 1 �YM1,�.:
t •. �i 11 4•�B .� ; „r,T'�Y Y.t t� Jtt '�`�'�w.o ��ti'3 .]'q 51 '�'� 1. •!x 17 �.'�
.•+��, t..f ... {t ' r .! ,a "t ,�: .1'
l,. ?kn f,t T ) °;. WI L,
t'RM.>
i -.. .,r. ia,,,.l:; = S ° ;e :r5t,,. �+..f '�;:e..f:"Ct�i {.: •:�tr � a".'.s..x r,t
� •^ _,..1'.. .kt�, °.<
r
l.� 5p; i'nv W C si r:
Ma y '31.1 p t r ..t .� -.4} 4.
�:a1.
,a..�.t . 11 '! 3
2l Gt , Il. r , y F.'
. C1 •x 11 S ..
i
M, I'" N U T E 5`
I .
-P LUMAn, CITY PLANNING,
COMMISSION' OCTOBER 7, 1975
'I.
I , a
LAR MEETING
r .
I Ip
�
7: 30' P.M. 14
I
CITY ` COUNCIL CH'AM'BERS
RN
CITY HALL PETQLUMA CALIFORNIA
P, Comm
R'ESENT: . Bo
Head, Hilli,go,ss, Horciza,, Popp, Wr`ght „
Arrived "at.,
7::5'5: p.m,
a
.„
w 'A'BSENTP: Comm. Waters' ,I „
d l`_I „
I A a B r I oeh Y Ip � ,,m
STAFF �Denni ' s' Bl� e; 41 Plann�ing, Director
III ,
AP PROVAt OF MI NUTES:
I
16, 197 ;
t ember were'
es o p' e approved as submitted.
The minutes �f' Se t S
I „ r
,
. OFFICER I S
ELECTION OF
A motion, was made and seconded to of office rs
_
, defer.the,, , election
.until the end of the meeting, Al votesl•were in the affirmative,.
,. ,•..
RRE
CO SPONDENCE
, jd lip
F '
) Mr oehlje adv that .t had been observed that the Al S- tack
1 sed
B Wreck
t
Auto ing 'Company, 1oca,te reef, was not
d,at &50 Lakeville St
II I. I
i ondi, existing Use Permit..
n c lfance'�with the e bons o t ei letter
I
As specified the Zoning Ordinance, a had therefore
ied in
Iw
'been fo;rwar.ded notifying the' pd ittee that he has 20 days from
'the` receipt of the notif.'icat oii t'o i'comp'ly with the conditions
.
of the, If I S, achieved,. n, these
we
icompliance etor” 1 the n notify the permittee
t annin Dirs shal
20 days the,Piann g
, „
se' Peirm'it is su' p ed„ and the Use Permit shall 'be
that his'U end
" revoked if;, the °;,violation,° has riot been remedied within 20 ,days '
-
from the notice of suspension This suspension of the Use
° I I
I ;
Permit may be��appea -led to the °Planning Commission." - with -in 10
days l "of the is's'uanc`e of the suspen5:ion and the .Commission
shall hold a Ilearrng on matter °within 301 days,.
2)' "Mr.''Boehlje infoimed ° the` Commission that D' '& D Country Customs,
were also ;',in v;:ola"ton "of: their Use. Permit with regard to, the,
condition for l i.n t se coat. es .elsewhere :.
y g oa
6 ,
p e oa
than e si'.tP.P
,erov "
pray
on e in an a t e of s There=
IIIti' �.
fore,;" , a similar' letter notifyz _'g i'p e that he:fiad'' 20
n th''e ernrtte
hnI
ditions the Use Mr�hBoehlde
I advised that com;la nts from the owner of the Brookside
MR
Industrial Park;, in, which this use ;is located, had beef .`ieceivill
3) Mr. Boehlj"'e "sta'te'd that 'the' .c'ommissi'on had requested ,they
made aware, ' of Fang 'f' rth'er actions with fegard to the Sante. Fe
Pomeroy, Inc. plant facilities located in the County
area. He therefore read a letter from "Mr. Richard Mogel
Proj'ect Engineer of Santo Fe Pomeroy, Inc., to which copies of
'Q uality trol
were
Boa and the Area Air Control'District
°0
attached indicating that this; batch la had been
fac peration'
J °g P
e a encies
p d •aondndicatved, b` thes. for operation The
y
HI I I
spec,tion by the County of
letter in.
