PC Minutes 2005-08-021
1
1
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 2005
6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with
Vice Chair Keen presiding. Also present were Commissioners Fellows, Parker and Tait;
Chair Brown was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development
Director Strong, Associate Planner Foster, Assistant Planner Bergman and Public Works
Engineer Linn.
AGENDA REVIEW: Two additional consent items were added to the Agenda, approved by
the Community Development Director since preparation:
3. Plot Plan Review 05-011, 1126 E. Grand Avenue
4. Minor Exception 05-010; 1398 Newport Avenue.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of July 19, 2005 were approved on a motion by
Commissioner Fellows, seconded by Commissioner Tait, with requested corrections:
Commissioner Fellows:
• Page 4, second bullet, remove word "long"
• Page 6, Tom Bond's comment should read... ran an auto parts store on Dr. Cruz's
property...
• Page 9, third bullet, second sentence change word "shouldn't' to "wouldn't'.
• Page 9, eighth bullet, end of last sentence, add words "and particulates".
The motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote, Chair Brown being absent.
I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
I.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
1. A letter dated July 25, 2005, from Lynn Titus regarding the Cherry Creek project and
her concern and recommendations about the future of existing Palm trees at this
location.
IIA CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE JULY 19, 2005
1. PPR 05-011 1126 East Extend hours, expand alcohol sales & D R. Foster
Grand Ave. add live entertainment to existing
restaurant
2. ARC & 05-010 125 Allen St Move existing garage and add family A J. Bergman
MEX 05-007 room.
Consent item No. 1: Plot Plan Review 05-011, 1126 E. Grand Avenue
Mr. Strong advised the Commission that an Appeal of the Community Development
Director's decision had been filed today so it would now go forward to a public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 2
AUGUST 2, 2005
Consent Item No. 2: Architectural Review Case No. 05-010 & Minor Exception Case No.
05-007; 125 Allen Street
Vice Chair Keen opened the hearing to the public even though this was not a public
hearing.
Terry Payne, 212 Miller Way, stated she did not agree with the findings in the original staff
report and believed Commissioner Brown had been granted extenuating privileges; if there
was room for an addition to the house there was room for a two -car garage; the Village
Design Guidelines specifically recommend that detached garages be located at the rear of
properties; others in the Village area had not been given the same opportunity for a single
car garage; on visiting the site Ms. Payne noticed repair work being done to the kitchen and
after further enquiry found that no permit had been applied for.
Mr. Strong stated parking standards do allow Minor Exceptions and he has granted at least
six per year during his tenure, particularly in the Village area; many of the homes in this
specific area were built with one car garages, some with no covered parking and many of
the lots are only 50 feet wide. The proposed alterations had been legally noticed to
property owners within 300 feet; only one neighbor had concerns, but did not appeal. He
agreed that all parties should be treated equally, but believed that this is an appropriate
approval for this Minor Exception.
Dave Sturgess, 325 Short Street (within the 300 foot radius) and a Builder, stated he has a
project under way at 130 Short Street and is meeting all kinds of difficulty; a Minor
Exception would have helped him immensely if he had been offered this; he believed others
also were not aware of the availability of a Minor Exception to build a one car garage;
believed that Mr. Brown had room to build a two -car garage and the reason he did not want
to build the garage up front of the site was because it would block views from his kitchen
window.
Comments:
Doug Tait:
• The kitchen remodel is a separate issue and not part of the consideration for the
Minor Exception.
• The existing single -car garage does need to come down as it is in very bad shape.
• In his opinion there is no room for a two -car garage with the 5 ft required setback.
• He agreed with the July 5, 2005 approval of the Minor Exception; disagreed with Ms.
Payne's comments re Finding No. 4, and stated the approval does not constitute a
grant of special privileges due to the existing physical characteristics of the property,
etc; agreed that the project is consistent with the Municipal Code development
standards.
• He agreed with the ARC approval of both the Architectural Review and the Minor
Exception.
Fellows:
• He had nothing to add to Commissioner Tait's comments.
