••

•

l~Un~tes i~~ the· \'Geeting. o~ the State: .t.ands Commi.Sst~.~~ Sacram,ntb~ Ca1ifot~1~

Al>PEARANCES

Commissioners Pre'\ent: --. ~erineITT. ry,, "state Control~er, Cha;irn.tan

Davi~ A~k~~~~u, Comm~ssi~n-Alternate for .Mike curl:>, . Lie\,l.·1re:n·ant ·Gov~l!nl)r--

Roy B~l'l, 0: ommis·~i:on..,,Alt!.e:rnat~ for Mary Ann Gravet;, Dir1;?~ttr~· '.Of Fh1ance

Staf:.E .tiembet.s in Attenda:Jce --..,...~P.iam F ... NQ:r:~nf<ij), Executive o~ficer

J'arn~s :if. 'f;r~u};, Ai?Si'stant Executive ,Qfficer R. S·4 ·Golq~t'\, Chief, Division of Land Management

and Conservation . D. Jt Ev~ritts, Chief, ~ivision of En~rgy and Mineral Resourcer; t>evelopmeri.t

W.~ M. Thompson, Chilef, Di<vlsion of Long Beach n ... ,..--.......:·-..,.._... ""P'"'~·a\..&.Vl&O ,

Kazum:t B. Yoneyama, General Audi.tor Ii-II

Reerescnting the Office of .the Attorne~ General ~ennis ~agan, Depcik.y Att01::ney ene·raL" Robert Cqllins, Deputy Att:orney General

--, CAVtNOAR ftAQ! . --~ ~ l M;~T! ,AGE . E "":" l I... .• T .. 1 .• " ~ . ' - ... !?

~- :

j '

•

•

MINUTES OF TH~ STA.TE LANDS COMMISSION MEETING .QF

Aprii 24, 1980

The ~egul<fr m~eting 9f ~he State Lands Commission was callad to order by Ch~i~m~n Kenn~th Cory at 10:03 a.m. in Roonl :6031, -State ,capitol* 'S~~:ramento,

Also present were C,9qimisSi'.Ol\· Alterna,tes David Ackerman, represen.ting Commiss~onl!!t' Miki? Curb:, Lieutenant Governor; ~nd Roy Beil, representing Commisslo.ner Mary Ann Grav>'as, PirectQ.~ o~ Finance.

The minutes of t:he· l\lee~ipg o~ March 19, 1980 wer~ apprcrred a.s. pre!»ehte~~

EXECUTIVE, OFF!.CER ''S J:l.EPORT

Reporci . hX the Office of th~~ Attorney Gene"r-.f!!.

Mt. Den.µis Eagan, Deputy Attorney Generat, repott~d on the .following case$~

A. West~rn Oil an9 Gas, et al, v. Cory w 503 .• 866

It was argued in the Court of Appeal for the Thtrd 1District in Sacramento. A decis¥(.on has not been made.

B. Pariani v. State

This case w~s argue\1 the previous week in San Francisco before 1the Fi.rst District Court of Appeal; however, a decision h~s fi~t been render~d.

~~..g~rt from ~iliiam John Lamont 2 s2eclal. Counsel; Washington 2

Mr. Lamont reporteq on the status of the oii issues which his fi:rm has been monitorinf, in Washington, D.C.

Chai~man Kenneth Cory asked if there was a possibility that the favorable treatment being giyen to Alaska woJld be altered. M.r. Lamont stated it was l1.kely. He stated there was a hearing the p:-evious week before the head of the Office of H~qr±ngs and Appeais~ Mr. Mei Golcstein. Mr. Golds·tein ~ejected the request on. the grounds he did not have the autho~lty to grant it but he instr~cted the complainants on how to fil~ so he could grant i~. In addit:J.on, Mr. Goldstein sent a formal memorandum to the ~mergency ~egulato~y Administration stating that the special Alaskan treatment should be withdrawn.

I CALeNDAft PAGI

Mt~ITI! PAQ!