r alsl
Sonoma wil now- be reques;tedlnal
,
s`
Petaluma City Planning'CoMission Minutes., October-3,
r„
4;)
Mt. 'Boehlj;e advised the Commission, .that as of ;this''date site r
plans and :d-r.awin'gsshad not been submitted .for 'the, Walter'Kieckr
hefer' CH rezonin g, located at Lakeville; and East 'Washington
Streets., He advised that the 18 -month period allowed for
!submittal'of phans would expire on 3, 19T :6, and there=
fore uestioned the Commiss on.if they w shed'him'to direct a
4.
letter to. the, applicant reminding'him of this limiting date.
Mr. Boehlje advised that. the Commission could grant a" time
extension for 'a period not to exceed 12..mon'ths^ if the applicant
requested, or could recommend to 'the City Council' that suf-
fcient pxogress has not been made and reversion back to the
original zoning, sho.uld`be undertaken.. A, short discussion.
followed and Commission drec`.ted the Plannng'Direc'tor to
forward A :letter to the applicant reminding,
5) The 'Commission was informed that - the Short Course. for Planning
Commissioners held. this Fall would, be at UXt. Davis, and since a
similar course.would be held in San Francisco in the Spring, it
was felt best to waist 'until that time..
CONSENT CALENDAR. 1) NAROM Development Company, Inc., - Site design review considera-
tion for a plumbing and`h_eating supply "building to be
1o'cated at, • 1016 Lakeville Street,.
2) Hunt & Behrens, Inca = 'Site design rev ew consid :erations Io :r an
addition.. of a feed storage building to the existing feed mill
operation located at 30 Lakeville Stteet.
Mr. - Boehlje advised ,the Commission that.,. since the Hunt &.
Behrens, "Ine. site design`was; minor, he-had it adminis-
tratively and his 'recommendations were as stated in the staff
report.
Comm. Bond moved for adoption of the Consent? Calendar items.
The motion was seconded by'.Co Popp.'
AYES 5: . NOES 0 ABSENT `2,
HARMAN MANAGEMENT' -CO. Mr: Boehlje briefly reviewed the staff report relating to EIQ eval_
-` EI Q u 'EVALUATION &: ation and site g
'desi n review consideration for the-proposed ex
.SITE DESIGN, REVIEW: pans:on.of, parking spaces from 11 to 15 for th'e,.Colonel•Sanders
Kentucky •Fried. Chicken,- ;located a't' 701 East 'Washington Street. It'
' was noted that access, curb, ; gu'tter; and sidewalk improvements would
also be -made.
�_omm. Bond advised that: ' C - � t' the Architectural. &, Site, .Design Review
Committee had' recommended' - a change to Condition #5 relating to the
free - standing •s'ign, and had 'also :recommended that. Condition_ 47 be
changed to el'mina e the words "C'ty Standard Monolithic,." Mr,
Boehlje. advised 'that at the time of the Architectural & Site Design
Review. Committee meetsing there was -some confusion as to whether- the
i -
uma City Plann Commission. Minutes,
Peta
q 'I,
then was in the Zoning, Ordnance e�standingHsgn 'no more
m
• violation of ed
' 1 I' -
than' the height of the buildn
Commission that the use would -allow "a fr:e
�' " �g or- '�?20. °f'e'el , whichever is less; abut' a
"P - ',the site indicate n g was, appr-oxi tel. '1 30 to 35. t, high and. therefore should A be moved d of Head. ,
1 V check of d that the s
uestand r.owere, C
removal should be ke e when the ehl ed,,_
s ovedll' re li
a ue r e.d why q 'sig
PP.,tion , � - III r
ha been
at the timelof original construction Mr. B'o p ed
that
the Zoning Ordinance adopted. in 1973- dealing '� with, `sign. §�i allowed
, n�, .�, a three -year a nhave g g ' and.. :..
mortizatio p' all no
iod for anconformin si ns.