Parker:
• She understood Mr. Brown's kitchen repairs were being done due to damage from
water and that the flooring had to be removed; she did not think this would constitute
a remodel.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 3
AUGUST 2, 2005
• Agreed that the existing garage needed to be replaced with a conventional and up to
code garage.
• She has personally approved many different garages in the Village, and some
recently.
• Addressing Mr. Sturgess, told him that if he had approached the Commission with a
project that he was having problems with, we would have been treated with the
same consideration; the Commission has high integrity and would not treat anyone
with favoritism.
• The proposed garage would be a benefit to this property and would reduce some of
the parking problems on Allen Street.
Keen:
• He had no problems with a Minor Exception at this property.
• He did not believe Mr. Brown was getting any special benefit; Mr. Brown did not want
to go to a two-story in consideration of his neighbor's.
Mr. Strong presented the two additional Consent Items:
3. Temporary Use Permit 05-014; 1168 West Branch Street, to allow the sale of kettle
corn from a both located in the Five Cities Center for a period of 40 days to benefit
the Children's Miracle Network; it would not cause any parking or extra traffic.
4. Minor Exception 05-010; 1398 Newport Avenue for a retaining wall in the required
Front -yard setback.
In reply to questions from Commissioner Fellows re Consent Item No. 3, Mr. Strong stated
they would be applying for a business license and described how the applicant would set up
the sales booth.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Keen re Consent Item No. 4, Mr. Strong clarified
why they needed to build the retaining wall.
Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to approve Consent
Agenda Items No. 2, 3 and 4.
The motion was passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tait, Parker, Fellows and Vice Chair Keen
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Brown
III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None.
Mr. Strong stated the reason there were no public hearing items was because the legal
public hearing notices did not make the deadline for publishing in The Tribune. All four of
the items were moved to the August 16, 2005 meeting.
IV. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. PRE -APPLICATION CASE NO. 05-007; APPLICANT — JASON
BLANKENSHIP/GARY YOUNG, CENTRAL COAST REAL ESTATE; LOCATION — FAIR
OAKS (empty lot near hospital).
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 4
AUGUST 2, 2005
Mr. Strong presented the staff report for a proposal to build a mixed-use development,
residential/medical office (phased project), on 5.5 acres, east of Arroyo Grande Hospital,
facing Fair Oaks Avenue. Mr. Strong stated that comments received from the ARC at their
meeting August 1, 2005 would be delivered at a later date.
Gary Young, Central Coast Real Estate Company, described their proposal; stated they
have been working with the Arroyo Grand Community Hospital on their facilities plan
expansion, but at this time the commercial buildings are purely theoretical; Woodland Drive
is proposed to be extended through; some of the neighbors do not want this and after
discussion with Public Works, Fire and Police, bollards may be used for emergency access
from Woodland Drive out through to the north. With regard to the archeological issues, they
had made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact the Northern Tribal Council of the
Chumash Nation; there were findings and recommendations from prior archeological
reports done for the eastward expansion of the Arroyo Grande Hospital and also on the
entire 5.5 acres. This report has been submitted to staff.
Commission questions and comments:
In reply to questions from Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Young gave details of their efforts to
contact the Chumash Nation and explained how they had written to advise them that they
were willing to abide by the their recommendations from a prior survey, but to date they had
not received any comment back; he hoped this would suffice for the tribe. Regarding
drainage runoff to the creek, this was discussed at the Staff Advisory Committee meeting
and staff suggested a bio filter system for the water that would flow into the creek.
In reply to questions from Commission Parker, Mr. Young stated that the asphalt walkway
will continue through to the medical portion and the hospital grounds; they will probably not
retain the trees on site, especially the Eucalyptus and the abandoned Walnut trees; the trail
and walkway of the area is maintained by the Parks and Recreation Department; Woodland
Drive will line up with Woodland Drive on the other side of Fair Oaks. In conclusion, he
stated they had not the seen the report referred to by Ms. Parker, which contained ideas
and information on how to avoid disturbing burial grounds and what to do if you did find
them (presented by tribal leaders at a prior Planning Commission meeting three or four
years ago).