"t

.·---..-..--.......... -.:.-...:.1

•

•

Mr. Lamont also ci'iscussed th~ PreE1~:dent' s ·tmport p,r.oclamat:ton which recently caused a great ~e$1 :of controv~rs~. In addition to ,a possi.ble lawsu~t against the p:roclamat;,ion: being considered by pl,~ivate interests, the Congress. is propostr1g a joint resqlutiq,n to d~cl.a~e it null and \l':Oid. Also,. the Subcommittee on GoveTµm~nt Operations issued. a s1ilbpena ·i!:.o Secretary of Energy Charles Dunc~11 1·equestb1g an 18---inch stack of <locument.s prepared 'by. ;DO~ ~s background fJor the import pi:'oclam_a~;ion. However, ~hat stack was s:-ubsequently sent to the WhL1:e House with the view :L:t mip;ht be qlailJled a·s e~ecutive privilege. La~er on.in his report, Mr. Lamont e~plained· the irilpo:irt progr~m to .the Commiss:ion.

Another issue he .discussed was the· It'\ternation.al Energy Agency 1~1i th the itnpc$it.ions· o.f sancti.ons on I! iln and the riequest .~>'f our, al;lies t.o do. 1 ikewise.

?-tr. Cory a.st'':~d wh~n the entitlement,s pre>gr~rt. was scheduled to enc.\~. ·rit. Lamont c9uld not reqa]'.! -ti1e '~'Jf~cµ date, but pointed out some vartation of ·the program w:t:ll cont~nue.

At the con¢lusi9n 9f Mr. La~onti~ repo~t, ~r. Northrop proceed~:«l w:tth his repor.t which .is attache9 tn its wr,~tten form as Exhibit "A". Al;·so .attached as ·Exhitbtt "Bu i:·s Mr. R. s. Golden•·~,. -report, Chj;ef, Division o{tand Ma1iagement and Consetv~tion.

Attactimet.~: Exhibit "A" and "B" •

CALIHDM P~QI

MINUTIFAQ! ... 6.34-

• YJI I

• EXHIBIT "A"

EXECUTVVE OFFI CERt S REPORT OF

W~LLIAM F. NORTHROP txEcur1vE OrFICER

APRIL 24, 1980

LONG BEACH ' LOCAL CQASIAL PROGRAM :LB ADMIN.

LAST WEEK THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SENT A LETTER TO THE

CITY OF LONG BEACH COMMENTING UPON THE C1rv's 'LOCAL COASTAL

PROGRAM CLCP) RECENTLY APPROVED BY THE C~TY COUNCIL, SUBSEQUENTLY,

STAFF ·RECEIVED THE STAFF REPORT OF THE SQUTH COAST REGJONAL

COASTAL CoMM1si~10N ON THE Crrv's LCP. Turs REPORT RECOMMENDS

APPROVAL OF THE LCP SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, ONE OF THESE

CONDITIONS, IF APPROVED, WOULD ?RECLUDE NIGHT OIL DRILLING IN

AREA$ CLOSE TO RESl1DENTIA\ .. NEIGHBORHOOTJS OF THE CITY WITHIN THE

CoAsTAL ZoNE. ·As THE Sr>\TE OF 'CALIFORNLU. HAS A DiRECT INTEREST

IN ANY REVENUES WHICH M:AY B,F. DERIVED FROM OIL AND GAS ~'RPDUCEL\

FROM CERTAIN· TIDELAl'JDS -wrn~tlN THI~ AUJM.~:ros :'BAY' Af!EA W!UN-i ARE

LOCATED CLOSE TO R~SJli.l.Erfr!A~- AR~.'\~. O.F THE CI'TY11 IT l S· THE SiTAFF' S

INTENTION TO SEND A L~·rTEf, ·t:a TH~:. ?.EGiOtJAL COM1·;~ . .lSION COMMENTING

ON THIS CONDITION, THE PROVISIONS OF 1HE CITY'S REVISED OIL CODE

RELATING TO THIS MATTER AS INCORPORAl'ED IN THE LCP WERE P~OPTED

AFTER EXTENSIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE LCP PROCESS, IT IS STAFF'S OPINION THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE

CODE WILL MIT~GATEJ TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE) THE EFFECTS OF OIL

DRILLING AROUND THESE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOuDS WiTHOUT

