Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers

Richmond City Hall

Present:

Joe Erceg, Chair

Robert Gonzalez, General Manager, Engineering and Public Works

Dave Semple, General Manager, Parks and Recreation

The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m.

1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, November 16, 2011, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit 10-538908
(File Ref. No.:  DP 10-538908)   (REDMS No. 3360997)

APPLICANT:

Doug Massie, Architect of Chercover Massie & Associates Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8851 Heather Street

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the construction of a two-storey building for a licensed child care facility for approximately 60 children at 8851 Heather Street on a site zoned Assembly (ASY); and

2.

To vary the provisions of Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

reduce minimum interior side yard from 7.5 metres to 1.2 metres;

b)

reduce the minimum public road parking setback from 3 metres to 1.5 metres; 

c)

permit 54% small car parking spaces on a site with less than 31 parking spaces (8 small car parking spaces of total 15 spaces).

Applicant’s Comments

Doug Massie, Architect, Chercover Massie & Associates Architecture and Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant and provided the following details regarding the proposed two-storey child care facility, for approximately 60 children, located on Heather Street:

·         

the first time the proposed development was presented to the Development Permit Panel was on July 13, 2011, and November 30, 2011 is the second time the proposed development is being considered by the Development Permit Panel ;

·         

the subject site previously featured a small church building, and the site’s “assembly use” zoning permits a child care facility usage; 

·         

off-street parking spaces are provided, and the playground is situated in the rear yard of the proposed facility;

·         

at an open house meeting hosted by the applicant, seven neighbourhood residents attended and the project  was discussed;

·         

the zoning is intended for larger sites and will not accommodate a building; the request to vary the interior side yard is to enable the site to accommodate a building;

·         

the request to reduce the minimum public road parking setback is to provide the required parking spaces and to accommodate screening landscape elements to be neighbour-friendly;

·         

the applicant (i) will know the identity of those who use on-site parking lot, and (ii) can control the on-site parking lot, so no problems are anticipated;

·         

the applicant has experience with three daycare centres in Richmond and put considerable study into daycare parking accumulation; the parking area configuration and vehicle traffic flow for the Heather Street facility will work well; and

·         

unlike drop offs and pick ups at preschools, where there is congestion due to all of the parents being there at the same time, typically, arrival and departure times for a child care facility are spread over a two hour period, such as 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. for drop off, and 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. for pick up, so the number of cars should not create a major problem.

Panel Discussion

In response to queries from the Chair regarding landscaping, Mr. Rajinder Singh, Landscape Designer of Van Der Zalm and Associates Landscape Architecture firm, advised that:

·      

the surface parking area would be surrounded with six trees plus a cedar hedging, and a transition to a bioswale, to help with onsite water direction;

·      

low shrubbery would terrace down from the height of the cedar hedging, and then drop down to ground cover;

·      

as the trees mature, they would provide shade;

·      

on the north side of the proposed building a gravel base was proposed with no access, and on the south side of the proposed building, no landscaping elements are proposed; and

·      

along the front of the subject site a low fence, and low shrubs of equal height, is adjacent to the sidewalk, but the view for drivers is not obstructed by the fence or the shrubs.

The Chair directed a query regarding the north side of the proposed building to Mr. Massie, who responded that windows are a feature of that side of the structure, but they are not aligned with windows in the adjacent residence.

Staff Comments

Brian J. Jackson, Director of Development, advised that if this was a single family development, a larger floor area would be allowed on the subject site, and that the site provides the potential for two residences, each of them large.

Mr. Jackson then referenced the Panel’s decision of July 13, 2011 when it asked for a consultation with residents of the neighbourhood, and an examination of on-site parking and manoeuvring, as well as pedestrian and vehicle traffic on Heather Street. He stated that the subsequent report advises that parking is adequate, and the surface parking area allows for manoeuvring by vehicles.

Mr. Jackson concluded his remarks by advising that staff supports the application and the requested variances.

Gallery Comments

Raj Johal, 8880 Heather Street submitted (i) a copy of a letter dated July 7, 2011, (ii) a petition, and (iii) photographs (attached to these Minutes as Schedule 2) to the Panel and spoke in opposition to the proposed building.