'the I t to b e licant ved ''b; Janu'ar .17 , A'97,6% � g n
f?urthernadvisedttha� � e remo y y , He
never an dpp<< comes ,in for site des'
ew, all P � . into conformance re a e P g
of t rev°' ovisons of the Zon
° i ma be brought
y g g q
Comm''. PoppN advised that' the applicantµ had been present at the
to
Ar chitectural g
moving,�the sign in accorda� g _ rdinanc g e . d o
� nce with the Zonin 0
e
�,' li�, , tee meeting an a agreed
.: He also
a
c ural & Site Desi n Review ommit
advised ,that: this Committee � had recommended that the free standing
sign be moved. at t.he, time of'! the,l East :W6 :shingt;on Street widening.
Chairman oss' uestioned a stor
Hillig q why e fence had been requested.,
�Boehleadwised it was not i noise• attenuation,
Mr' j1 �t 'oril'y fo'.r'� ion, but also
s' Iles. ,, Comm. Head questioned if
Lion could be of a g
, or control o ,�� emi utomob
g ive the a:pp'licant a choice of
stone �or�wood.'as had been r-ecerntl
be amended to
done in 'a mobilehome park' site
N° design review.p Chairman Hillgo'ss' replied' that 'the stone fence
woul be necessary, of automobile emissions.
The "
arran
Bement of the new parking'° spaces wa=s questioned and the
�.
site lan was brietl scaping of the parking space that had t
reviewed Mr a
It
' ha d °been' °required;' Comm. Bo:d replied;'tha't' the' ° " "app l"cant had been.
�znf,ormec�, "that pa:rk s�paee #1 wa_s71� a ha zard .n�'baeking�R and he had,
thd red b' arecommeled` thaP this parking, space b'e removed and re-
,
therefore n
land
sca p� nlHil�ligoss added that this
1 ° p` g uI also people -rom attempting to park in
n wo °
this sp
ace.
Comm eel' th °a "
,.' � ° ° „ „r�• , � 11�I � Head re uest ^, ,,
t Condition ��3d: 'be - changed to' read.. that 'an '
irr agat'ion system sha�l'T be prgvide�dI which would comply '� "the)
�. ,. J .� P ,, Y
g y codes relating to irrigation s y stems. Comm Head
existing City,-co,des� Mr. Boehl�'e advised that .there resent,` are no
existing City g r' y
i stated` he the aping c'ou. � - I
1 he landsc. Id be "watered ust as adequately
q-I ti the applicant be allowed s eak m1 A tive
s representa
with, a faucet` ose, and was a matte
o
requested that
o eco
P. j, I 4 bf "the tip. plic 'a�nt'����a'dv�ised;µt 'all' of;�. condi -tions ��inc'luding. the
we're _acte table and the a lican was .
1 ti. f P �, pp.
1 modi�fi '
cat_ ,
� ion o,.
P
g tion. ; syste_id..
agreeable to Luttin in the irri a, ,
"';`i Comm!'. '"Horc'iza ',moved" to direct: the •Planri'ing Director to 'prepare aril
a”
onded Negat Head•larat on' -f'or the project ec'' was ; ,sec-
I N p gatve Deep p J t The motion
w
y
1 AYES 6 NOES 0' ABSENT.
`Petaluma City Plann-iqg: Commission Minute,&, Octo.ber.. T, 1975..,
Comm., HorcIza, made.. a: mot-ion to I approvej the site design in, accordance
. - I t a nd, ?the 'AichftecturAl & S • with xecommendations of he staf a
Design Review Committee. The motion : was seconded by Co mm. Bond.
AY - ES: 6 NOES "ABSENT
FISK TERMITE CO . NT ROL Mr Boehlj�e brie,f ly, reviewed. the: ate design review application for
VARIANCE;'V375-- & an.:exiat1ng siAglp�-family residential structure 'to be converted to
SITE DESIGN REV_ IEW: an M-�7L.'ofllc:e 'use,, located at 5.87 Lakeville Street., He also advise-
that. a variance would be, necessary- to allow 4 .f ront yard, setback of
7 feet instead of 25 feet as required in, an M-L zone.. The Com-
missio .. .informed that the. ArdhitectLital, Site DO-sign Review
Committee- had.requested . that additional landscaping be 'provided:,
- Comm. , Head made a to grant the variance. The :motion was
seconde&:by gom1h. Hqrciza.
