Loading...
PC Minutes 2006-07-18MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2006 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Fellows presiding; also present were Commissioners Brown, Parker, Ray and Tait. Staff members in attendance were City Manager Steve Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, Community Development Director Rob Strong, Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon and City Engineer, Don Spagnolo. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Request for the public to turn off their cell phones. AGENDA REVIEW: Administrative Decisions were moved before Public Hearings. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Added Administrative Decisions since Jul 13, 2006: 2. 3. 4. MEX 06 -015 & VSR 06 -011 ARC 06 -005 VSR 06 -013 J. Godwin J. Severance B. Stote y Addres 527 Arroyo Street 522 E. Branch Street 381 Zogata St. Description „ See attached See attached See attached Action A. A. A. Planner B. Soland R. Foster M. Meier 2. Email from Otis Page for the Mike Titus Memorial Committee, dated July 14, 2006, regarding "informal administrative review ". 3. Letter from Ken and Danielle Epstein, dated June 30, 2006, regarding Agenda Item II.A, in support of Cherry Creek. 4. Letter from Jeannette Tripode, 521 E. Cherry, dated July 13, 2006, regarding Agenda Item II.A., expressing traffic concerns (including article titled "County traffic planning means staying ahead of the curve" from The Tribune run on July 8, 2006). 5. Letter from Charles and Nora Looney, 444 Lierly Lane, dated July 17, 2006, regarding Agenda Item II.A., in support of Cherry Creek. 6. Email from Lyn Titus, 404 Lierly Lane, dated July 17, 2006, regarding Agenda Item II.A., expressing concerns about Cherry Creek. 7. Letter from Tony and Rosemarie Janowicz, dated July 15, 2006, regarding Agenda Item II.A., in support of Cherry Creek. 8. Email from Otis Page, dated July 18, 2006, regarding Agenda Item II.A., expressing concerns about Cherry Creek. 9. Email from Otis Page, Mike Titus Memorial Committee, dated July 17, 2006, re "Appeal regarding Staffs recommendations re: Cherry Creek ". 10. Letter from Colleen Martin, (no date), regarding Agenda Item II.A., expressing concerns about Cherry Creek. 11. Letter from Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District, (no date/ received 7/18/06), regarding Agenda Item II.A., expressing concerns about Cherry Creek. 12. Memo from Ryan Foster, dated 7/18/06 requesting Commissioners meet with Jennifer Martin of LGA re: Barnett Street project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None. PAGE 2 V.A. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE JULY 13, 2006: A public hearing is not required for the following items unless an administrative decision is appealed or called up for review by the Planning Commission through a majority vote: .ase 1. 2. 3. 4. MEX 06 -017 (Changed toPPR — no new# assigned.) MEX 06 -015 & VSR 06- 011 ARC 06 -005 VSR 06 -013 J. Mocan J. Godwin J. Severance B. Stote 375 & 375A Walnut Street 527 Arroyo Street 522 E. Branch Street 381 Zogata Street "escript MEX for FAR and possibly garage /2nd du On file On file On file ction A. A. A. A. Planner R. Strong B. Soland R. Foster M. Meier Community Development Director Rob Strong reported briefly on each item and Commissioners made comments: 1. Commissioner Parker requested a condition be added requiring insulation installation in order to bring the atrium up to code, since the atrium is included in Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations to allow the secondary dwelling unit. Commissioner Brown agreed. Mr. Strong noted he add the condition and communicate it to the building department. 2. Commissioner Brown noted he would prefer not to have additional items added to Administrative Decision reporting after agenda preparation, but he will discuss this further during upcoming procedure discussions. Commissioner Tait agreed. 3. Chair Fellows noted there has been public complaint about time lag to finish this project. Mr. Strong responded that the applicant returned with these new plans after City encouragement (in response to the complaint), so the process is working. Also, the applicant is now in a better financial position and he is motivated to get it done quickly. Mr. Strong will still pass along the comment to the Building Department. 4. No comments were made on VSR 06 -013. The Commission had no other concerns with Administrative Items 1 -4. 11. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04 -007; NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CASE NO. 04 -001; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04 -002; PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04 -002; APPLICANT — CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC & ALAN LITTLE CUSTOM HOMES; LOCATION — EAST OF NOGUERA COURT /NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION ('CHERRY CREEK") — Cont'd from 5/16/06 Planning Commission meeting. Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon presented the staff report for consideration of development within a 22 -acre Neighborhood Plan area, generally located northeast of the intersection of Branch Mill Road and East Cherry Avenue, consisting of two sub- areas. Sub -area 1 is a proposed 30 -unit residential subdivision in a Planned Unit Development configuration on 9 of the 22 acres. Sub -area 2 encompasses 13 acres where no development is proposed at this time. In regards to drainage, the City's 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 3 Drainage Master Plan will be discussed at the City Council meeting on August 8, which would be a better arena for discussion on a regional basis. She outlined changes to the project as outlined in the staff report. The request for tonight's meeting, however, is to first determine if the Mitigate Negative Declaration (MND) is deemed adequate by Planning Commission. If not, then it's suggested the Planning Commission stop discussion of the project and report their recommendation to City Council. If it is, then it's suggested they proceed with discussion on the Development Code Amendment (DCA) and Neighborhood Plan (NP), followed by the Tentative Tract Map (TTM) and Planned Unit Development (PUD). Staff answered numerous technical questions from commissioners in regards to environmental issues. John Knight and Joslyn Broome, of RRM Design Group, made a powerpoint presentation. They made minor modifications to the previous design in terms of: density and lot size (from 38 to 30 Tots), drainage (extended length of bioswale), street design (showcasing the Vandeveer home), Ag buffer (additional detail and only two "holes" in the landscape screening), and creek enhancement (additional detail). He answered many technical questions from commissioners in terms of environmental issues. Carmen Ortiz, 331 Garden Street, voiced concern about losing the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) designated prime soils. Elizabeth Scot - Graham, 2410 Cima Court, San Luis Obispo, read her letter dated June 23, 2006, suggesting increasing the density to avoid losing more farmland. Megan Bochum, 823 Turquoise, spoke as a resident of Zone 1/1A, requesting further study on the amount of sediment dropout in the bioswale and how it will affect others further down the creek. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle Street, commented that City Council had already decided the ag determination issue, the NP has never been defined objectively and the neighbors aren't in agreement on it, and there are neighbors who don't agree with the 130' ag buffer. Lance Tubell, 834 Creekside, voiced his "strong support" of the project. The bioswale issue has been addressed and it's more than adequate. The applicant continues to meet requirements and extend efforts to make it a nice project. Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street, clarified the tree ordinance and mitigation process. The ag buffer won't be an issue for small remodels of existing homes (only for demo/ rebuild or larger development). He is concerned about traffic on Cherry, even as it is now. Also, the steps to the gauging system by the creek are used daily and, if considered a safety hazard, should be mitigated with a fence now. Cindy Hansen, 775 Santa Manuela, voiced her preference that the project remain as it is. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 4 Ron Janelli, Lopez Drive, spoke in support of the project, noting that Mr. Branch "goes the extra mile to make it right" in his projects. Cliff Branch, co- owner /applicant, spoke in support of the project. They're working on helping to solve the regional drainage issue. It's zoned residential so it's not against the General Plan. They can go either way on improving Cherry. There are several letters showing support for the project. Lyn Titus requested that he purchase her house and she would "go away ", but he declined the offer. Molly McClanahan, 617 Malvern Ave., Fullerton, CA, (co- trustee of Gordon Dixon Trust at 769 Branch Mill Road), read aloud Neil Havlick's letter (on file) and suggested that Planning Commission add a condition prior to recording the final map (after COA #23) adding his list of potential issues that need to be addressed prior to final map approval. She also suggested that "unimproved Cherry" should be part of the NP, because it makes sense to use the land. Third, instead of allowing structures in the ag buffer through the CUP process, they should be completely disallowed, especially since the ag land is in conservation and will be there in perpetuity. Greg McGowan, 432 Garden Street, responded to Commissioner Tait's questions. He agrees that CEQA involves a public disclosure process. Mitigation isn't so much disclosure, as a method to provide for impacts. If it can be mitigated, then do a MND. If not, then do an EIR. The question is does the MND reduce impacts to less than significant. There's a problem with deferring mitigation to other agencies, when they don't have enough manpower and resources to follow through. The conditions need to have qualitative measures. Parkers' suggestion to require seeding afterwards is a good idea. He answered further technical questions from commissioners. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street, requested commissioners to follow the General Plan, provide for less density and require an EIR. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to continue the meeting to at least 11 p.m. Motion approved on 5/0 role call vote. Dr. R.D. Estes, 811 E. Cherry, gave a brief history of the project since 1997. He felt things fell apart with this project when the developers said they would pave dirt Cherry and then changed their position. The monetary offer of mitigation of prime soils for $35,000 is bribery. Noguera owners should get their easement back. The walnut trees are almost at the end of their useful life. Traffic is already a problem. It's a good project. If increased density is encouraged, nobody will farm that land again, so if Commissioners don't want that to happen, then buy back the property. Larry Turner, 323 Noguera, agrees with Mr. Estes on a couple things. Noguera neighbors should get their easement back. He's very concerned about drainage, but this project will help. Condition of approval #108 should be deleted, so Noguera isn't lined in concrete, as it was only a temporary easement to start out with. Chuck Fellows closed the public hearing. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 5 10:10 pm The Commission took a 10- minute break. Commissioner Comments: Parker • She discussed CEQA/MND checklist issues one by one, and came up with the conclusion that the project impacts can be mitigated to less than significant. • 1. Aesthetics: A, C and D - change to "impact can and will be mitigated," because the aesthetic compatibility, visual character and glare of lighting will be impacted, but can be mitigated. • 2. Agriculture Resources: o A) Prime Farmland — change to "impact can and will be mitigated." This area has prime soils not from a zoning perspective, but as a natural resource as classified by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). One of the biggest problems is General Plan Ag1 -4 and the "threshold of significance ", which hasn't yet been established, so Planning Commission and City Council need to use their best judgment. One way to go is that no project on prime farmland soils can be mitigated and a full EIR must be done. (However, she believes this land cannot be used for ag production, which she acknowledges are two separate issues). The other way is to acknowledge the prime soils and consider mitigation on a case -by -case basis, which she's chosen to do. Because of natural constraints (the 25' creek setback and 130' ag buffers), there isn't much room left (about 1.3 acres) to rezone the property and convert it back to active farming. If the basic notion of the General Plan was to preserve prime soils to continue farming, then it won't work in this situation. Turning it into open space will be mitigated by the 130' ag buffer, itself. The applicant has made a generous offer of $35,000 to mitigate the prime soils. Ag1 -4.2 "Possible mitigation for Toss of areas having prime farmland soils may include permanent protection of prime farmland soils at a ratio of 1:1 with regards to the acreage of land removed from the capability for agricultural use." This doesn't have to be 1:1 for the entire property, since it couldn't all be used for ag anyway. In addition it says, "Other potential mitigation measures for loss of areas having prime farmland soils include payment of in -lieu fees or such other mitigation acceptable to the City Council." In this case, she thinks that mitigation measure would be appropriate. o Remove paragraph two from MND page 6 that says it is not an impact. o Add language that says why this would be considered prime land. o Add the reasons why it's been mitigated, and allow a mitigation measure of 1:1 for useable ag land soils remaining as a fee to help farmland down the road. • 3. Air quality: Delete MM's 3.12 through 3.16, as they didn't deal with air quality. • 4. Biological Resources: o Change MM 4.3 to read "Native trees impacted outside the riparian zone an shall be replaced within the riparian setback area ..." PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 6 o Attachment 6, page 25, the next to last paragraph reads "This would be considered a potentially significant impact." She understood this to mean the checklist box #4A needs to be marked "potentially significant." o Change MM 4.8 to spell out California Red Legged Frog (not CRLF). • 6. Geology and Soils: o Silt flow needs to be addressed. o CC &R's need to address continued maintenance of the bioswale in regard to vegetation, sedimentation, reseeding and water quality monitoring. These should be written in. o Add to the end of MM 6.5 "... Creek and the project shall comply with all County ordinances and mitigation set forth by this agency." • 12. Transportation /Circulation: o MM 12.1: She doesn't agree with the Traffic Study that it's a level of service C. There are existing traffic issues, not just measured by the number of cars, but by other factors. Accidents have been seriously increased in the area. The project won't make much difference, but since it's already an issue, she suggests to City Council that it be studied further. o MM 12.2: She agrees with the neighbors about E. Cherry extension. It's a difficult issue, and should be resolved however possible. • Drainage: o Normally she wouldn't approve the NP and MND until everything is in place, but the best thing to do in this case is to move forward with the MND and place regional drainage issues back with the City Council. The project should be contingent on the regional drainage issue and separate environmental report being approved by the City first. There needs to be time for public comment on the regional issues. She considers the Branch Mill easement a temporary fix done on an emergency basis. o It's important to know how much water will have to be provided for, in terms of which solution will be best. • Phasing of NP: is okay and has been done before. Tait • He felt the project could not be mitigated with the negative declaration due to the impacts on prime soils, drainage to the creek, regional drainage and protecting threatened species. • It was a good idea to remove the pipe, because a longer bioswale is better for water quality. • Prime soils: There is a significant impact to prime soils. In regards to mitigation, he doesn't think a dollar amount can be put on replacing prime ag land. • He's okay with the Ag buffer - 130' will do an adequate job. However, per Nanci's notes, Susan E. Kegley, Ph.D., a senior scientist with the Pesticide Action Network of North America stated: "The main thing I would worry about in terms of the buffer being taken out of the development property is what would they do with it. Landscape it? Would that make it an attractive place for kids to play? How will they ensure that people won't spend time there ?" Her and my concern, is about the pesticide use from the adjacent farmland. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 7 • Per Ag1 -1.1, "Prime farmland soils shall include all land, whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels, that if irrigated, qualifies for rating as Class I or Class II in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification whether or not the land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible." Polly Tullis' letter says this area has had irrigation rights since 1913. • Ag. 1 -4 considers the "loss of prime farmland soils as a significant adverse environmental impact." The SLO County Ag office said this has been classified as prime soils, it has no limitations if farmed, and it's suitable for orchards. • Ag1 -4.1 states, "Loss of prime farmland soils shall refer to their unavailability for agricultural use. Loss may occur through natural causes or development such as coverage (e.g., paving, construction of buildings, etc.), or conversion to urban /suburban use (including residential yards /gardens and recreational areas. Cessation of agricultural use shall not constitute loss so long as the parcel remains fallow or is allowed to revert to a natural undeveloped state." Per that statement, the farmland has not been "lost" yet and is still prime farmland soil. • Ag. 1 -4.3 states, "Since prime farmland soils occur naturally and are geographically specific, the only means for mitigation to less than significant is preservation." o He read from Ella Honeycutt's article "Arroyo Grande Valley Prime Farmland a Natural Treasure to Protect" which states, "We cannot dig deeper into the earth and find new productive soil. We must keep what we have or do without ". o Ag 1 -4.3 continues, "The City shall avoid development of prime farmland soil areas by directing growth potential to more suitable urban locations." None of these ag elements are dependent on zoning. While not zoned ag, this land has been in production from 1913 to 1987. • He can't agree with or approve a MND that states conversion to non -ag use is an insignificant impact. He can't approve a MND that uses a state -wide LESA model. The City followed County Ag Department advice to determine the buffer, and should follow similar considerations in determining a local LESA model. • Drainage: There were three experts: Carmen Ortiz, USDA, Elizabeth Scott Graham, American Farmland Trust, and Greg McGowan, Biologist, who made public comment tonight in addition to the following: o Megan Bucham, zone 1/1a resident, said "we all live downstream" (in relation to sedimentation dropout). o Molly McClanahan said, and he agrees with, "the City needs to look at the list of RCD issues prior to approval." o Newsom Springs drainage needs to be separated from this project. He read from Neil Havlick's letter, "the basic problem with properly handling flood flows from Newsom Springs remains unaddressed, and the District feels that some form of stormflow detention ... would benefit all downstream landowners (including those in Zone 1/1A who are already heavily impacted by siltation and flooding on lower Arroyo Grande Creek). The Cherry Creek project provides ample reason for starting anew the investigation undertaken in the late 1990's as well as more recently regarding the Newsom Springs watershed but never acted upon ". PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 8 • Other: They have received many letters recently that maintain it's time to move forward and the process has gone on too long. For perspective, the creek and prime soils have been there thousands of years, farming has been there hundreds of years, and it would take a dozer and grader half a day to destroy it. We need to take time with this case, because it's important. • Given the complexity of the issues: ag land, drainage, water quality and protection of species, an EIR is needed to provide the Planning Commission and City Council a more in -depth analysis and more alternatives. It's important to do it right the first time. Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to continue the meeting to midnight if need be. Nanci Parker commented she would only like to go to midnight for discussion on the MND. Motion approved on unanimous roll call vote. Ray • She went through a different process than Parker regarding the prime soils issue, but also determined that project impacts could be mitigated to less than significant. • When the General Plan was updated, environmental impacts to land use changes were evaluated at that time. Since this project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use map, there's no reason to request an EIR. • She talked to the City Attorney via the City Manager. The question is not whether impacts to prime soils are "significant ", but "mitigatable ". • The General Plan Land Use, zoning and the current use are not ag land, but there are prime soils. There's no clear way to move forward, so she chose plain common sense, which tells her this is mitigatable. She appreciated the detailed analysis of the MND that Commissioner Parker went through. • We're losing an aging orchard and protecting ag land by creating infill, which is in itself mitigation by preventing sprawl. In addition, there are other mitigations built in like open space and buffers. • The RCD issues will be resolved by City Council. • She appreciated Mr. McGowan's comment that when there's a MND, the onus is on the applicant, whereas with an EIR it's on the City. Because it's a gray area, instead of going to court, the applicant is working to agree with the mitigation. The MND gets us to a point where we can say they did mitigate a loss. • With Commissioner Parker's changes, she's ready to approve the MND and send it to Council. • She's ready for Council to also address the regional drainage