Mr. Johal made the following points:

·          

the proposed building is too big, its presence would impact the liveability of neighbours, Heather Street is too narrow and should not be a two way street but should be a one way street, and neighbours want to see something other than a child care centre on the site;

·          

the ditch that fronts Heather Street presents a safety hazard and neighbours want it covered and a sidewalk installed; it is not appropriate for a City to have an open ditch beside Dolphin Park;

·          

the former church was used one day a week, but a child care centre is used five days a week, with two high activity periods each day, when children are dropped off and later picked up;

·          

the applicant’s request for variances imposes on the neighbour to the south of the subject site;

·          

if the permit is approved, conditions should include no street parking at any time if two way traffic is allowed on Heather Street; and

·          

he did not attend the open house meeting, his brother, also a resident of the neighbourhood, attended and although his brother advised that he understood City Transportation staff would contact neighbours regarding traffic calming measures, no contact has been made.

Mr. Johal queried whether the City has different zoning for a child care centre than it does for a school.

In response to the query, Mr. Jackson advised that a licensed child care facility falls under Provincial legislation, and does not qualify as a school. He added that the applicant’s proposal fits within the existing zoning on the subject site.

In response to the Chair’s request that Transportation staff comment on the concern expressed, Donna Chan, Manager, Transportation Planning, provided the following advice:

·         

Transportation staff will conduct a survey in the neighbourhood in December, 2011, and will gather information regarding support for traffic calming, and if the idea is supported, traffic calming measures will be implemented in 2012;

·         

a speed survey conducted by Transportation staff in April, 2010 confirmed speeds on Heather Street exceeded the posted speed limit, and that traffic calming measures could remedy the situation;

·         

the applicant will complete the sidewalk along their Heather Street frontage to connect to the existing sidewalk on either side, and this will keep pedestrians off the street for this portion of Heather Street;

·         

on-street parking in front of the subject site is limited to one, or maybe two spaces, due to driveways and the presence of fire hydrants;

·         

there is sufficient space for two cars to pass on Heather Street, but where there are parked cars on the shoulder, room is limited; and

·         

Transportation staff does not see a need for additional “No Parking” signage along the Heather Street frontage, but it will be monitored.

In response to a query, Mr. Jackson advised that “No Stopping” signs will be added along the east side of Heather Street.

A resident of Dolphin Avenue addressed the Panel and spoke in opposition to the application. He expressed concern that his small children are endangered by the traffic conditions along Dolphin Avenue and Heather Street. He stated his belief that there should be one way streets in the neighbourhood. He concluded his remarks by saying that a child care facility that can accommodate 60 children is too big.

Correspondence

Yih-Shin Hsu and Shu-Chen Chen Hsu, 8875 Heather Street (Schedule 1)

Mr. Jackson noted that the correspondents expressed concern regarding: (i) the narrowness of Heather Street; (ii) the danger of the ditch along Heather Street; (iii) insufficient parking spaces for the proposed facility; and (iv) the effect a noisy child care facility has on a quiet neighbourhood.

Raj Johal, 8880 Heather Street (Schedule 2)

Panel Discussion

With regard to the request to reduce the interior side yard, the Chair queried what the applicant would do to buffer the proposed building from neighbours’ homes.

The Chair asked if similar landscaping elements could be added to the south side of the subject site where an open deck is planned, and Mr. Singh responded that the same elements could be added there, leaving openings for gates, a feature required for accessibility.

The Chair stated that he supports the application but that prior to the application going forward to a future Council meeting, he wanted the applicant to address the side yard on the landscaping plan, with a combination of structure, plantings, trees, and to ensure that the changes meet staff’s satisfaction.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

Permit the construction of a two-storey building for a licensed child care facility for approximately 60 children at 8851 Heather Street on a site zoned Assembly (ASY); and

2.

Vary the provisions of Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

reduce minimum interior side yard from 7.5 metres to 1.2 metres;

b)

reduce the minimum public road parking setback from 3 metres to 1.5 metres; 

c)

permit 54% small car parking spaces on a site with less than 31 parking spaces (8 small car parking spaces of total 15 spaces).

