Loading...
PC Minutes 2004-03-021 1 1 CALL TO ORDER — The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Guthrie presiding; also present were Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Fowler and Keen. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes in the Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of February 17, 2004 were approved on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Brown abstaining being absent from the February 17, 2004 meeting. 1. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 - 6:00 P.M. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter from RRM Design Group re Architectural Review 04 -003: the exterior design revisions to previously approved Courtland Street Senior Housing Project (ACUP 02- 003 & VAR 02 -004). 2. Memo from Public Works re comments on SEIR VTTM 01 -001 (formerly Tract 1998), Agenda Item III.B. 3. Memo from Public Works re DSEIR review for Tract 1798, County tract adjacent to Tract 2207, Vista Del Mar. II.A. MINOR USE PERMITS APPROVED SINCE FEBRUARY 3, 2004 - SUBJECT TO 10- DAY APPEAL: ase MEX 04 -001 TUP 04 -002 PPR 04 -002 ARC 03 -005 (for ARC approval on 3/1/04) 4pplican Blake English Pete Dougall Gary Ellsworth Phil Zeidman d dres ; 311 Poole Street Lawn area on Nelson St. 1037East Grand Ave 528 E. Branch lescription Request to continue having a single car garage after substantial remodeling of house. Annual March of Dimes Walk Tattoo Parlor/Tried & True Relocate and remodel existing building and construct one new mixed -use building. (EVP PUD refinement). anner J. Bergman A. Koch J. Bergman & A. Koch R. Foster Mr. Strong presented Written Communication No. 1, for approval under the Minor Use Permits, Architectural review 04 -003, exterior design revisions to the previously approved Courtland Street Senior Housing Project. He stated that the ARC approved the changes in architecture. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 PAGE 2 Chair Guthrie asked for if the elevator height had changed from the original plans? In reply Mr. Strong stated they are required to conform to the building height. The Commission stated they would prefer to see more diverse architecture and requested that the project come back to the Commission as a Public Hearing. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to require that Architectural Review Case No. 04 -003 be returned for Public Hearing with new drawings to reflect what was being proposed. The motion was unanimously approved on a 5/0 voice vote. Commissioner Arnold said he would also like to see the original drawings, as he was not at the Public Hearings when this was previously approved. The Commission had concerns regarding the Tattoo Parlor, Plot Plan Review (PPR) 04- 002, and requested a Public Hearing for this item also. Commission Arnold made a motion, seconded by Chair Guthrie, that Case No. PPR 04 -002, be heard as a Public Hearing. The motion was unanimously approved on a 5/0 voice vote. Commissioner Guthrie asked if the center sidewalk through the project, for the retail store building west of Santa Lucia Bank, was still handicap accessible? Mr. Strong said he would review the recently revised plans approved by ARC, and report back to the Commission. The Commission had no further concerns. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. AG 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03 -003 AND AG ENTERPRISE AND CONSERVATION PROGRAMS; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE (Continued from the Meeting of February 3, 2004). Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Teresa McClish and Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. Ms. McClish gave an overview and update on the proposed General Plan amendments, explaining that the General Plan Amendment proposal consists of four general items: 1. Revision of General Plan Objective Policy AG1. 2. The revision /addition of policies and implementation measures for the Agricultural Support and Enterprise Program. 3. The revision of General Plan Policy Ag3 -11 relating to farmworker housing. 4. The revision /addition of policies and implementation measures for Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). Ms. McClish then explained the first three proposals in more detail. Mr. Bergman gave a brief overview of the Agricultural Support and Enterprise Program. Staff replied to Commission comments and questions. 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 Chair Guthrie opened the Hearing for public comment. PAGE 3 Sandy Sanderson, Arroyo Grande, stated his comment may not specifically apply to this item; he was new to the area and complimented the City Council and Planning Commission on the way they were handling the City. His concern was with the way City Council was handling the mitigation /restoration of oak trees; he would like to see a restoration program extend to a 'generation' for oak trees. Steve Ross, Garden Street, stated concern that since the redesignation of the Japanese Welfare Association to Ag land, would the use by the Boy Scouts be allowed to continue? Mr. Strong replied that the redesignation does not preclude existing non - conforming use. Chair Guthrie closed the Hearing to public comment. Commission Comments: Brown: • The word "minimize" should be stricken from AG1, it does not significantly change the General Plan. • He had concern about putting a lot of energy into small enterprise programs as the City Council seems to be focusing on the easement program; he would like