~ UNREASONABLY INCREASING THE COST OF SUCH DRILLING1 A COMPLETE

LIMITAiIOi~ ON NIGHT DRILLING CQULD DISCOURAGE DRILLING

CONTRACTORS FROM BIDDING ON SUCH WORK, OR,

•

•

-2-

BIDDING, COULD INCREASE OIL DEVELOPMENT COSTS TO THE EXTENT

THAT IT WOULD BE UNECONOMICAL TO DRILL, SUtH A SITUATION COULD

COST THE STATE, NOT TO MENTION THE CITY, PRIVATE OWNERS IN THE

AREAJ AND OUR NATION) TO LOSE MUCH NEEDED OIL AND OIL REVENUES,

WESTSIDE Ifill.USJ.R{.AL PARK STORM DRAIN UNIT 2A/SUBSIDEillI. w 10292

ON DECEMBER 19) 1977, THE COMMlSSION GRANTED PRIOR

APPROVAL OF THE '1SUBSIDENCE COSTS" FOR SECOND PHASE WORK TO

REPLACE A PORTION OF THE WESTSIDE INDUSTRIAL PARK STORM DRAIN

SYSTEM, THE APPROVAL WAS BASED ON A CONTRACT BID OF $L 208) 000, Qr).

DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION) THE CITY HAS FOUND IT

NECESSARY, FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS) TO AUTHORIZE EIGHT CHANGES

TO THE CONTRACT WORK INCREASING THE CONTRACT COST BY A TOTAL

CIF $182,000, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO THE CONTINGENCY

AMOUNT WHICH THE COMMISSION ORIGINALLY ALLOCATED TO THIS

PROJECT,

RECENTLY) A NINT~ CHANGE ORDER WAS CONSIDERED FOR

$436JQQ0, UPON LEARNING OF THIS INTENDED CHAth'':J STJl,FF SENT

THE CITY A LETTt:RJ STATING THAT THIS ADDITIONAL WORK APPEARED

TO INCLUDE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES FROM THE SCOPE OF WORK GRANTED

PRIOR APPROVAL ANDJ CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO SUBMITTING THIS

TO THE COMMISSION FOR AUGMENTED APPROVAL, IN RESPONSE, CITY

REPRESENTATIVES C0NTENDED THAT SUCH APPROVAL WAS NOT NECESSARY ON

GROUNDS THAT THE ADDITIONAL WORK WOULD BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF

THE QRIGINAL PRIOR fa.PPROVAL, THE CITY FURTHER CONTENDED THAT

• IT ·cv~~n ~OT WAIT FOR COMMISSION APPROVAL AS THERE WAS AN IMMEDIATE

CALENDAR PME

Mlf\IUTE PAGE 6 3G ...

'

I I

• -3-

N~ED FOR THE CHANGES IN ORDER TO KEEP THE CONTRACTOR ON· THf

DURING THiE MONTH OF APRIL, THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBt!R

OF D!SCW$SIONS BETWEEN STAFF, THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

AND Ct TY REPRESENTATIVES REL.AT! NG TO THESE CHANt;ES • AT A

MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17, 1980, CITY REPRESENTATIVES AGREED

TO DELETE A PORTION OF THEIR PROPOSAL Tt.IUS LOWERING THE ADDITIONAL

costs BY $128,000 TO '$3'08,000. CITY REPRESr:NTATIVES ALSO

ASSIJRED THE STAFF THAT /\.LL INFORMATION NECESSARY TO DETERMINE

THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE OTHER TWO CHANGES WOULD BE PROVIDED

AND lNDJ.CATED THAT THE CITY UNDERSTANDS ITS RESPONSIBILITY,

AS TRUSTEE, TO EXERCISE DILtGENCE IN ITS CONTR11LLING COSTS IN

• SUBSIDENCE REMEDJAL PROJECTS.

•

A F-ULLER EXt'LANATION OF ·~HIS .MATTER· IS lNCl;:UDED. AS AN

ADDENDUM OF THIS REPORT, A COPY OF WHICH IS IN FRONT OF YOU,

ATTACHMENT

CALENOM PAG! ~-:.-=---l i:-M-IN_ur_E_PA_ae __ -1_~

•

•

ADDENDUM TO EXECUTIVF~ 0F~ICEF.''S REPORT W 10292

GITY OF LONG ~EACH'S AMENDED PROPOSAL TO PERFORM ,suasIDENCE REMEDIAL WORK -WESTSIDE INDU~TRIAt PARK STORM DRAIN UNIT 2A

On Dec~mber· 19, 1977, the Commission granted p=ior approval of the 11 subs,idence costs" proposed to be expended for second phase work to repla.ce a portion (designated Unit: 2A) of the Westside Industrial ~aik storm drain system. The approval was based on the low cc~tractor bid of approximately $1,208,000.00.