Commissioner Keen stated that from a proposed project many years ago, there were
archeological findings at a site (more along the creek behind where the new houses are
now), which was a midan site, and he is still not convinced from prior reports that there are
not some remains down by the creek, maybe in the easement. He would like to get some
information on this.
Mr. Young said they are aware of this information and they are very sensitive to the issue.
Commissioner Tait stated that it should be verified whether or not this was a burial site,
stated it is not good enough (as stated in the 1990 site survey) to say that the project "was
not likely" to impact the burial site.
1
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 5
AUGUST 2, 2005
In answer to questions from Commissioner Tait, Mr. Young replied:
• The buffer between the proposed town houses to the current asphalt trail will be 40
feet.
• He hoped the City would continue to maintain the existing trail.
• They had not been asked by the Parks and Recreation to do any improvements in
the trail area.
• For safety there will be crosswalks for residents to access the medical buildings and
the hospital from Woodland Drive.
• They were aware of the City ordinance for the agricultural buffer and their surveyor
has been out to the site and is in the process of doing calculations.
• The concern regarding the lack of sensitivity to the Chumash by Mr. Clay (who took
part in the1990 archeological survey) was more of a personality issue than
professional.
In answer to questions from Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Young replied:
• Many of the Walnut trees were abandoned about 16 years ago and are not in good
condition. It would be better to have a mitigation measure to plant trees that would
do well in the area and are easier to maintain.
• He did not think there was any newer technology for digging artifacts (newer than the
use of a hand trowel), but he would check.
Mr. Strong recommended that the formal application, when it is filed, should include some
additional sub -surface testing based upon the current development concept and location of
trenching, excavations etc. (this would be very helpful to the City, especially before
construction takes place as archeological surveys are not expensive compared to stopping
construction.
Mr. Castro, President of Arroyo Grande Hospital, stated that Catholic Hospital West
(C.H.W.) in the last 13 months has developed a Community Board and with the help of this
board their goal is to properly plan for the development of future healthcare for the
community; this project gives them to chance to do this.
Commissioner Parker stated C.H.W. is somewhat key to this project; she understands that it
is difficult, after only 13 months, for C.H.W. to come up with a specific plan for the future.
However, not having this information makes it hard to understand how much square footage
would be used for extension of the hospital and how much would be for privately owned
medical facilities. Mr. Castro replied that as they move forward with their strategic plans
they will determine what their needs are and how they can best serve the community; they
would prefer to be closer to the 75% allocation; they do not own the property; they would be
leasing it.
Leonard Grant, Architect, described the architecture of the building.
Commissioner Keen stated he attended the ARC meeting yesterday and had no problem
with the architecture, but with regard to the townhouses he had concerns with the parking
situation and the way the project is layed out and this will need to be addressed; explained
the parking concerns in more detail; the entrances for the houses that face the rear yard,
next to building 7, need to be clarified.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 6
AUGUST 2, 2005
Commissioner Tait asked if there would be room to continue the trail on the north end
toward the hospital. Mr. Grant said there would be a 6 -foot separation from the property
line to maybe a privacy fence for the backyards.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Grant said they had no plans yet for
the workforce/inclusionary housing; they understood it would be 15%.
Mr. Young stated that they were going to do the environmental studies now for Phase II
(hospital portion) to give them the maximum potential for the square footage that they need
to build for the community; re the workforce housing, the hospital would like to request that
the hospital employees get the first right of refusal on the inclusionary housing for those that
qualify.
Mr. Strong invited members of the audience to speak even though this was not a public
hearing the Commission recognized them:
Darlene Mack, 576 Woodland Drive, stated concerns about Woodland Drive going through
to Sierra Vista Circle; explained what would happen to the traffic path and how this would
effect the safety of pedestrians in the area; she was in favor of bollards for emergency
access; asked that consideration be given now as to how the medical offices would be
accessed; a roundabout to slow traffic down would not be effective in stopping people
driving through Woodland Drive.
Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street (and on the Traffic Commission), stated concern with the
parking if Woodland goes through; agreed with Commissioner Keen that there is not
enough off-street parking dispersed throughout the proposed project.
Commission Comments:
Tait:
• Hoped the project would not impact the coast live oaks and two redwoods (on the
northeast corner of lot) and he had noticed other young coast live oaks in the area
that would need to be considered.
• He was glad to see they were abiding by the 25 -foot setback for creek.
• He would like to get a copy of the letter from David Foote, that states biological
assessment is not necessary.
• He appreciates the sensitivity to the archeological impacts.
• The bus turnout requirement needs to be addressed.
• Water availability also needs to be addressed (main issue).
Parker:
• Suggested that for safety there not be a six foot trail behind the houses, but that it be
a little wider and have some vegetation so it becomes more of a nature walk to
continue the character all the way through.
• Would also like to see the Creek study (done by David Foot).
• Okay to have the two-story condos.
• The agricultural buffer should be reviewed due to the creek and fact that the land
swales down.
• There are some large trees and smaller trees that look really healthy on the property
that should be incorporated into the plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 7
AUGUST 2, 2005
• Thought that Woodland Drive should go through; stated that there would be less
problems with circulation if streets were opened up; this street was originally
supposed to go through; this may warrant a small traffic study to assess how many
cars would go through; if a street is blocked off it impacts other areas; described
other methods of traffic calming to slow traffic.
• Re Chumash site, she understood that the Chumash were hard to reach, but it is
important to get them on board; previous studies should be looked at, as there were
some really good ideas as to what could be done.
• Tenants would not utilize parking spaces along Woodland Drive; guest parking
needs to be interspersed throughout the complex.
• Re the 75%/25% she was still confused and would like to have more information as
this goes forward; having medical space to utilize in the future for the community is
very important especially having it pooled in one spot; it would be difficult to change
the General Plan to reflect the movement of land for medical to more housing.
Fellows:
•
Has a real problem with traffic going through and connecting to Woodland Drive on
the other end; he could agree with bollards, if not there would have to be a lot done
to keep traffic from going through the neighborhoods; he sited Berry Gardens as an
example of good traffic circulation; he thought a roundabout with a fountain would be
interesting; for the future Halcyon traffic needs to addressed; having Woodland Drive
go through is not the answer.
•
Make sure that foot traffic can still go through the project to get to the High School.
•
The ARC has stated they would like to see good sections and profiles of the
proposed project and maybe a model would be good also.
•
The agricultural buffer has been discussed during the East Cherry project; prime
land is the same at this site; there needs to be a very healthy and well-designed
buffer to filter out pesticides and particulates in order to protect the farmland.
•
Re the grading, he requested the trees not be taken out for the medical plaza until
they are ready to build.
•
Re the residential: He would like to see stakes marking where the edges of building
are proposed to be so they could visit the site before grading starts.
•
Re the architecture, he liked the style, but would like to see some comp shingle roofs
that have some definition.
•
He appreciates the fact that the applicant will look at updating the archeological
study.
•
He disagreed with the applicant's opinion of the trees not being healthy; he would
like to see a map of the existing trees and a map of proposed trees super -imposed
over it.
Keen:
•
After listening to the neighbors on Woodland and Sierra Vista Drives he thought
bollards would be important to have.
•
Since the Mormon Church owns property across the creek and intends to build a
church, how does this work with agricultural setbacks on this property? Mr. Strong
replied that the property is designated agricultural and zoned agricultural and it
would be fully buffered and retained for agricultural use.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 8
AUGUST 2, 2005
In reply to a question from Commissioner Keen, Mr. Strong said neither this property nor the
property next door are part of the Redevelopment Agency.
Commissioner Fellows had a concern that tree removal permits might be obtained
immediately and the trees on site cut down. Mr. Strong said no permits would be pulled and
he would call the Parks and Recreation Department to make sure.
The Commission had no further concerns
7:45p.m.
The Commission took a five-minute break.
B. PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 05-009; APPLICANT — CLARENCE
STEELE; LOCATION 1570 WEST BRANCH STREET.