CARRIED

3.

Development Permit 10-557920
(File Ref. No.:  DP 10-557920)   (REDMS No. 3333749)

APPLICANT:

W.T. Leung Architects Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9099 Cook Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Support the Transportation (Construction) Management Plan attached to this report; and

2.

Permit the construction of approximately 142 units, of which seven (7) will be secured as affordable housing, within a 16-storey high-rise residential tower, a six-storey mid-rise building, 11 two-storey townhouse units with ground level entry, and an enclosed parking structure on a site being rezoned to “High Rise Apartment (ZHR9) – North McLennan (City Centre).

Applicant’s Comments

Mr. Tam, Architect, W.T. Leung Architects Inc., provided the following information for the proposed 16-storey high-rise residential tower, the six-storey mid-rise building, and the 11 two-storey townhouse units at a location where Cook Road intersections Garden City Road:

·          

the high-rise and mid-rise towers combined provide 142 residential units;

·          

the high-rise tower was specifically designed to respond to the site by providing relief for views for residents currently living near the subject site, and to minimize the impact of shadowing on surrounding structures;

·          

the high-rise tower is situated to maximize view opportunities for residents of “Hampton Court” with south facing units, and the tower’s design results in a narrow southern building profile;

·          

light coloured materials are proposed for the middle of the high and mid-rise towers;

·          

four accent colours provide texture; visual interest is created for pedestrians below balconies by applying a colour to the underside of balconies, a different colour for each stack of balconies; 

·          

a greenway path is planned for the eastern edge of the subject site, to provide greenway, pedestrian and bicycle network connections for the neighbourhood;

·          

a landscaped boulevard will be provided along Garden City Road, and completion of the north side sidewalk on Cook Road, west of Garden City Road to Cooney Road, is planned;

·          

a new pedestrian crosswalk will be introduced to facilitate movement across Cook Road;

·          

the proposed development meets all on-site bylaw parking requirements;

·          

a contribution will ensure an upgrade to area traffic signals;

·          

20% of the proposed bicycle spaces are dedicated to co-op bikes, and 25% of parking spaces will have electrical outlets for charging vehicles;

·          

to address concerns expressed by residents of the neighbourhood, at the July 26, 2011 Public Hearing, the comprehensive Transportation (Construction) Management Plan includes, among other features, an off-site parking lot for trades and construction personnel, with a shuttle service to transport workers to the site;

·          

a construction loading station will be on the site, so that surrounding streets are not adversely affected;

·          

the indoor amenity area includes space for private functions, as well as exercise equipment;

·          

the outdoor amenity space is located on the fourth floor, and includes a garden system, two children’s play areas with rubberized surface, and a water feature;

·          

the indoor amenity area has a green roof, and is south facing with sunshades;

·          

other sustainability features include coatings on windows, low flow plumbing fixtures, an irrigation system, and extensive soft landscaping features that reduce the amount of storm run-off;

·          

11 enhanced accessible units are included in the project, and they include blocking in washrooms for future grab bars, door frames that are wider than the norm, lever handles for faucets, and a large turning radius for wheelchairs;

·          

there are seven affordable housing units in the project, and four of them are two-storey townhouses suitable for families; and

·          

the applicant is working with the City’s Public Art Coordinator on details regarding inclusion of on-site public art. 

Gerry Eckford, Principal, Eckford Tyacke and Associates, added that: (i) there will be a loading stall at the south east corner of the subject site; (ii) four existing trees are being retained, including two large existing trees at both the north east and north west corners, providing significant screening at those two points; and (iii) relocation of two trees into the greenway corridor.

Panel Discussion

A brief discussion ensued between the Chair and Mr. Lim regarding two healthy trees located at the centre of the subject site that would be relocated within the north-south greenway corner, a greenway that is at grade.

