The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Mtg Minutes 12-01-1986 . ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting - December l, 1986 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on December l, 1986, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Cm. Raley, Vice Chairperson. ~ ~ ~ ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Petty, and Raley, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, and Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner. ABSENT: Commissioner Mack. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Raley led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA Cm. Raley stated that there were no additions or revisions to the agenda, but indicated that he anticipated Item 8.1, PA 86-103 Lutheran Church of the Resurrection Preschool Nursery and Child Care Center Conditional Use Permit, would be continued. ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING On motion by Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Petty, and by a unanimous vote (Cm. Mack absent), the minutes of the meeting of November 17, 1986, were approved as presented. ~ ~ ~ ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. Regular Meeting PCM-6-164 December l, 19$6 ~ s WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong advised that the Commissioners had received seven action letters, as well as a miscellaneous communique from the Wente family. ~ ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 86-105 Lutheran Church of the Resurrection Preschool Nursery and Child Care Center Conditional Use Permit request. Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey advised the Commission that Staff was recommending the Conditional Use Permit request be continued. He stated that Representatives from the Preschool Nursery and Child Care Center had not had an opportunity to discuss Staff's recommendations. Mr. Gailey said the current operation was for a 24-child maximum Child Care Center, and had been in existence since 1983. He indicated that the permit had expired this year. He said the Preschool Nursery had been in operation since 1973, with a maximum daily enrollment of 48 children. He stated that the permit for the Preschool Nursery had expired in September. Mr. Gailey advised that following the preparation of the Staff Report, a Representative of the Preschool Nursery indicated she would like to use the CUP application process to request a slight increase in the number of students in attendance at the Preschool Nursery. He indicated that the Commissioners had been given a copy of the written request for the expansion from Lou Ann Dahl, Applicant and Representative, at the meeting. Mr. Gailey indicated that Staff did not foresee a problem with the requested increase but felt, because of the magnitude of the increase, that the CUP should be renoticed. He said Staff was requesting that the item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of December 15, 1986. Lou Ann Dahl, Applicant and Representative for Resurrection Lutheran Church, stated that she had no problem with continuing the subject application for two weeks. In response to an inquiry from Cm. Petty, Mr. Gailey stated that there had been no complaints related to the operation of the Preschool Nursery and Child Care Center. He stated that Staff would like an opportunity to further review the application as it relates to the requested increase in the number of students. On motion by Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cra. Petty, and by a unanimous vote (Cm. Mack absent), PA 8b-105 Lutheran Church of the Resurrection Preschool Nursery and Child Care Center Conditional Use Permit request was continued until the meeting of December 15, 1986. Regular Meeting PCM-6-165 December l, 1986 • . i e • ~ SUBJECT: PA 86-113 Carl's Junior Restaurant Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review requests. Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey indicated that Staff was recommending that the Canditional Use Permit and Site Development Review requests for a drive-thru window facility at the Carl's Junior Restaurant at 7120 Dublin Boulevard be continued until the meeting of December 15, 1986. He stated that there are several areas which Staff felt should be analyzed and reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. The three major areas included: 1) review of the amount of stacking room between the pick-up window and menu-order board, 2) review of the amount of stacking room between the menu-order board and the nearest drive aisle,and 3) the configuration of the new intersection that would be formed by the drive-thru window drive aisle and the adjoining interior driveway of the Shopping Center. Mr. Gailey advised that the Applicant was aware of Staff's recommendations and concurs with the suggestion that the item be continued. On motion by Cm. Petty, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous vote (Cm. Mack absent), PA 86-113 Carl's Junior Restaurant Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review requests were continued until the Planning Commission meeting of December 15, 1986. SUBJECT: PA 86-115 Curtiss Dodge Car Dealership Conditional Use Permit requast - Temporary Promotional Signs. Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey advised that the subject request represented the second permit request of this type which had been presented to the Planning Commission. He indicated that the request was for authorization of use of up to 60 days of promotional advertising over a 12-month period. He stated that Curtiss Dodge had already utilized the Administrative Conditional Use Permit process for 30 days of promotional display for their grand opening and had also secured a CUP approval for 30 days of additional display for a 12-month period. Mr. Gailey said that the subject permit request was similar to the one approved by the Planning Commission for the Ozzie Davis Car Dealership. He advised that Staff was recommending the permit be conditionally approved. He recommended the time frame for the permit be modified to a period of for 11 months so that the termination date of the Conditional Use Permit would coincide with the termination date of the second Administrative Conditional Use Permit secured by the Applicant. Mr. Gailey recommended that the time frame for the use of cold air balloons be restricted to a period of up to 30 days for the first five and one-half months of the permit to provide the Planning Director with the opportunity to review and approve any subsequent use of cold air balloons during the second half of the permit period to insure that there had not been excessive use of the cold air balloons when reviewed on a City wide basis. Mr. Gailey indicated that this condition was similar to the one imposed on the Ozzie Davis Conditional Use Permit. Regular Meeting PCM-6-166 December l, 1986 • ~ • ~ The Applicant was not present at the meeting. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Gailey advised that approxi- mately 80~ (20 of the promotional balloons flown during the past 12-month period in the City were utilized in conjuction with remote radio broadcasts by KKIQ for local businesses for one-day events. He indicated that Ozzie Davis owns his balloon, as will Curtiss Dodge, and as such both will utilize the cold-air balloons more frequently. Rick Wendling, 7194 Elk Court, said he felt that because of the location of Curtiss Dodge, which is hard to be seen, and because Ozzie Davis has received approval for a similar permit, the Planning Commission should approve the Curtiss Dodge request as well. Cm. Raley closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote (Cm. Mack absent), a Resolution was adopted approving PA 86-115 Curtiss Dodge Car Dealership Conditional Use Permit request. RESOLUTION N0. 86 -072 APPROVING PA 86-115 CURTISS DODGE CAR DEALERSHIP TEMPORAR.Y PROMOTIONAL SIGNS - 60 DAY TIME FRAME CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6451 SCARLETT COURT SUBJECT: PA 86-117 Pet Prevent-A-Care Mobile Pet Vaccination Clinic Conditional Use Pemit request. Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey advised that Pet Prevent-A-Care had been the Applicant for a number of Conditional Use Permits and Administrative Conditional Use Permits over the last several years. Mr. Gailey stated that a detailed chronology of those permits was outlined in the December l, 1986 Staff Report. He reviewed key decisions made related to the mobile vaccination clinics applications. He indicated that on September 12, 1983, the City Council, through an appeal, overturned a Planning Commission denial of a Conditional Use Permit for four mobile pet vaccination clinics. He advised that the most recent application involved a request for three clinics, which was approved by the Planning Commission on May 5, 1986, and subsequently was appealed by a City Council- member. He said the application had been withdrawn by the Applicant before a decision regarding the appeal was rendered by the Council. Mr. Gailey said the Applicant was proposing to operate four separate mobile pet clinics in the Village Square Shopping Center parking lot. He indicated that Pet Prevent-A-Care had a record of providing low-cost mobile pet clinics in Dublin since 1977, with no record of complaints or problems associated with the operation of those clinics from private citizens. He stated, however, that since the approval of the Conditional Use Premit request processad for Pet Medical Service in 1983, local veterinarians have regularly voiced opposition to the approval of the mobile pet clinics. Regular Meeting PCM-6-167 December 1, 1986 . , ~ ~ . ~ Mr. Gailey referred to an Amendment