to see items prioritized with easement issues first. • Re farmworker housing: he was not sure if the CUP process would be sufficient. Fowler: • No problem with leaving the word "minimize ". • Why not look at the Ag Support and try the programs. • Re farmworker housing: the CUP process should be sufficient. Arnold: Keen: • He thought Buy local, Buy fresh Program an excellent idea. • The City should look at getting larger players for financial support for some of the proposed programs. • He supported staff on deleting the word "minimize ". • Re farmworker housing: he agreed with Commissioner Keen that there should be some option on prime agricultural land when appropriate; he was opposed to a major centralized worker - housing program on non -prime agricultural lands; he would not like to see all low income farmworker housing in one place. • He would like to see the Agricultural Support and Enterprise Program (ASEP) (Exhibit 'A') taken out of the Resolution to allow more time for consideration of some of the programs. • He was not sure if the community would want to support all of the programs. Guthrie: • He supported Commissioner Keen on the deferral of the AESP. • He would like to see an additional program in place on ag easements and would support separating it out; he suggested establishing an easement valuation MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 Chair Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, recommending City Council approve General Plan Amendment 03 -003 amending the Agricultural Conservation and Open Space Element to revise General Plan objective Ag1, General Plan Policies & Implementation Measures relating to agricultural conservation easements including Ag1 -3, Ag1 -3.1, Ag3 -5, Ag3 -5.1, Ag3 -6, Ag3 -6.1 and General Plan Policy Ag3 -11 relating to farm worker housing as modified, striking amendments to Ag4 -1.2 through Ag4 -4.4 and Exhibit "A" relating to Agricultural Support and Enterprise Programs, and modifying Ag3 -11 relating to the allowance of farmworker housing in Agricultural Districts: • Supporting accessory farmworker units on any agricultural land of 20 -acres or more; by CUP, and • Other farmworker housing on non -prime Ag land parcels of smaller size through the CUP process. and adopt: program, establish an actual fund and have a process that would serve as an initial contact; have an education program. • Re farmworker housing: he recommended dual policies presented to Council: 1. Allow any parcel for farmworker housing on any parcel over 20 acres or more for accessory farmworker housing. 2. A housing project (50 or maybe 100 units) supportable through the CUP process on either prime or non -prime parcels. RESOLUTION 04 -1916 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03 -003 AMENDING THE AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT TO REVISE GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVE AG1, GENERAL PLAN POLICIES & IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROGRAMS, INCLUDING AG1 -3, AG1 -3.1, AG3 -5, AG3 -5.1, AG3 -6, AG3 -6.1 AND GENERAL PLAN POLICY AG3 -11 RELATING TO FARM WORKER HOUSING. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Guthrie, Commissioners Arnold, Brown and Keen NOES: Commissioner Fowler ABSENT: None PAGE 4 The Commission also agreed to initiate amendments to Section 16.60.050 of the Municipal Code to be brought forward by staff at a later date. the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2 day of March 2004. The Commission took a 10- minute break. 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 7:30 P.M. PAGE 5 B. REVISED DRAFT SUBSEQUENT SEIR FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 01 -001 (TRACT MAP 1998); APPLICANT - CASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT; LOCATION — RANCHO GRANDE, CORNER OF JAMES WAY AND LA CANADA. Status report prepared and presented by Teresa McClish. Ms. Mclish gave an overview of the Final Revised SEIR for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development 01 -001 to subdivide approximately 26 acres for residential development. The Planning Commission previously reviewed the Final SEIR and conditionally recommended certification based on: • An increase in riparian and Pismo Clarkia setbacks to 50 feet. • Mitigation of biological impacts that do not solely rely upon Home Owner's Associations (HOA's). • No acceptance of in -lieu fees or off -site mitigation for biological impacts. • Consideration of an on -site cumulative biological impact designation of Class 1. • Elimination of permanent oak tree removal in favor of relocation. Ms. McClish further stated that the City Council requested recirculation of the Final SEIR to further address the biological impact issues and include an analysis of a proposed Pismo Clarkia avoidance Alternative at the request of the applicant. John Rickenbach, Planning Manager, Rincon Consultant, Inc., introduced Jeff Olivera and Kevin Merk, Biological Resource Manager from Rincon. He then gave an overview of the project and the project history, described the site, stated the SEIR does not have all answers, that the revised SEIR is very similar to the original SEIR, explained the concerns they had addressed in the SEIR, and described the findings in the document stating the significant unavoidable impacts of the project are both related to biological resources: 1. The impacts to Pismo Clarkia (a Federally listed, endangered State listed Rare plant species. 