issue. The developers did a good job with a problem that's not originally theirs. If it can't be solved on a regional basis, it will return to Planning Commission. Brown • He agreed with Tait that the project impacts could not be mitigated because of prime soils, and also due to the possible lack of environmental review on subarea 2 projects if brought in individually. Therefore, he can't support the MND at this time. • Prime soils: He disagreed with Commissioner Parker about mitigating the loss of prime soil to less than significant, because Ag1 -4.3 says the only true mitigation is preservation and even then, the Council has to approve a statement of 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 9 overriding considerations. It does warrant at a minimum that the City Council develop a threshold of significance as required by the General Plan. Given the lack of that threshold, this is subjective and guesswork. While this has been done previously, with money put aside for conservation as opposed to analysis, his sense is that in the absence of the threshold of significance, the loss of prime soil becomes a negotiation and City Council needs to decide whether it's appropriate. He thinks it is, because the City doesn't have a LESA -type model to determine significance for this property. The State LESA model, as is, would wipe out most if not all of the ag zoned parcels in the city limits, so it can't be used in its current format, but he supports and appreciates staff's willingness to make it part of documentation and discussion. He believes, from an environmental standpoint, some of the major environmental issues not resolved are: • Regional drainage issue with Newsom Springs: The applicant does have some responsibility based on timing of the project. The Newsom Springs issue should be separated, with the environmentally preferred path determined by the Public Hearing process before determination for this project. • There are best management practices that have been developed since 1997. Stakeholders like DFG and other parties like the farming community need to be brought into the process. • Sedimentation and pesticide runoff need to be addressed. • If there's streambed alteration, he believes an EIR is required by CEQA. • In terms of the NP, he's disturbed by discussion that CEQA would be categorically exempt for small projects. Unless an environmental review is done now for subarea 2, it must be dealt with as a separate tract. Fellows • He felt a full EIR is still necessary and the negative declaration would not mitigate his concerns appropriately. • He's supported infill to save ag land from development, but it's not appropriate for this location surrounded by riparian area and conservation ag land. • 16 months ago Planning Commission chose to recommend a full EIR. Applicants and staff chose to do an expanded initial study instead. Some improvements have been made, but that hasn't changed environmental effects. • From Appendix G in the CEQA handbook, an EIR preparer would review: o Land use — b) Conflict of adopted environmental plans and goals of the local community? He thinks this project still does and major questions have not been dealt with. o Water — b) Interferes with groundwater recharge? It does without a retention basin. • c /d) result in substantial flooding, erosion or siltation? — They don't need to solve a regional problem, but without an EIR the water sheet flowing across the ag land needs to be dealt with before they break ground. o Traffic and noise - With density proposed now, it does cause traffic and noise problems that require further study. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 PAGE 10 o Agriculture Resources Does it convert prime ag land to non -ag use? Yes. Literally, it does. • He quoted from the CEQA Handbook "If there are one or more 'Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required." • We're all self- educated volunteers, but EIR reports are done by experienced experts and non - biased analysis is performed. There's been a fair argument in favor of preparing an EIR. Brown • Regarding the process, since the regional drainage issue is going forward at this time and only the lack of an EIR has been discussed, would it be beneficial to the applicant to forward commission's opinion on the need for an EIR first and then deal with other issues at a later date? Mr. Adams answered, "Yes." Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to find the current Mitigated Negative Declaration insufficient and recommend to City Council that a full Environmental Impact Review be completed based on the following issues: • Drainage, • Environmental impacts to prime soils on subareas 1 and 2, • Creek sensitivities for subareas 1 and 2, • Siltation, and • Pesticide runoff calculations haven't been fully addressed. Due to the insufficiency of the MND, a full EIR should be done. In the event that City Council disagrees, he requested that these issues (as listed above) be more fully addressed in any future Mitigated Negative Declaration. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait and Chair Fellows NOES: Commissioners Parker and Ray ABSENT: None Commissioner Brown requested the rest of the project issues be scheduled for the first Planning Commission meeting after the Drainage Master Plan is discussed at City Council. Commissioner Ray replied that it can't go forward at Planning Commission without an EIR per the above motion. III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Brown and consensus approval. ATTEST: 4 KATH OZ SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CO .TENT, ir ROBS RO COMMUNITY DEVEL ' PMENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of August 15, 2006) PAGE 11 CHUCK FELLOWS, CHAIR