In response to a query regarding the outdoor amenity space, Mr. Eckford noted that the design is based on the artist Claude Monet’s water-themed works, and he provided the following details:

·         

there is a centrally located water feature on the podium level with a water pond that is not too deep and features filtered water; a bench overlooks the water feature;

·         

the primary children’s play area is at a central location and includes chalk boards so children can be “mini-Monets”;

·         

the undulating surface at the far end arched element is a playful element, with a tunnel effect; and

·         

the focus is on creative, social play.

Discussion continued and in response to Panel queries the following information was provided by the applicant and staff:

·         

the area for recycling bins is indoors, but bins will be moved to an outdoor loading area, screened with landscaping elements, for pick up;

·         

only construction equipment loading and off-loading activities will be conducted on-site, with all trade and construction workers being shuttled to the site, from an off-site parking lot;

·         

design of the electrical outlets used for charging cars is not yet confirmed; and

·         

the approximate cost of providing electrical outlets is $3,500 per parking stall.

Staff Comments

Mr. Jackson advised that the development application includes a Transportation (Construction) Management Plan, and includes features such as a soon-to-be-completed off-site parking lot for trade and construction workers.

The applicant has responded to a number of issues that were raised by area residents at the July 26, 2011 Public Hearing. Mr. Jackson stated that the area had always been intended for high rise residential projects, and that the applicant had worked, through the rezoning and development permit processes, to minimize:(i) shadowing effects on adjacent towers, and (ii) the effect on views enjoyed by current residents of other towers.

Mr. Jackson noted that another concern was related to the impact of the proposed development on traffic patterns and parking in the area, and he noted that the Transportation (Construction) Management Plan submitted by the applicant is the most detailed, and non-intrusive one, staff has seen.

Mr. Jackson concluded his remarks by stating that staff is in support of the application.

In response to a query from the Chair, Mr. Jackson advised that the idea to shuttle trade and construction workers to the site, from an off-site parking lot, is a unique idea. He added that an office for on-site workers is to be elevated above the hoarding along Garden City Road, to lessen the impact to pedestrians in that area.

Gallery Comments

Naomi Desormeau, 9188 Cook Road, expressed concern that the volume of traffic would increase as a result of the construction period, but was happy to hear that a shuttle service would deliver workers to the site from an off-site parking lot. She queried how the applicant would police any construction workers who did not park at the off-site parking lot.

Advice was provided by the applicant and by City Transportation staff that: (i) the applicant would rely on the construction workers to police themselves; (ii) the City’s traffic bylaw limits the length of time that vehicles  can be parked on the street, and that area residents who suspect construction workers’ cars are parked on the street can call either the City’s Bylaw Enforcement staff, or the non-emergency RCMP number; and (iii) staff will ensure that before the permit is issued, the Construction Supervisor’s telephone number listed in the Transportation (Construction) Management Plan is accurate.

Mr. Jackson added that the City can stop the building permit if the City discovers that details of the Transportation (Construction) Management Plan are being violated.

Ms. Desormeau queried whether residents of her residential building would receive copies of the Transportation (Construction) Management Plan, and would be made aware of any instructions the applicant receives with regard to its details.

The Chair responded and stated that the Development Permit Panel examines form and character of proposed developments, and that it is beyond the Panel’s mandate to enforce the Transportation (Construction) Management Plan, but that the delegate could be furnished with a City transportation staff contact. He added that the applicant should take the delegate’s request for written material under advisement.

Chiu Cheung, 9180 Hemlock Drive, spoke in opposition to the application and cited the discussion that took place at the July 26, 2011 Public Hearing.

Mr. Cheung noted that speakers at the Public Hearing were concerned about too many people, too many cars, congested traffic, and drop off/pick up issues at the existing child care centre at the corner of Cook and Garden City Roads. He stated that many traffic accidents take place in the neighbourhood.

Mr. Cheung stated that Alberta Road was open to the public, as a two way street, but is now closed and Cook Road is now the only road that provides access to and from this area.

He stated that the proposed development was too big. He then referred to the petition in opposition to the proposed development, with 27 signatures, that he submitted (attached to these Minutes as Schedule 7), and closed his remarks by requesting that Alberta Road be re-opened to traffic.