Mr. Strong presented the staff report for a proposed new, one-story building for a credit
union with a drive -up window. He stated that the representatives were not at the meeting,
but at the ARC meeting yesterday discussion made it clear that there will be both
architectural alternatives and site planning changes. He asked the Commission to provide
some specific input to staff regarding the drive -up window, informed them about the current
zoning and where in the City drive -up windows are allowed and explained that there would
have to be a Development Code Amendment to allow a drive -up for this proposed facility.
Commission comments and questions:
Keen:
• He thought the reason drive -up windows were not allowed was due to idling cars
causing pollution, but the Air Pollution Control Officer has since stated that this
theory was no longer valid; he could not think of any other reason why they would
not be allowed.
Tait:
• The air quality information should be verified; it would seem that there might be a lot
of variables to this.
• He does not care for drive -ups and especially the ATM drive -ups; an ATM walkup,
well lit, on Branch Street would be a safe spot.
• Regarding the drive -up, the access driveway would work better if it were reversed.
Keen
He attended the ARC and agreed with their comments; the stacking of six cars was
mentioned for the drive -up; he was not in favor of this much stacking although he
was in favor of the drive -up; the reason for the drive -up ATM was for security
reasons.
Fellows:
• He also attended the ARC and agreed with everything that was discussed; he liked
Mr. Strong's idea of the credit union building being moved toward the street and it
may also improve the traffic circulation; he agreed with Commissioner Keen on not
extending the stacking all the way down the side as a tree may be lost; he does not
like drive -up ATMs.
Parker:
• Would like to see the property moved down toward Carl's Jr.; the area near the
restaurant is already impacted; adding anything in this area is going to be a problem.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
AUGUST 2, 2005
PAGE 9
• Regarding the architectural style, she agreed with the ARC, there is no style; the
other businesses at this site have some style; she felt that working with the ARC
would enable the applicant to find a more acceptable style.
• Liked the idea of moving the building forward for traffic safety. Does not have a
problem with drive -ups although she does not really favor them; one drive -up would
be acceptable; does not think a drive -up ATM for safety is necessary in this area and
she has found it difficult to use them from her car.
• Angled parking would be safer.
• Agrees that a one-way entrance and would be an improvement.
Mr. Strong stated that the applicant may want to take the project to City Council to get
feedback on the drive -up issue and to get more direction before altering their site plan and
architecture; he felt the Commission had provided adequate flexibility in their consideration.
Staff has not yet reached a technical analysis of drive -ups to make a recommendation as it
relates to a development code amendment (which has not yet been applied for).
Commissioner Keen commented that there is now a new bank on East Grand Avenue that
has three drive -up windows.
The Commission had no further comments.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
A. Planned Unit Development Case No. 05-002: Status report on the demolition at
567 Crown Hill
Mr. Strong gave an update on this item and discussed some of the main items contained in
his memo to the Commission. He stated that Mr. Floyd had attended the ARC yesterday;
the City Attorney has determined that the change to the PUD 05-002 will require
reconsideration of an amended application; a further public hearing and noticing of the
neighbors will need to take place; he hopes that together with a compensatory donation of
$8,500 this will be a deterrent to others. In addition, it will be an early topic for the Historic
Resources Committee as to how do we determine the value of a portion of a building is (that
is to be retained) so that it can be bonded to prevent excessive demolition and assure
preservation and restoration. This building had not been designated historic, but it was a
voluntary proposal to maintain it and an effort was made to do this.
Floyd Campbell, 155 Valley View Place, property owner/developer of the project at 567
Crown Hill stated that they should have sort guidance and advice from the Community
Development Department before going ahead, but regretfully made the decision to go
forward. As explained in his letter to the department, their original intent was to move the
front portion of the structure forward. Once the rear portion had been removed; a
demolition crew was hired to do the demolition by hand so as not to risk unintended impact
on the front. After finding excessive amounts of termite and dry rot in the roof and ceiling
joists they decided that it would be safer to remove the entire roof and ceilings from all
areas of the structure; they then modified the plans (which were submitted to the Building
department) to reflect this, but neglected to consult with the Community Development
Department (which caused them to step outside of Condition of Approval No. 3). Their goal
now is to replicate the front of the structure to have the same appearance as it originally did.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
AUGUST 2, 2005
Commission Comments:
Tait:
PAGE 10
• He hoped this would not happen again and that it would be a learning experience.
