Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1979/09/12 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA September 12, 1979 A regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Pressutti, G. Johnson, R. Johnson, O'Neill, Stevenson and Williams. Absent (with previous notification and due to illness): Commissioner Smith. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Supervisor of Current Planning Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, City Engineer Lippitt, Assistant City Attorney Harron and Secretary Mapes. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Vice-Chairman Pressutti, who presided over the meeting in the absence of Chairman Smith, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (R. Johnson-O'Neill) The minutes of the meeting of August 22, 1979 be approved as written, copies having been mailed to the Commission. Commissioner G. Johnson abstained from voting on the motion due to her absence from that meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Pro Tem Pressutti called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. Request for one sear extension of tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Woods, PCS-77-5 Director of Planning Peterson reported that this tentative map was approved in January, 1978 subject to a number of conditions which required the developer to acquire additional land to provide access, sewer easement and drainage facilities. At that time the applicant was not able to fulfill those conditions. The property has recently changed hands and the new owner is attempting to meet the requirements and has requested an extension of time on the tentative map. It is recommended that the tentative map be extended to July 17, 1980. MSUC (R. Johnson-Williams) The Planning Commission approves a one year extension of time for the tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Woods, Chula Vista Tract 77-5. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-80-3 - Request for reduction of front setback from 10 feet to 5 feet for construction of a two-stors office building on the west side of Broadwas between "I" and Halses Streets - J & Z Enterprises Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted the location of the applicant's 9,000 sq. ft. lot with 85 feet of frontage on Broadway extending through to East Manor Drive. -2- Sept. 12, 1979 The lot is split zoned, with the easterly 60 feet zoned C-T and the remainder of the lot zoned R-1. Due to the shallow depth of the commercial zoning the applicant is requesting a variance to construct an office building five feet from the front property line, rather than 10 feet in the C-T zone. He pointed out that the adjacent property to the north is developed with a retail commercial structure located approximately 40 feet from Broadway, while the property to the south contains a commercial auto repair facility located at the front property line. The proposed development would locate the office building adjacent to the structure with a zero setback, with parking located adjacent to the north property line. Mr. Lee acknowledged the receipt of one letter from a resident in the neighborhood which expressed objection to the approval of a variance and contended that the zoning ordinance should be adhered to. Mr. Lee presented slides of the site, showing the adjacent buildings on each side and the residential use at the rear of the lot. He called attention to the findings for approval of the variance request. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Stevenson-O'Neill) Based on the findings as stated in the staff report, the Planning Commission approves variance application PCV-80-3 for reduction in front setback from 10 feet to 5 feet. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-79-8 (Supplement to Master EIR-78-2 for development of 419 acres in Rice Canson Sectional Planning Area of E1 Rancho del ReS Environmental Review Coordinator Reid pointed out this is the first Sectional Planning Area development proposal in E1 Rancho del Rey since the adoption of the Master EIR. It is the purpose of this EIR to focus on the potentially adverse impacts, which will include change in land form, drainage, archaeology, biology and traffic. The EIR has been reviewed by the Environmental Control Commission which found the document was in accordance with CEQA. Mr. Reid also called attention to letters received from the San Diego Archaeology Society and from Federhart and Associates, traffic engineering consultants, which will be included in the report. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bruce McIntyre, of Advance Planning and Research, the consultants who prepared the EIR for the city, pointed out the proposed area for development, indicating the commercial area, high density residential, and single family residential area. He also noted that two school sites, a park site, and site for a fire station are proposed, along with an area which will remain as natural open space. -3- Sept. 12, 1979 Mr. McIntyre pointed out that one of the major impacts will be the change in land form, as the project will include moving ~ to 4½ million cubic yards of earth. This will result in the filling of several tributary canyons and the creation of large manufactured slopes exceeding 30 feet in elevation. Mitigation of this impact will include contour grading and architectural design of buildings to