Prior to now and during the course of construction, the City has found it necessary, for a number of reasons, to authorize eight changes to the contract work. In each instance the City no~ified the staff of the changes and was subsequently advised that the changes were within scope of work considered by the Comrni.ssion in granting prior approval. These authorized chanees inar~ased the contr.act cgst; 'Qy a total of $+&2, 000 whic~ is approximately equ~l to the contingency 8.fnout..:t which the Commission allocated to this proj~ct in its prior approval.

It rec~ntly came to the attention of staff that the Long Beach City Council intended to authorize a ninth change order, this in the amount of approximately $436,000. Upon learning of this intended change, staff sent the City a letter dated Ap~il 4, 1980, stating that this additional work appeared to include substantial changes from the scope of work granted prior approval .w.1d, the~efore, should be submitted to the Connnission for augmented approval if reimbursement was expected. In response City representatives cont~nded,that such approval was not necessary on grounds that the additional work would be within the scope of the original prior approval. The City further contended that it could not wait for Conunission approval as there was an immediate need for the changes in order to keen the contractor on the job.

1he additional work proposed by the City had three major elements. The first would authorize the contractor to jack storm drain pipes under the Southern Pacific railroad tracks at two locations instead of placing such pipes using the open cut construction method which had originally been specified in the contract. This change would result in a net increase in cost of $273,000. The second change would authorize additional compensation b~ paid to the contractor for delays, errors in drawings, extra work and all other claims which the

CALENDAR PAO!

MINUTE PAGE 638

I :1

•

•

•. 1*11

cont·ractor may have against the City. This change would result· in a net increase in cost of $55, 000. The third majo,•r change involved the addition of a 408 foot storm drain line in an area outside of the Harbor District and the deletion of a 181 foot temporat:y line which had been origine.lly specified in the contract, This ch~nge would have resulted in ~ net increase in cost of $108,000.

During the mqnth of ~~ril there have been a number of discussions between staff., the Office of th~ Attorney General and City tep,resentatives relating to whethe~ these changes would qualify as 'subsidepce costs" and, if so, w'r '!:her augmented prior approval of 1 .Q.em by the Commiss1.on was necessary. So far as the 'change in construction method from the open cut to .i acking and the additional compensation for the contractor's claims against the City were concerned, staff raised tha question of whether the additional costs for these matters could have been avoided if -~he City had been more diligent in its control of the ~rgj~ct ~~d ;n ~t~ enforcement of its rights under the contract and against Southern Pacific Transportation Company. It should be noted that in August 1978 Southe·rn Pacific authorized the open-cut method of construction for this P11oject; in January of this year~ this consent was rescinded and. the jacking methoc;t was suggested.. So far as the additional storm drain line war concerned, sta.ff question~d whether this qualifie4 as a "subsidence cost" since 'it was to be: built outside of the Rarbor District and for purposes of draining areas, also outside of the Harbor ,District.

At a meeting held on April J.7, 1980, City reprerienta­tives agreed to delete the st.:lrm drain line from the proposed addi­tional work and to not reinstate the temporary line which had

I

been previously deleted; this lowers the additional c~~ts by $128,000 to $308,000. These deletions were made with the understanding that the City may corue back to the Commission at some later date with a request for prior approval of this or similar work; at such time the Commission can determine the appropriateness of such a request. At the meeting City representatives, in a spirit of cooperation, also assured the ,, staff that all information n~cessary to determine the ap~ropriate-ness of the other two changes would be provided. The City contends that these changes were necessitated primarily by unforeseen circumstances beyond its control. As was indicated in the Ap1~il 15, 1980, '" .. etter from the Port relating to the Sprinkler System Repl:a<:.~ment Project (the closing of which the Commission is also connidering at this meeting), the City understands its responslbility, as trustee, to exercise diligence