Ordinance considered for adoption in the City of Los Angeles in 1985, which would have formalized the process to allow the operation of mobile pet clinics in that City. Mr. Gailey summarized the four concerns historically raised by local veterinarians in regards to mobile pet vaccination clinics: 1) mobile clinics do not pay property or sales taxes; 2) mobile clinics do not employ local residents; 3) permitting mobile clinics provides them with a competitive edge over local veterinarians; and 4) mobile clinics do not provide follow-up medical coverage. Mr. Gailey advised that local veterinarians have offered at least one low cost pet vaccination service since the last mobile pet vaccination clinic was held in Feburary, 1986. He said it is his understanding that approximately 13 of the local tri-valley veterinarians plan to make their facilities and staff available on a rotating basis to provide low cost vaccination services in conjunction with the Valley Humane Society. Mr. Gailey restated that the only action taken to date by the City Council regarding mobile pet vaccination clinics was to approve an appeal of the CUP which the Planning Commission had denied in 1983. He said that the only item which had changed during the past six months in regards to mobile pet vaccination clinics was that one low cost clinic has been held in conjunction with the Valley Humane Society. Mr. Gailey advised that Staff was recommending the subject request be condi- tionally approved for four one-day low-cost mobile pet vaccination clinics. Eric Young, President of Pet Prevent-A-Care, stated that although local veterinarians and the local Humane Society had indicated an intent to offer clinics, he did not think'that was a valid reason to exclude the services provided by Pet Prevent-A-Care. He addressed the four areas of concern previously voiced by the local veterinarians as follows: Concern #1: Dr. Young stated that it was correct that mobile clinics do not pay property or sales taxes. He said that in the communities across the State in which they offer their clinics, they have been utilizing commercial sites, and the managers of those commercial sites have expressed a position that the operation of the clinics assist them in paying their property taxes and that they also assist local residents by providing vaccinations at low costs. Concern #2: Mr. Young said that Pet Prevent-A-Care employs regional employees throughout the State to operate the clinics, but acknowledged that individuals within each of the communities could not be employed by Pet Prevent-A-Care for one day clinics. Concern #3: Mr. Young indicated that he thought the concern about unfair competition was not valid, and that on a daily basis, the mobile clinics have a higher overhead than existing fixed operations. He said Pet Prevent-A-Care must cover high expenses related to travel time and advertising. Regular Meeting PCM-6-168 December 1, 1986 . , • ! Mr. Young said the thrust of the objections to this type of clinic is tied to economic concerns of local veterinarians. He indicated that he had spoken previously with a local veterinary who stated that while provision of low-cost vaccination clinics might be a good idea, he would fight them if one should occur in the area in which his business operates. Mr. Young referred to extreme actions taken previously by veterinarians against Pet Prevent-A-Care clinics which ultimately prompted the filing of a law suit seeking an injuction against a group of veterinarians. Mr. Young advised that until about two years after the lawsuit had been settled "things were on an even keel", when an organized wave of opposition surfaced spearheaded by a veterinary organization. He discovered the City of Los Angeles Ordinance referred to by Mr. Gailey, which related to the operation of any business in certain zones which were not in an enclosed structure. He advised that one of the Los Angeles Councilmembers had prepared a draft Ordinance which would have permitted such clinics as mobile pet vaccination and mobile health care to operate. He advised that the City Planning Staff had recommended approval of that Ordinance, but that it ultimately was not adopted by the City Council. Concern #4: Regarding the concern about provision of follow-up veterinary care, Mr. Young stated that this concern is basically an opposition sham as the mobile pet vaccination clinics operate as a well-pet clinic. He said that statistically only one out of 400,000 animals vacinated by a mobile clinic faces a life-threatening situation. He referred to a reaction which can occur within 10 to 15 minutes after a vaccination has been given, which may be life-threatening, but stated that that there are staff inembers at each clinic, as well as the necessary equipment and medication, to treat those animals which may have such a reaction. He indicated that