conform with the slopes. A second impact concerns the geology of the area since the subject property includes two earthquake fault zones. Neither of these faults is considered active, however, and represent only a minimal risk to the subdivision. Mr. McIntyre also discussed the problem of drainage, since in the event of a 50 year flood, the flow line for the Rice Canyon would be 2,000 cubic feet per second, whereas the existing drainage system built in connection with the extension of East H Street and 1-805 interchange has a capacity of 1600 cfs. It is believed a suitable drainage system can be developed but it should inter- face well with the existing drainage and include a means for removal of siltation. The impact on archaeological resources appears insignificant since there are only small shell scatters and little in the way of Indian artifacts. Mitigation of this impact would require the collection of surface artifacts, mapping them and preparing a report discussing their importance. The project area exhibits a number of biologic resources which will be impacted if the development takes place. Among the vegetation significant on the property is snake cholla which is an indemic found only in rare locations. A vernal pool is also found on the site where the high school is proposed to be located. The EIR includes an analysis of the impact of projected traffic of this develop- ment and of subsequent development to the east. The impact of noise attributed to this project is limited to short term construction noise, which should be mitigated by limiting activity to daylight hours. The project will impact the school by the generation of additional students and will also be growth inducing; however, the adopted Specific Plan for E1 Rancho del Rey calls for west to east development and this is the first development under that plan. Harvey Warren, a representative of the home owners in the Lynwood Hills area, expressed concern with the amount of dirt to be moved in the project and also with the traffic design, which includes the connection of a portion of the residential development to Lynwood Drive, to which he raised strong objection and suggested as an alternative a direct connection of that area to East H Street. He also discussed the problem of increased generation of sewage and use of water, gas and electricity. Roland Fornataro, resident in Lynwood Hills, discussed the problem of drainage from the area, which has been serious in the past, and he felt would be more so during a cycle of wet weather. He also objected to cutting a road through to Lynwood Drive. -4- Sept. 12, 1979 Charles Strong, with the firm of Federhart and Associates, traffic engineers, reported that they were employed by the developer to review the traffic and transportation section of the EIR. He contended that the traffic projections were excessively high, and while the report estimates the traffic volume on "H" Street in the year 1995 at 62,000 trips per day, he felt a range of 36,000 trips would be closer. In response to a question from Commissioner O'Neill, Mr. Strong indicated support for the secondary exit from the project site to Lynwood Drive, pointing out that this is highly desirable for safety purposes, and further, that due to the align- ment of Lynwood Drive that would never be a high volume road. John Ries~ member of the Sweetwater Community Planning Group, expressed support for the proposed development and the construction of "H" Street to relieve the traffic load on Bonita Road. He suggested that problems would probably be encountered with the Corps of Engineers unless the vernal pool is protected to preserve various plant species associated with vernal pools. He questioned the success in transplanting any endangered plant species. Mr. Riess also mentioned the problems of land form alteration, seismicity, drainage, erosion and aesthetics. He suggested that the alternatives contained in the back of the EIR should be discussed in more detail. He expressed the willingness of the Sweetwater Community Planning Group to work with the City in the preparation of the EIR. Dave Johenk, 4420 Vista Nacion, expressed concern that this development is at considerably higher density than shown on the Chula Vista Master Plan of 1990. He called attention to the wild life presently existing in the canyon area. He also commented on the impact of traffic noise since the construction of 1-805. He suggested that the area should contain more open space and less density. Mike McQuillan, resident of Lynwood Hills, expressed the opinion that residents do not have enough specific information on the proposed development to address the proposal with meaningful comments. He requested that this public hearing be continued for at least 30 days to give the developer and staff a chance to comment on the questions raised, provide answers to these questions, and then give the residents a chance to respond to those comments and express an opinion and factual evidence concerning the effects of the development. Fred Gathe, 3240 Lynwood Drive, expressed concern that making the proposed connection to Lynwood Drive would necessitate removal of a bank of dirt behind his house which has afforded him some protection from the freeway noise. He also felt the normal noise generated by automobiles, dogs and people in a develop- ment of the size proposed will impact the residents of the Lynwood