ICAL£Nl:>AR PAGE

MINUTE~AQE 639

•

•

•

' '

-3-

in its corttrol subsidenoe remedial projects. By l~tter dated April is, 1980, from th~ Long Beach City Attorney's Office,, the City expl.~ins the ·ircumstances which have led up to the present situa Lon. In that letter the City also indicates chat it will, aft'3'!' further investtga~:f.on, attempt to persuadP Southern ~~pific t9 ~llow the open cut method or construction as origi,1~1ly }lromi 1ed. If coopers.ti on is not forthcoming, the City will then determir~~ whether it has any legal claims for damag,~s a6ainst the ra.1\troad company and, if so, will pursue them to the State•s ben~fit.

In view of the r·tt·y' o deletion of the additional stonµ drain line and repre~l:rutations made in its letter of April 18, 1980, staff stat.:ld it would not iu.sist that the changes for jacking and contractor's claims be submitted to the Commission for au~en~1:1d pl:'ior approval. U1~on final review an6 audit of this Project, staff will no\' deny reimbursement of theae addit~onal costs on grourtuD that they lack prior approv&lj howev~~ this shall net preclude staff f+cm qu'.;-!stion!ng th~ _propri.d:y of the costs and, if appr?ptiate, recommending their denial r.>n ~:~~er grounds. To avoid this type of situation in the futu..""e, the staff 'intends to establish clearer guidelines to put the ct:ty on notice of the circumstances where it will be expected to ~eek augmented prior apr\oval of projects in which thure are significant changes, :i.nclu,.,,,.1..nc., as occurred in this case, substantial increases in costs .

CALENDAM PAG!

MINUTE J>AGE 1.

IJ

... r--•

•

••

Bv" R. s. GOLDEN EXHIBIT "B"

REPORT ON COASTAL MATTERS w 9777 •. l

PaoeosEn CoAsr GUARD SAEETY FAIRWAY SEPARATION ScHS.Ma

THE .CGAST GUARD IS CURRENTLY CONSID'ERING TANKER TRAFFIC

LANES OFF SOUTHERN CALIFORMJA, ONE PROPOSAL IS TO HAVE iRAFFIC

LANES RUNNING FROM POINt ARGUELLO THROUGH THE SANTA BARBARA

CHANNEL TO THE tos ANGELES - LONG aEAGH PORTS. ANOTHER PROf'OSAL

WOULD. BE ro TAKE TANKER ·rRAFFlC OUT~OARJ;> OF THE CHANNEL lSLANDS

TO A POINT SOUTH OF SAN MIGUEL ISLAND AND· THENCE EASTWARD TO

THE PORTS. lN ADDITION FOUR ~AFETY FArRWAYS ARE PROPOSED WHICH

ASSUME THAT THE ALTERNATIVE PLAN UTJLlZING THE CHANNEL ~{,ILt. EE

ADOPTED,

SINCE THE STATE COASTAL COMMISSION WILL ULTIMATELY HAVE

TO MAKE A CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION ON WHICHEVER ALTERNATIVE

THE COAST GUARD· PLANS TO ADODT) YOUR STAFF RAISED THE ISSUE

FOR DISCUSSION AT THIS EARLY DATE. IT IS OUR PC~HT!ON) BASED

10N EXTENSIVE INPUT FROM ADMIRAL HIGBEE, THAT THE LANES SHOULD

,BE LOCATED OUTBOARD OF THE CHANNEL ISLANDS FOR MAXIMUM SAFETY

AND THAT THE SO-CALLED "SAFETY FAIRWAYS" WILL ONLY INCREASE

RISKS a

IT 15 OBVIOUS FROM INITIAL DISCUSSIONS THAT THE ISSUE

WJLL BE CONTROVERSIAL, S·rAFF OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION APE