2. The Cumulative Impacts relating to the general site (the foraging, the breeding habitat and the Pismo Clarkia), the general degradation in the context of the overall regional resource that exists at the site. Mr. Rickenbach further stated that all the other impacts that were identified in the SEIR were considered significant but mitigable; he described the Alternatives contained in the Revised Final SEIR. In answer to a question from Commissioner Arnold, Mr. Strong confirmed that PD 1.2 allows up to 527 lots. In answer to a second question from Commissioner Arnold, Mr. Rickenbach stated that Alternative 8 would to a greater degree, avoid Class 1 Impacts to Pismo Clarkia and avoid some of the other impacts. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 Chair Guthrie opened the Hearing for public comments. PAGE 6 Ella Honeycutt, Oak Hill Road, had compiled a report on Pismo Lake history which she handed to staff for the record and addressed her concerns with the Pismo Lake Watershed, specifically with erosion. Bob Brownson, Asilo, stated his concerns, addressing his dissatisfaction with the lack of clarity regarding the maps included in the SEIR. He recommended that the SEIR should be denied in its present form, specifically due to the reduction in the setbacks from 50 to 25- feet. He also discussed that all the alternatives and the proposed project 'take' Pismo Clarkia and there should be no mitigations to transplant it; there is a significant Class I impact to wildlife as there is no corridor; having a Homeowner's Association take care of overseeing the setbacks is a foolish idea; the proposed 25 -foot setback would cause contamination to the creek; there would be problem with fire as this is a valley with notorious high winds and the emergency fire exits shown only go to the end of the property which leads to a private street. Doug Tait, Asilo, wanted 50 -foot setbacks; the use of HOA to enforce mitigations would be inadequate; diversion of springs on the property should be addressed, could this be lowering the water table and affecting the condition of the wetlands, what is it being used for, and it should be investigated; stated concerns with the Eucalyptus trees; he would like to see the removal of these trees. Richard Nutting, La Canada, representative HOA, agreed with Mr. Brownson's comments and stated that replacing the 50 -foot setback with 25 -foot setbacks, with HOA overseeing mitigation requirements is unreasonable and unenforceable. Paul Farrell, Asilo, expressed his belief that this was a bad development plan; stated developer greed drives this. Cindy Cleavland, Wildlife Biologist, stated in her opinion the project impact and site description are unclear and incomplete; the 25 -foot setback as a mitigation measure are inadequate to protect all the riparian areas, even 50 -foot may not be adequate; the use of a HOA as mitigation is inadequate; the mitigation measures are unspecific and uncertain for the public to evaluate; the mitigation measures should not rely on future consultation with other responsible agencies. David Chipping, California Native Plant Society, spoke regarding the differences between the draft and the Final SEIR, specifically from the biological aspects; questioned if the document gave sufficient information to enable the Planning Commission and City Council to make a decision; stated transplantation of oaks was not a valid form of mitigation and bonding for two years was not adequate; the buffer response from Rincon was disappointing; the quantitative impact estimations of wetlands is not included (except in the Final SEIR); in his estimation the SEIR document has major failings and as such should not be recommended for certification. Karen Tait, Asilo, gave a 25 -foot setback demonstration with use of a tape measure. 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 PAGE 7 Pamela Heatherington, Environmental Center SLO, had concerns that the SEIR included a new project; stated she did not think the distribution of the SEIR was done in sufficient time for review; had concerns that reference to Planning Commission Resolution 03 -1898, dated May 7, 2003 which included Conditions, was not included in the final document. Nanci Parker, Vard Loomis Lane, stated the meadow creek impacts to the Pismo Watershed is the main issue that needs to be addressed; why did the SEIR come back with a 25 -foot setback after the recommendation of looking at 50 -foot setbacks; oak tree removal cannot be justified to protect Pismo Clarkia; HOA is not a mitigation; the EIR mitigations are unreasonable; an Overriding Consideration for the 25 -foot setbacks would be required. The 50 -foot setback would not restrict building. An acceptable compromise would be to limit the number of homes to areas that do not encroach in any way on the riparian wetland, oak and stream areas; plan for an adequate buffer between home sites and sensitive habitat area; enforce all mitigation to the fullest extent and provide for protection once a project has been completed. As presented she could not recommend certification of the SEIR. Gorden Hensley, EPI Center, assisting ECOSLO and the neighbors, stated his belief that the current SEIR was deficient and should be corrected; cumulative impacts have not been fully flushed out and should be discussed; the property is highly constrained and it is virtually impossible to put 36 Tots into this sites; impacts are only mitigable if the 50 -foot setbacks are adopted, not use a HOA and not allow in -lieu fees. He recommended against certification