Hills area. Stephen George, representing Stephen George and Associates, traffic consultants, and a member of the team of consultants who prepared the environmental impact report, responded to statements made by Mr. Strong with regard to traffic projec- tions. He contended his projections are accurately based on the latest data for this area which has been compiled by Cal Trans. He affirmed that both the total traffic generation and the trip distribution are accurately estimated for this development. -5- Sept. 12, 1979 Harlan Skinner, 4234 Lynwood Drive, directed numerous questions to the traffic consultant concerning the possible increase of traffic on Lynwood Drive, who would be responsible for policing the road, and for widening it if that should become necessary. Marjorie Watrous, resident of Holly Way, raised the issue of lights from traffic on Lynwood Drive and also of noise from 805. She felt the proposed development should in no way impinge on the rights of people who have already invested in homes in the adjacent area. Chairman Pro Tem Pressutti enumerated the many concerns that were expressed during the public hearing, and suggested that it would take some time to finalize the report with the necessary comment from the environmental consultant and Planning staff to the questions raised. Mr. Reid advised that he had confirmed with the consultant that October lOth would be an appropriate date for consideration of the final EIR. MSUC (R. Johnson-O'Neill) The public hearing in consideration of the EIR-79-8 be continued to the meeting of October 10, 1979. ~lr. Reid asked for a clarification of the motion, since it is customary to close the public hearing, and set the date for consideration of the final EIR which will include a transcript of all testimony presented, and a response from the consultant to the issues raised. Discussion among the Commissioners revealed a difference in opinion as to whether the public hearing is to be continued, or that the final EIR, without further testimony be considered on October 10. MS (Williams-O'Neill) The former motion relative to EIR-79-8 be rescinded. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Williams, O'Neill, R. Johnson, Pressutti and Stevenson NAY: Commissioner G. Johnson ABSENT: Commissioner Smith The Commission further discussed the advisability of receiving further public input based on the consultant's response to the issues raised, or of setting a date to consider the final EIR without further public testimony. MS (R. Johnson-G. Johnson) Consideration of the final EIR-79-8 be set for October 10 without further public testimony. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners R. Johnson, G. Johnson, Pressutti and Stevenson NOES: Commissioners Williams and O'Neill ABSENT: Commissioner Smith A recess was called at 9:00 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. -6- Sept, 12, 1979 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of revocation of conditional use permit PCC.-78-7 issued to GarS Iverson for truck repair facility at 1179 Frontage Road Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that two years ago the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for a truck repair facility at 1180 Walnut Avenue which had then been in operation some ten months. In approving the permit and the precise plan for improvement of the site, the Commission stipulated certain conditions which were to be met. Since that time the staff has attempted to work with the applicant to get him to comply with the conditions imposed by the Commission, which included paving certain portions of the area, fencing, landscaping, and a restriction against the storage of vehicles in the open or on the road easement. To date, only minimal effort has been made by the applicant to comply with those conditions. Mr. Lee displayed photos which show the condition of the site and the lack of improvements as required. Since the city has made every effort to get the applicant to comply and those efforts have not been successful, it is recommended that the conditional use permit be revoked and the applicant requested to cease operation by December 12, 1979. Mr. Lee pointed out that one of the findings in approval of the original conditional use permit indicated that the conditions of approval would insure that the use would not be detrimental to the health and welfare of persons in the vicinity. The fact that the stipulated conditions were not carried out lead to the recommendation that the permit be revoked. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Gary Iverson, owner/operator of the Porta Shop, advised that he leases the site and does not own the property. He felt that many of the improvements should have been the responsibility of the owner, although he had undertaken to improve the property himself--a portion of the required fence was installed. He indicated the improvements were not completed because they had been unable to ascertain where the sewer line was located, or where the curb cuts for the driveway would be when Walnut Avenue is improved. Mr. Lee noted that the curb cuts would be adjusted to fit the location of Mr. Iverson's driveway and the sewer line location has no bearing on the approved site plan. Mr. Iverson advised that he has decided to move his operation out of the city at the expiration of his lease, which will be the end of December, but would like an additional 30 days in which to complete the removal of equipment and vehicles. MS (O'Neill-Williams) The conditional use permit for the truck repair facility be revoked and Mr. Iverson be directed to remove his equipment and have the site cleaned up by January 30, 1980~ The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners O~Neill, Williams, G. Johnson, R. Johnson and Pressutti. NAY: Commissioner Stevenson ABSENT: Commissioner Smith -7- Sept. 12, 1979 5. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Variance PCV-80-1 - Request fOr exemption from "west to east development policS" of E1 Rancho del ReS Specific Plan to permit development of 2.6 acre parcel on the north side of East H Street, &pproximatel~ 900 feet west of Otas Lakes Road - Chez Bonita Director of Planning Peterson pointed out this is not the usual type of variance from provisions of the zoning ordinance, but rather seeks to depart from one of the most important policies in the Specific Plan for El Rancho del Rey. As background information, Mr. Peterson reported that this property was purchased by Mr. Lewsader in approximately August, 1977, at which time the staff was preparing a Specific Plan for E1 Rancho del Rey and the Council had placed a moratorium on new construction within the area so that development would not occur prior to adoption of an overall plan. Mr. Lewsader's property was subject to that moratorium, although he had requested the Council to exempt his 2.6 acre parcel from the moratorium. After adoption of the west to east development policy as part of the Specific Plan, Mr. Lewsader asked the Council to exempt him from that policy, and in May of this year the Council suggested that he apply for a variance from that requirement. Mr. Peterson reviewed the information submitted by the applicant as justification for the variance. He noted that one of the arguments is the idea that the purpose of the west to east policy is to require that parcels have street improve- ments along their frontage prior to development. Mr. Peterson advised that the purpose of the policy goes much beyond that; and that the purpose is to avoid building more traffic generators in the easterly portion of E1 Rancho del Rey before H Street is constructed because any new development will have to use Telegraph Canyon Road or Bonita Road for east-west travel and those streets cannot carry additional traffic. Another point made by the applicant is that his property is unique and therefore should be treated differently from other properties. Mr. Peterson reported that there are two parcels adjacent to this site on the west which also have full street improvements so that the Lewsader property is not unique. Another point discussed is the contention that the development of only 46 units would not generate much additional traffic and would not result in over burdening of Telegraph Canyon Road, Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road. Uhile this may be true the same thing can be said of other small parcels, but the cumulative effect will add traffic to those roads and they are at the point where they can't handle that additional traffic. Mr. Peterson noted that in Exhibit E the applicant discusses the legal doctrine of estoppel which he says prohibits the city from delaying development of this property. Mr. Peterson asserted that doctrine applies only when a developer has acquired a vested right for development through the issuance of a building permit. In this case, the applicant has not reached that stage of approval. The property is located in the P-C zone and before building permits could be issued a precise plan would have to be considered at a public hearing before the Planning Commission and at another hearing before the City Council. The applicant is not nearly that far along in the processing of his plans, so the doctrine of estoppel does not apply. ~8- Sept. 12, 1979 Mr. Peterson advised that although he sympathizes with Mr, Lewsader in his desire to develop his property with 46 units, if the application is measured against the importmce of the west to east criteria as a valid city policy and against the kind of findings required to be made in order to grant a variance, then it is clear that the variance should be denied and that is his recommenda- tion to the Commission. Mr. Peterson offered a correction to finding No. 2 as stated in the staff report, which indicated there are no other properties in E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan area which have been granted an exception from the west to east development policy and therefore approval of this request would constitute the granting of a special privilege. That is not completely true as the city is in the process-- with the Council pretty firmly committed--to allowing two developments to occur: one on the northwest corner and one on the northeast corner of the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road, which properties are in the easterly extremity of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. The Council has given an indication that they are prepared to allow those two properties to be developed "in violation of the west to east policy" but they are attaching a condition to the development that requires the developer to widen Telegraph Canyon Road to four lanes from a point east of the intersection westerly to the point where the road has already been widened to four lanes. That offsite improvement is required as a mitigating factor to development in the eastern portion of the E1 Rancho del Rey area. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Howard Barnhorst, attorney for Chez Bonita and for Mr. Lewsader, reviewed the events of the acquisition of the property and subsequent attempts to receive approval of development plans. He reported that the Planning Department staff worked with them in the refinement of their development proposal during the time the moratorium was in effect, and nothing was said at that time about a west to east development policy. They had an indication from the staff and from the Council that once the moratorium was lifted they could proceed with development plans, and on that basis they made the revisions to their preliminary plans as suggested by the Planning Department in a letter dated February, 1978. Mr. Barnhorst noted that it was not until the fall of 1978 that they learned they could not proceed with development, even though the moratorium had been lifted, because the west to east development policy precludes development in that area. The applicant made several contacts with the staff and with the City Council trying to get some relief from that policy. Finally, the Council suggested that they file a variance application with the Planning Commission, and they are following that suggestion. He asserted their property is unique since it is the only parcel adjacent to the developed portion of the eastern stub of East H Street that has been designated for residential development and they are the only property owners who have been involved in the process of development plans with the City of Chula Vista since the fall of 1977. Mr. Barnhorst reviewed in some detail the findings in support of their application, stressing the uniqueness of their case, the fact that this development alone would -9- Sept. 12, 1979 not overload the existing streets, and that granting the variance could not set a precedent for similar requests. He pointed out that Bonita Haciendas, a development of 58 units located east of Otay Lakes Road, has been approved. He contended that approval of the Chez Bonita project would not impair the fundamental policy for getting "H" Street put in. With reference to the doctrine of estoppel, Mr. Barnhorst believed that Mr. Peterson was referring to a recent law held especially under the Coastal Act. Mr. Barnhorst expressed the opinion that the law in California is quite clear with regard to a change in position. He asserted they acted in reliance and in good faith on what the City told them in the fall of 1977 and the early part of 1978. In response to a question from Commissioner G. Johnson, it was affirmed that the easterly stub of "H" Street was fully improved prior to the date Mr. Lewsader purchased his property. Mr. Barnhorst read portions of a transcript from City Council minutes of January 3, 1978, which he contended indicated that the delay in approval of plans was based on the moratorium pending adoption of a general revision of the P-C district, which "once that is through, hopefully the bottleneck will be lifted." He also read from a transcript of a meeting in September, 1978, at which time the Council approved development plans for V & V Development on a site east of Otay Lakes Road. It was indicated at that time that development of Mr. Lewsader's property could not be approved because it would supposedly add to the traffic burden on Telegraph Canyon Road, which could not handle additional traffic. Mr. Barnhorst contended that since Telegraph Canyon Road is now to be widened to four lanes, they should be given approval of their request. City Engineer Lippitt asserted there is no assurance when Telegraph Canyon Road will be widened--only a preliminary development proposal that would be contingent upon such widening. Mr. Lewsader, 1687 Bonita Vista, La Jolla, expressed the opinion that his small parcel should never have been included in the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan as it is somewhat isolated from other areas. The property is fully graded, whereas the adjacent properties are not, and full street improvements have been in for years. He felt it is a small island that does not deserve to be included in the Specific Plan. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Pro Tem Pressutti commented that he is personally committed to a west to east development but felt there are some legal considerations in this instance. He asked for comments from the Assistant City Attorney before the Commission proceeds, as to where the City stands, legally. Assistant City Attorney Harron advised that the west to east policy is now a matter of zoning which was adopted as part of the Specific Plan, so it is now one of the land use regulations. The law to v~nich Mr. Barnhorst referred states that before you can estop zoning, you must have received a building permit and made expenditures. He asserted the law is accurately portrayed in the staff's report. -10- Sept, 12, 1979 City Engineer Lippitt discussed the proposed plans for improvements to Telegraph Canyon Road, and the lack of any plan for the construction of "H" Street, He indicated that the preparation for complete plans for construction of "H" Street is the responsibility of E1 Rancho del Rey and until that is done an accurate assessment of the responsibility