• If a fine! was levied what account would this go into? Mr. Strong said there is no
penalty structure in place and suggested that a bond or fine amount be established
as a deterrent. He explained that after internal discussion, it was decided and Mr.
Campbell agreed, that a donation of $8,500 would be sufficient. The donation would
be used.for beneficial resources for historic preservation purposes.
Fellows:
• Perceptions are everything; believes the "development community" has the
perception that it is easier and cheaper to ask for forgiveness than permission.
• If the City had been properly notified before the demolition we could have seen that
the damage was not being misrepresented.
• The remedy that the City comes up with "that it must not cost the applicant less than
doing was what required", then the $8,500 is not enough; staff needs to come up
with a larger contribution, plus the cost of genuine redwood materials that exactly
match the original materials, the labor costs and the costs of delay to the applicant.
Parker:
• There needs to be a bond established for saving historic houses.
• Sometimes when a project is started you do not know what you are getting into.
However, some people may not be ethical and the whole picture needs to be looked
at
• Not having a bond in place when building started was a mistake; the plan changes
should have been reported to the Department; at this point she would rather trust the
explanation and accept a donation of $8,500 to go to the HRC; she did not believe
that the City needs to go further than this on this occasion.
• This should be a good lesson and next time a penalty phase should be in place and
it should be high enough to make it a deterrent.
Keen:
• He believes Mr. Campbell's explanation, but he does not want it to happen again.
Accepting a donation sets a precedence; a donation is not a legal punishment; he
would rather have a $500 fine than a donation; bonding is the best way to go in the
future; when a large fine does not work some kind of jail time would be more of a
deterrent; the penalty needs to be stiff enough that tearing down a historical building
would not even be considered.
Mr. Strong stated there are other current situations where the City may take a more punitive
legal approach (where it appears that there are more intentional acts) with substantial
penalties and it may include jail time; this is a good learning curve for the City, the ARC and
Commission have made some public test cases recently and the perception is changing
and the community is aware that we are serious about aspects of our heritage; these
recommendations will now go forward to the City Council.
Mr. Campbell thanked the ARC and the Commission for their consideration. He was
disappointed that their goal to save the structure had not happened, it was a mistake and a
serious one and he regrets that they went forward without seeking the guidance from the
ARC or the Commission.
i
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 11
AUGUST 2, 2005
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS:
Commissioner Parker stated a concern with sidewalk displays, specifically the Grand
Estates (business on E. Grand), and suggested a letter be sent out to the owners informing
them that this is inappropriate.
Mr. Strong agreed that a letter could be sent out; stated that the City has recently been
notifying larger establishments as to their outside garden displays; vending machines etc.,
but not to the daily type of moving items in and out, sidewalk sales etc.; it is difficult
sometimes with outdoor cafes etc. The City Council and Planning Commission with the
involvement of the Chamber of Commerce can provide clarification; a Temporary Use
Permit could be used for permission. If the Commission would like further enforcement then
more time would be required to do this in a systematic way and communicate with business
owners.
VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP:
Mr. Strong stated that a Planning Commission workshop on Agenda Management has been
tentatively scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on Monday, August 29, 2005.
The Hampton Inn project was approved by City Council by a 4/1 vote. The proposal will go
back to the ARC for review of the architectural aspects. Staff has worked very hard on this
project and is very happy to see it approved.
VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR AUGUST 16, 2005 MEETING: No discussion.
IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Planning Commission,
Vice Chair Keen adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
ATTEST:
L N REARDON-SMITH KEENdACE CHAIR
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT,
COMMUNIT EVELOP ENT DIRECTOR
(Minutes approved at the PC meeting of August 16, 2005)
1
1
1