until the deficiencies of the SEIR are corrected, or direct staff to return with findings denying the VTTM and approve the "no project" as the preferred Alternative. Chair Guthrie closed the Hearing to public comment. Mr. Rickenbach responded to the comments, explaining that the Planning Commission can make modifications if they are not comfortable with the proposed mitigations; the mitigation measures included in the SEIR are considered adequate based on the information available; larger setbacks and different mechanisms can be required as part of the recommendation to City Council. He then responded to public comment: • Re erosion and the Pismo Lagoon, the mitigation measures proposed including the Best Management Practices that would be required as suggested by the applicant, are collectively adequate. • Mr. Brownson's comments regarding the maps contained in the Final SEIR: they include those prepared by the applicant, and other biologists over time who found different extensive Pismo Clarkia over time (because it is a moving target); the Commission can choose to certify the SEIR even if the impacts are significant if they have been described properly, or additional mitigation can be suggested. For Pismo clarkia, Rincon suggests mitigation but it is still a Class I impact; He clarified that the 25 -foot setback would run from either top of bank or from the edge of the riparian area (whichever is more restrictive); the HOA's may be used in conjunction with other mitigation. • Re the existing drainage line that runs off the property to the north: that is not a feature that is included in the scope of the project and not considered this in the SEIR. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 PAGE 8 • The Padre Report referencing the spring on site: Rincon did not find anything other than what is in the report. • Re cutting the Eucalyptus trees to abate fire: the trees exist now and are part of the riparian corridor and though non - native do contribute to the habitat. • Re more quantification needed in the SEIR: The SEIR was scoped through the NOP process. They do quantify impacts in several places in the document. Mitigation is required commensurate w/ the level of impact. Alternatives are compared and intended to describe how impacts may be reduced. • Oak tree replacement: a difficult endeavor with varying success rates. • Re the discussion on the grading impacts (deferred): grading plans for the project have not been drawn up yet, but the SEIR lays out the standards in which grading needs to occur and what the grading plans need to follow. • Tract access information: the information included was in the Draft EIR. In a response to comment, gave the benefit of an additional analysis with which to consider the Alternatives. • Education materials with respect to mitigating water quality: this is part of a strategy that was part of the overall program. • Limiting the number of homes is not part of an EIR, but is for the Commission to decide. Rincon stands by their analysis but the Planning Commission can modify. • Re denial of the Final SEIR because there is nothing in the record to suggest that the mitigation measures are adequate: Mr. Rickenbach stated that the SEIR does address cumulative impacts for the project; CEQA does not require cumulative impacts analysis for the Alternatives but they are commensurate with each increase or decrease of the level of each impact discussed for each alternative. Commission Comments & Questions: Brown: • The Consultant has done a great job in identifying what the issues are and with flushing out what the different impacts are with the site, but his concerns were with the conclusions on how to deal with the impacts (Pismo Clarkia and the cumulative effects). • Page 4.2 -38, end of page: re cumulative impacts, there are some conflicting statements. Mr. Rickenbach explained that there are Alternatives that could be considered to achieve Class II, but it does not say that the Alternatives included do achieve this. He believes that the impacts would be reduced with the Alternatives, but you still end up with a cumulative overall impact with the Alternatives that they looked at. • Page 4.2 -35, fifth paragraph: re fuel modification program, asked if the Management Plan must be adhered to because of the sensitivity of this area. Mr. Merk replied that programs have been developed with the City of Arroyo Grande in concert with Fish & Game: specifically that mowing on grasses containing Pismo Clarkia be done after Labor Day. Brown in reply: There must be some enforcement mechanism (not HOA) to make sure that the programs are carefully implemented because of the Pismo Clarkia. Mr. Rickenbach agreed that the HOA should not be in charge of managing preserved open space with such 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 PAGE 9 a very Rare plant species occurring in this habitat. The HOA can be the revenue source for a qualified expert. There was further discussion on 4.2 -34 and 4.2 -36 and clarification of relocation of the oak trees to sections of the site where Alternative 8 places homes; Clarification that 50 foot setback noted in Executive Summary incorrect and text discussions clarify 25 feet; Commissioner Brown stated that he could not see the findings to change the setbacks from 50 to 25 feet. Arnold • He could not agree with the justification for 25 -foot setbacks; public comment shows that there are other jurisdictions using greater setbacks. Mr. Rickenbach replied that part of