of each development cannot be made. It is possible that Mr. Lewsader~s obligation may extend beyond the limits of his property. Commissioner Stevenson commented on the large development on the south side of East "H" Street which he felt contributes far more to adverse traffic conditions than the small development under consideration. Commissioner Williams asked if there would be a problem in approving this develop- ment if that parcel could be taken out of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. Assistant City Attorney Harron advised that would require an amendment to the Specific Plan. He further advised that if the Planning Commission favors approval of the variance, they can legally do so; they could also legally deny it; it is merely a matter of making the findings. Commissioner O'Neill asked the Director of Planning for the rewording of finding No. 2 as contained in the staff report since two other developments have been tentatively approved. Director of Planning Peterson advised that he would say that the tentative approval by the Council of two developments at the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road was conditioned upon that developer's widening Telegraph Canyon Road to four lanes for a distance of almost three miles offsite in order for the development to go ahead. Something comparable in Mr. Lewsader's case would be to say that for him to go ahead, he should build "H" Street for a distance of, say, one mile, but that's ridiculous. Commissioner O'Neill concurred it would be for the number of units involved. Chairman Pro Tem Pressutti pointed out that this development proposal has not been presented to the Commission before but has been before the Council a number of times and the Council has discussed ~t. He suggested that it be sent back to the Council for their decision and determination. Director of Planning Peterson advised that when the Council suggested the variance possibility to Mr. Lewsader they requested that the action of the Planning Commission be forwarded immediately to the Council, so they are looking for the Commission's recommendation as to what they should do when the application comes to them. The Commission discussed the alternative of making a decision on this application or referring it to the Council with an advisory recommendation. Commissioner O'Neill commented that there is reason to think that the applicant did not feel that a west to east policy was going to be imposed on him at the end of the moratorium. He felt the Planning Commission should make a decision in the matter. -11- Sept. 12, 1979 Chairman Pro Tem Pressutti suggested that if the Commission could include in their approval a commitment of the Commission to the concept of the west to east development, but recognize the pecularities of this particular application in granting the variance, that would carry to the Council a commitment to the west to east concept. Commissioner R. Johnson pointed out this has been going on for two years through no fault of this owner and there is no foreseeable end to it. Commissioner Stevenson asserted that the City has created an undue hardship for Mr. Lewsader. He asked what findings would be necessary to grant approval. Mr. Peterson pointed out that the applicant has offered findings at great length and if the Commission concurs they may apply those findings. MSUC (G. Johnson-R. Johnson) The Planning Commission adopts the Negative Declaration on IS-80-11 and finds that this project will have no significant environmental impact. MSUC (G. Johnson-R. Johnson) Based on the findings submitted by the applicant with the application, the Commission grants the variance request. MSUC (G. Johnson-R. Johnson) The Commission expresses its support for the west to east development policy. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson called attention to the League of California Cities annual conference to be held in San Francisco September 22-25. He suggested that any Commissioners interested in attending should indicate that to the secretary as soon as possible so registration and reservations can be taken care of. He also noted that a study session is scheduled for next Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. in conference room 2, to be followed by dinner. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner R. Johnson requested that if the agenda for the study session is not filled, he would like to have a discussion of lot size and coverage as it relates to a variance request considered two weeks ago. Commissioner O'Neill requested that the Planning Commission receive copies of the housing matters status report submitted by the Human Relations Commission to the Council on August 21. Commissioner Stevenson suggested that some consideration be given to establishing storage requirements for apartment development similar to the requirements for condominium development. -12- Sept, 12~ 1979 Mr. Peterson advised that many apartment developers are building to meet the standards for condominiums in the event they wish to convert the buildings to that status, but he concurred that the ordinance could be amended to make storage an actual requirement in multi-family development. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Pro Tem Pressutti adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p,m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secretar~