Comm. Bond stated that,, although the Architectura & Site Design
Review Committee had, gone along with the variance and .,site design
review conditions of' approval, he) had later- felt the need to specify
that some of thp-blacktop be eliminated, to PrDVA.dle something more
Permanent than planter boxes,.
AYES 6 NOES, 0 ABSENT 1
Comm. Head moved to 'approve the site.design,with conditions of
approval as recommended, by the sta an Architectural &. Site Design
Review Committee. The motion was seconded by Comm,� Ho ci 'Comm. • P r
Bond,again:stated the need for a specific condition that additional
.planter beds •be ...provided along the street• : frontage to replace. some
of the, asphalt, and- asked Mr,. Boehlje to suggest the wording. Mr.
Additional planter beds�
Boeh1je replied that 0 condition �stating
containing„ trees and bushes ",,. to be, approved by the Planning Depart-
ment,, with, the .removal of the blacktop along the street frontage,
shall be provided." Comm..Horciza questioned .how wide the planter
strip should be,: to which 'Comm. Bond stated he would ,suggest plant
1ng along the front, and corner- area the to. the -front of the
office. He further stated that the matter, had been discussed at the
time of the ArthiteC7 • Itural . & Site ,Design, Review . Committee meeting and
the applicant; - .seemed to, be in agreement..
Comm. Head, questioned if the,. building,, needed ' paint. 'Mr. Boehlje
replied that it was redwood,.- and not intended to, be, painted-, Comm.
Horciza questioned where, the .supp lies, would be located' if the garage
was removed. Mr. Boeh1je that-the applicant -may have to
la ter construct, a-. new shed. which would have to be, ..considere d 1A er by the
Planning Commission. Comm., Bond, s�t . atpd the applicant had. . mentioned
pu tting ut g up. a
n steel or,
-prefab,storage and was aware that
_ .
the matter would have, to come back for further review..
AYES 6 NOES 0 AB S ' EN'T' 1
0
WS
Pe aluma, Cit Plannn
, . -,..... y g
Commission Minutes,, ; October 7,•.1.975
Comm .• ,,, ,, ,
F •
Comm Bond asked -if the applicant : was ,present to .,speak; no reply wa s
g iven. He e. asked for the matter to be
h ,
„.,
and .continue.d the, applicant' was not present;
.since he I felt, the .app,licant should , ,b'e. present in case any problems
„
ar
gnat if
this polcy l lowed Pptheaappliocan _tsWshoixldsbetso
formed -He wads :advis12 � that ��the- .ap'pli�. ants, are requested to ^' attend',.
I �
�^ Plan ning Commission ^meetq' the. t
g
n at',,gew
i o meesig t ime. of their attendance 'atll.
the Architectural ,& • n Rev „Committee,:meetng'.
- the
I ,
REDEUEL
REDEVELOPMENT u',ii
Mr, Boehile advised the ; Commission that.the preliminary plans for
PROJECT
PREL I M INARY ' PRO) •
Area fo rede velo meat purposes were general as this
r
P roject P p P
eREAPLANS.
A,
_
- e 'f a
fi ve ,items n eeded for the sufficiency of g'
stage. H' then. red the-
preliminary P,Ian �.11. A
Mr. Boehlje, briefly reviewed the staff report- He then. ,indicated "on
' ,It
aI wall map ether '.outline :o'f they ;Pro_' ect'Area as adopted by the P - -1 an=
ning' Coffirission�, and referxed', to, a 1second` map on which the cash
„ ,,.
- „
value er s., uare foot was color coded
p, 9 •.
'
Comm: Head madel a `motion to the preliminary plans for' "the
s .
spec � ea or re eve o purposes. Comm Popp sec-
ct r, ,.
Probe'^
eific � _
ills o ment
g P
and d the motion Chairman H ss questioned when the Commis
q. ion
would review the Downtown Merchant ^Associ:ation's. plan. Mr. Boehlje
I,-
d
re ed that the lan in qu was more s ecif c and would
p . abl
rob ed qu estion
p Y be incor the actual redevelopment plans He
eY
.
stat. e would att`emp.t'.to' g an'.informatgon copy for the Com-
stated h
miss'' 'on r
Horciza it
q dies of the redevelopment area
e
ues.tioned if he studies
et
ed 'b th �or,'an outsgde'consuL�tant.: Mr:
Woomm ` d be lash st "aff l
_ .... _ ._P' y - ..