their decision was based on the analysis done by Earth Systems who concluded that a 25 -foot setback from top of bank would be adequate to mitigate for erosion concerns; biologically a 25 -foot setback is going to be more restrictive than the requirement (from an erosion standpoint). • If Pismo Clarkia avoidance is the goal (the recommended Alternative 8) then removing lots 7, 8, 9 & 1, would be even more advantageous. Even with Alternative 8 there is a Class I impact for Pismo clarkia. • Asked for clarification from the City on the diverted spring. Mr. Strong said this needs further analysis; he had observed that there is an inlet system and pipeline along the northeast boundary of the tract and was probably a pre- existing condition that has not yet been evaluated but is not relevant to the SEIR at this point. Guthrie: • Asked for clarification on the boundary of the Pismo clarkia. Mr. Merk described the occurance. • Asked for clarification on the lack of a buffer beside the roadway and why Alternatives 7 & 8 were chosen as being the superior Alternatives. Mr. Rickenbach explained how they had arrived at the recommended Alternatives keeping in mind the goal of the project. • Asked for explanation how HOA had been successful in other areas. Mr. Rickenbach described examples of HOA that had been successful and unsuccessful and the reasons why. • Are the lines on the map assuming that a successful connection for fire access would be allowed? Mr. Rickenbach replied that this is a concern, but they were presuming that this would be worked out through the City, Fire Department and property owners. Brown: • He was uncomfortable with the adequacy of the oak tree mitigations in the document. Final Commission Comments: Fowler: • The Commission is here to certify SEIR not the project; the SEIR does address and offer mitigations; she could certify the document. Arnold: • Had a problem with the maps being conflicting and not showing setbacks at this time (only show the home situation). • He had a problem with the setbacks; they should be a minimum of 50 -feet, and 30 -100 - feet for fire protection. • There is a need for a more quantitative format so alternatives could be truly measured. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 • The number of oaks being destroyed (because of Pismo Clarkia) is completely unacceptable • It is unacceptable to require HOA and examples do not show that this would work. • There is no mention of on -site retention — what will happen to the runoff. • Concern with clustering the new homes being against the northeast property; there should be transition. • Cumulative Class 1 impact not addressed adequately. • Cannot ignore pipeline impacts on wetlands and approve the SEIR. Keen: • What the Commission recommended for the last SEIR (with the Conditions that were added) is still appropriate and the applicant will have to come back with a plan to meet the criteria and will have to take care of all that the SEIR identifies; trying to choose one of the Alternatives is not the way to go. • Setbacks should be a minimum of 50 feet. • HOA would not be an effective enforcement mechanism. Guthrie: • He agreed with Commissioner Keen comments. • The mitigation for oak tree replacement should be more than one to one. • There has to be some oversight of setbacks monitoring. • Concern with how the drain line might have affected wetlands; concern that other actions may have taken place that may have affected riparian area. Chair Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, recommending that the City Council certify the completion and make findings as to the Revised Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for VTTM /PUD 01 -001 (previously known as Tract 1998) with the following conditions: 1. The mitigation setbacks for Pismo Clarkia and riparian corridor and wetland habitat be increased from 25 -foot setbacks to 50 -foot setbacks'. 2. The mitigation ratio for oak tree replacement should be increased. 3. Require preparation of an extensive mitigation- monitoring program involving more than only a Home Owner's Association. and adopt: RESOLUTION 04 -1920 PAGE 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE COMPLETION OF AND MAKE FINDINGS AS TO THE REVISED FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR VTTM /PUD 01 -001 (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS TRACT 1998) The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Guthrie, Commissioners Keen, Brown and Fowler NOES: Arnold ABSENT: None 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 IV. NON - PUBLIC HEARINGS - None V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: County Protect Referrals: 1. Laetitia Agriculture Cluster Tract No. 2606, (with project description maps FYI) — Southeast of Picacho Hill, two miles from the City. 2. Busick Tract Map 1789 Draft SEIR — Southeast of City limit northwest of 101 & El Camp Road. The Commission had concerns that the already dangerous El Campo freeway access would be negatively affected and recommended closure of left turn in and out at El Campo until the overpass is in and require fair share contribution to future interchange. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR MARCH 16, 2004: No discussion. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. ATTEST: Q44 LYN REARDON- SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION TO C • TENg 1: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Approved at PC meeting of 3/16/04) PAGE 11 JAME GUTHRIE, CHAIR 1 1