Correspondence

Wei Chen and Heiko Hansen, Cook Road (Schedule 3)

Mr. Jackson noted that the correspondent does not have an objection to development that meets bylaw requirements, but noted that high density in the neighbourhood results in a lack of parking spaces.

Celine Zhang, Hemlock Drive (Schedule 4)

Mr. Jackson noted that the correspondent is opposed to the proposed development because of its height, the proximity to other towers, and the number of trees to be removed.

Meng Chun, 9188 Hemlock Drive (Schedule 5)

Mr. Jackson noted that the correspondent believes that the buildings in the neighbourhood are built in too close proximity to one another.

Yu Ning Zhan, 1106 – 6333 Katsura Street (Schedule 6)

Mr. Jackson noted that the correspondent opposed the proximity of the proposed towers to the present tower at 6333 Katsura Street.

Chiu M. Cheung, and attached petition (Schedule 7)

Mr. Jackson noted that the petition had 27 signatures, and added that those who signed were: (i) disappointed that Council gave the rezoning application for the proposed development second and third readings at the July 26, 2011 Public Hearing; and (ii) distressed by traffic problems in the Cook Road/Katsura Street area.

Mr. Jackson stated that the proposed development meets bylaw requirements.

In response to a request from the Chair Ms. Chan provided the following information regarding traffic in the area of the proposed development:

·          

the applicant has proposed more transportation management methods than are required, and these elements will improve walkability in the area, and encourage alternate modes of transportation for area residents;

·          

capacity of Cook Road is capable of handling the volume of traffic;

·          

sections of the area roads will be completed as a result of future development; and

·          

Cook Road’s sidewalk will soon be at full standard.

Mr. Jackson, in response to the Chair’s query, advised that since the July 26, 2011 Public Hearing, at which Council requested a thorough transportation review, staff and the applicant have completed the components of the requested review, and the submitted Transportation (Construction) Management Plan is a result of Council’s request.

Panel Discussion

The value of the Transportation (Construction) Management Plan submitted by the applicant was noted, and the Chair commented that the neighbourhood in question was cited in the Official Community Plan as an area for growth, and included towers other than the ones already built and occupied.

The Panel commented that the project was well executed, and that the proposed towers had been arranged to minimize impact on neighbouring towers. In addition, parking is well utilized in the area, but is not problematic.

A comment was directed to the applicant, requesting that communication take place to make neighbours aware of the Transportation (Construction) Management Plan, and it was stated that if the City receives calls from residents regarding developers who do not abide by their own construction plans, City staff does follow up on those calls.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

1.

That the Transportation (Construction) Management Plan attached to this report be supported; and

2.

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of approximately 142 units, of which seven (7) will be secured as affordable housing, within a 16-storey high-rise residential tower, a six-storey mid-rise building, 11 two-storey townhouse units with ground level entry, and an enclosed parking structure on a site being rezoned to “High Rise Apartment (ZHR9) – North McLennan (City Centre).

CARRIED

4.

Development Permit 11-593370
(File Ref. No.:  DP 11-593370)   (REDMS No. 3396366)

APPLICANT:

Oval 8 Holdings Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

PID 028 696 174 (Lot 9), PID 028-696-182 (Lot 10) and PID 028-696-191 (Lot 11)

INTENT OF PERMIT:

To permit pre-construction site preparation works on a portion of PID 028-696-174 (Lot 9), PID 028-696-182 (Lot 10) and PID 028-696-191 (Lot 11) of ASPAC’s Village Green development which includes an area designated Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA).

Applicant’s Comments

Keven Goodearle, Environmental Scientist, Pottinger Gaherty Environmental Consultants Ltd., made a brief presentation regarding the proposed approach for managing the requirements associated with proposed pre-construction work on the Oval 8 Holdings site, on a portion of the site that is within designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). Mr. Goodearle explained that:

·          

the site under discussion is that of the ASPAC Village Green development, bounded by Hollybridge Way to the west, the middle arm of the Fraser River to the north, and Gilbert Road to the east; 

·          

three separate ESAs have been identified on the site, and this development permit application deals soley with ESA-1, an area that includes a riparian management area buffer, as identified by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans;