Boehlje ^repaied that the City, Council had - founded) a Redevelopmt en -
Agency, .or it He add „ed it
g y, but ha d not as ; yet ob staffing . ft
w agned
.' the s'tudi'es could ' °'
was 'not' 'how ow these monies ould be used bu
be' "' accomplished b ' consult , ant' o -r :''pan, additional slta�ff ��tiemb'e "r:
AYES 6 NOES 0 ABS�ENT
T ,
I y
GEN
ERAL, PLAN ' &,
,
n to .consider ,m ati to the
ENU IRONMENTAL'DESIGN,
effeco
General and Design Plan to c.t conformity
PLAN MODIFICATIONS;
I, between 1 General P'l'an,, Environmental Design, •Plan; and thei Zoning
d ;
Ordinance,:
The" `recommen`ded.' General' ^Plane^ modifications °were briefly reviewed ,
The
t gone i BBoehlo ution' had requested the
,
L..
school ' .-
i,- Mr Mr. j re p li ed,that the changes were
hool cat gon changes.
recommended .a s `a result.'o'f.dgscus'sions, with -the Superintendents of
the , involved,,,
'I I .
Comm Bond questioned the deletion of the � hospital
e del' e location of a hos g
1
ste,norahwest of Lucche sq Park and asked,�� how it would. gnfauence II
Petaluma City Planning 'Commission Minutes; October 7, '197 5
next Tuesday's' meeting' ) regarding , , the- consideration of the hospital
E`: I: R:' Mr': Boe ij e , replied •that., although they �E: I.R. did contain
alter-nat'e proposals;' i_t. was' essentially, for -the: Troudy Lane site..
He added''that furthper' environmental review could .be warranted'i_f : a.
'differ'ent sitet other than Tr,oudy. Lane or, expans =ion. of the, existing .
site was accomplished ` r r. T3'oeh1je :stated 'tha•t ,this:'.deletion.:of the
hospital' ='location had been - recominerided ' :since it would conflict with
' the proposed' Millme-ister devdiopment�, and the Hospital Board had
'determined it -was' An , unacceptable,- site.` - A short :discussion re-
garding .hospital sites followed.,
A' recess was;' called at' 8 :5.0' `p',.m;:. and the- :mee`ting resumed at 9:.O.Q
p.m.
Chairman Hilligos questioned if •anyone: wa'si p.r to speak, to the
modifications to the General Plan. No response was given.
The E.W.P. mod,if cat ons - were briefly reviewed:
Comm. Bond questioned the status of; Area #37, and Mr. Boehlj
replied that there had been no'recent action., although the applicant
did have an approved site plan.
Chairman if anyone in the audience wished to speak
to the E.,D.P.: changes. No comments -were offered and the Public
Heating was closed:
- Comm.'Head'moved to adopt the amendments to'the General -Plan as
recommended by the.sta -ff'. Comm. Popp seconded the. mot 'ion :
AYES NOES 0.' "ABSENT 1.
Comm. 'Head , moved to adopt the modifications to the, Environmental
Design `Plans - as, - recommende:d ' by the, staff Cgmm. ' :seconded the
- .motion. ' •
AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1
.OTHER BUSINESS Comm. Bond, questioned if the City would be represented at the 'Where
After Petaluma" Conference:. Mr:, Boehl;e advised, that Attorney':`_
Robert Anderson would be' at this conference:, Chairman' Hilligoss'
added tYiat the City Manager stated' he did not •-think 'it was-,riecessary
for a representative of the City to at.teiid;- ;but informed the
Council they could-attend if they so wished.
ELECTION OF OFFICERSF: Comm. Popp riominated'Comm.:Horciza for'Chairman and Anthony Wright
for Vice- Cha .. The: motion w 'Seco n`ded• "by Gomm;. Head,. Comm:
Head then moved, that the nominations be 'closed and a unanimous
ballot be cast. Comm. Bond seconded the motion:
Mr. Boehlje informed t'he new :Chairman that:commttee members should
be appointed at the next regular meeting of the Commission.
Ir:m