OPPOSED TO THE OUTS IDE-THE-CHANNEL PROPOSAL BECAUSE THEY FEE"~

CA\.ENOAR PAGt

MINUYE PAGE ' ----541--·

•

.• ,

•

PAGE 2 THAT THE CHANNEi,, R'OUTE Wf,LL ·sUTJRESS THEIR POSITION FOR NO

FURTHER OI,L DEVEILOPMENT lN THE CHANNEL. THERE HAVE B~EN

INDICATIONS THAT' TH; STEAMSHiP OPERATORS WOULD PREFER THAT

THE OIL TANKERS UT:ILI,zE THE CHAN~E!.. PRESUMABLY SO THAT 'rHEV

WOULD NOT HAVE TO SHARE THE LANES WITn TH~ TANKERS, TH~

COAST GUARD SEEMS PRE-DISPOSED TO ADOP,T THE CHANNEL ROUTfS,

OUR P0$'1T-ION IS THAT A ROUTE OUTSIDE THE CHANNEL

I~kANDS WiL~ PROVIDE A GREATER RESPONSE TIME IN CASE Gt

CASUA~.t¥ tHA:~ A CHANNEL. ROUTE. TH~ OFFSHORE 'ISLANDS CQ\,JLD

PROVIDE A '14J~rER. THE INBOA~D R()UTE .REQUIRES EIGHT HOURS

OF CAREF\t_L PILOTlNG WHILE THE OUTBOARD LOCATIONS DO NOT

REQU!RE S~CH S!RINGENT OP~RATIONS. THE FOUR SAFETY FAIRWAYS

PROPOSED AS COROLLARIES TO THE INBOARD ROUTES WOULD IN TWO

INSTANCES1J PREVENT DEVELOPMENT OF TWO OIL LEASES NECESSITATING

l.ARGE PAYMENTS TO THE HOLDE:RS OF THE TW('I LEASES.

FURTHER REPORTS WILL UE MAOE AS THIS MATTER PROCEEDS,

CONSIDERATION oF SB 664 (NIELSEN) BY SAN FnANc1sco BAY CoNSERYAJION_AND Deve.s..oeMeNt CoMM1ss1o;i . ___ • ___ w 5762.6

THIS LEGISLATION SPONSORED BY THE TITLE IWSURANCE INDUSTRY

WOULD PURPORT TO CONFER UNRESTRICTED TITLE TO PURCHASERS OF SWAMP

AND OVERfLOWED LANDS AND THEIR SUCCESSORS, THE BILL AS DRAFTED

WOULD ATTEMPT TO CUR~ TITLES TO THESE S & 0 LANDS WHICH MAY BE

IN FACT TIDE AND SUBMERGED LANDS, 1HE OLD S & 0 PATENTS WERE

NOTED FOR THE FRAUDULENT MEANS BY WHICH THEY WERE OFTEN CONVEYED •

CALENDAR PA\li

MINOT6 PAQB _, .£ ,4 2_

•

•

•

PAG~ 3 SENATOR NIELSEN, THE AUTHOR, R~QUE&TED THAT ncDC

RECONSIDER ITS OPPOSITION STANCE ADOPTED LAST YEAR ANP

FURTHER REQUESTED THAT MR: ,SEAN McCARTHY, LOBBY I ST FOR THE

TITLE ItJDUSTRY J EXP.LAIN tHE BILL AS NOW AMENDED TO BCDC. ,AFTER HIS PRESENTATION, BCDC COMMISSIONERS POINTED OUT A

. . ' . NUMBER OF DEFECT$ STILL REMAINING IN TH~ BILL, THE COMMISSION

RE~USED TO RECONSIDER ITS PRIOR OPPOSITION TO THE MEASURE,

C"L~NDAR PAGE

1M1Nunt PA~K - . .

• RECORD OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE

ST/:\~E LANDS COMMISSION

AT ITS MEETING OF Aptil 24, 1980

During t.ne m(;!eting, the recommendations of the .f:l'caf:f relative to Calendar Items C2, C3, C4, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, C11, C12, C13, C14, Cl,, 016, C17, C18, 019, C20, C21, 022 .. , 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40'- 41, a~d 42 were adopted as resolutions of the Commission by unanimous vote.

Commi:s.sion action on Calendar Items C5, 23, and 36 ·£ire set forth on pages .664, 749, 819 . •

Calendar Items Cl, 33, and 38 were withdrawn from the agenda prior to the meeting.

The Status of lfajor Litigation is set forth in the Ex~cutive Officer' s Report on Page 633

CALENDAR PAGE

MINUTE~AQE _ _6..44 - '

ii