·          

the development permit application is for pre-construction site preparation work, such as site clearing and preloading, and, future development permit applications will address actual lot development;

·          

the developer, ASPAC, anticipates the development of an extensive waterfront park, the planting of a significant number of trees, and an extensive habitat restoration adjacent to Gilbert Road and along the Fraser River waterfront;

·          

the proposed phased approach to EAS-1 is to ensure that impacts to the environment, including trees, will occur at different times;

·          

there are to be four phases over a five year span, from 2011 to 2016;

·          

a detailed habitat survey was conducted within ESA-1, with five general types of habitants identified;

·          

although there was general degradation through historic land use, a significant plant population was found to exist;

·          

in consultation with staff, it was determined that ESA compensation should consist of a planted landscape area of approximately 1,832 square metres, plus tree replacement, at a ratio of 3 for one, including one specimen tree for each removal;

·          

the compensation planting will include approximately 30 square metres of enhancement along Gilbert Road when Gilbert Road is widened; and

·          

after work on Gilbert Road is complete, the east bank will be restored.

A brief discussion ensued regarding tree stands on Gilbert Road, and advice was given that those will not be removed.

In response to Panel queries regarding trees that will be removed, Mr. Goodearle, accompanied by Norman Hol, of Arbortech Consulting Ltd., the project’s arborist, remarked that:

·          

approximately 24 of the trees that have been designated as being in poor condition are earmarked for a timber recovery program through milling;

·          

some trees are in a hazardous condition, and the plan for the removal of some trees attributed to the Samuel Brighouse family includes provision for reusing them, and enculturing new replacement trees from them; and

·          

timber recovery plans include turning them into benches for street furniture, or art pieces.

In response to a final query, advice was given that the proposed closure of River Road would be done in 2013, when a temporary road will be installed.

Staff Comments

Mr. Jackson stated that the application for this Development Permit was the result of the applicant moving forward with prefilling the site, and that staff was in support of the application.

He noted the amount of rigour that went into the application, and stated that it indicated staff’s commitment to Council to present a level of detail necessary when there is a development proposed where ESAs exist. He added that letters of credit are required for this application to ensure the applicant follows through with stated plans regarding trees of significance.

Mr. Jackson advised that the Panel would see the same level of rigour in future applications as development occurs on sites to the east of the Olympic Oval. 

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued between the Panel and staff regarding when the applicant would provide information regarding decisions about the wood from the 24 trees to be removed.

Advice was provided that: (i) at present a 30 square metre site along the east property line would be impacted, and that other areas would be determined as part of both dike and waterfront design improvements along the Fraser River frontage; and (ii) the forthcoming Parks Plan would indicate environmental compensation, and the present application outlines financial compensation. 

Further discussion ensued regarding the timing of the application, with the Panel questioning why a development application that applies only to ESA-1 is submitted when other development applications, applying to other on-site ESA areas, need to be forthcoming.

Mr. Goodearle stated that if the developer was to encroach within any one of the ESAs, an application process was triggered, but that a holistic approach is being taken, and despite the application referring to just ESA-1, the applicant is not restricting the scope of the development.

Mr. Jackson noted that the coming four or five months are a critical time in the development of the ASPAC site east of the Olympic Oval, and that preloading and dewatering on the site must be undertaken soon, thereby necessitating the application before the Panel. 

In response to queries, Mr. Jackson advised the following:

·         

both the City’s Advisory Committee on the Environment, and the City’s Heritage Commission were presented with the applicant’s rezoning plans; and

·         

to meet some environmental regulations on the parcel of land to the west of the subject site, the development will use these lands after they are cleared.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit pre-construction site preparation works on a portion of PID 028-696-174 (Lot 9), PID 028-696-182 (Lot 10) and PID 028-696-191 (Lot 11) of ASPAC’s Village Green development which includes an area designated Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA).

CARRIED

5.

New Business

6.

Date Of Next Meeting:      Wednesday, December 14, 2011

7.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 5:39 p.m.

CARRIED

Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Wednesday, November 30, 2011.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg

Chair

Sheila Johnston

Committee Clerk