statistically only one of 40,000 animals have a soreness or develop an abcess, or may have another legitimate reason for a follow-up visit to a veterinarian due to the vaccination, but that those animals are not in life-threatening situations. Mr. Young stated that statistically for one of these circumstances to occur in the City of Dublin, Pet Prevent-A-Care would have had to operate in the City for 20 years. Regarding the cooperation between local veterinarians and the Valley Hurnane Society, Mr. Young stated that he thought this would never have occured if the union had not been prompted by the operation of mobile pet vaccination clinics within the City of Dublin. Dr. Young advised that he did not believe the mobile pet vaccination clinics would in any way adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the community. He referred to the over 200 people who had signed the statement in support of the continued operation of mobile clinics. Ms. Joanne Bergeron Castro, Board of Director, Dublin Chamber of Commerce, referred to Attachments 5 and 6 of the December 15, 19$6, Staff Report, and read verbatim her letter to the Commissioners dated December 1, 1986, request- ing the Commission show their support of local veterinarians by rejecting the Pet Prevent-A-Care application. Regular Meeting PCM-6-169 December 1, 1986 ~ • ~ Vicky Crosetti, President of the Valley Hurnane Society, asked that the subject Conditional Use Permit request be denied. She read Finding A, Exhibit A of the December 1, 1986, Staff Report, and said that the Valley Human Society does provide the low-cost pet vaccination service to community rnembers. She said a low-cost clinic had been sponsored by the Valley Humane Society in October, and that four additional clinics were planned by the Valley Humane Society during 1987. She stated that the low-cost vaccination clinics which they will provide will serve as the major fund-raising events held by the Humane Society. She said senior citizens receive a discount of 33 1/3~ at the clinics. Ms. Crosetti indicated that licensing forms would be distributed at the clinics to animal owners and that information would be presented regarding the need for spaying and neutering of animals. She advised that the Valley Humane Society is a member of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and supports local businesses. She said she felt the Humane Society and local veterinarians need to be able to hold their low-cost clinics without competition from the low-cost mobile clinics. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley, Ms. Crosetti said the net profit of the clinics is slightly higher than $700.00. She indicated that 369 vaccina- tions had been given at the clinic held in October. To clarify a question posed by Cm. Raley, Ms. Crosetti verified that the Valley Humane Society is a non-profit organization, but is not a public agency. Dr. William Evans, Parkway Veterinarian Hospital, 6851 Village Parkway, stated that he has been a business owner in the City for 15 years. He said the Valley Humane Society may not be recognized as a public agency, but that it is one of the most active members in promoting the local community to have animal shelters. He questioned why Pet Prevent-A-Gare was the only exception to permitting "street vendors" in the City of Dublin. He asked the Planning Commission to consider the veterinarians' request to deny the application. He stated that normally Humane Societies and veterinarians are opposed to each other, but that this is not the case in the City of Dublin. Dr. Gene Nagel, Dublin Veterinary Clinic, 7410-D Amador Valley Boulevard, said he held two vaccination clinics last year on his own . He said he plans to hold four during 1987. He said the last two clinics were held indoors and the future ones would also be held indoors. He inquired why Pet Prevent-A-Care would be permitted to operate when other vendors were not. He said he thought it was important to support the efforts of the Humane Society as well as the local veterinarians. In response to an inquiry from Cm. Burnham, Dr. Nagel indicated that he did not know what percentage of his business is €or vaccinations. Dr. Evans stated that approximately three percent of his client services are for the purpose of vaccinations. Dr. Nagel said that his low-cost clinic was advertised in the newspaper four times prior to the clinic date. He indicated that he charged $6.00 for all vaccinations except the six-in one and rabies. Regular Meeting PCM-6-170 December 1, 1986 . Y ~ ~ Mr, Young advised that Pet Prevent-A-Care charges $10.00 for the six-in-one and rabies vaccinations. Ken Roberts, Business Manager for All Creatures Veterinary Hospital, whose wife is the hospital veterinarian, stated that he took exception to the recommendations assembled by City Staff. He said it appeared that the data was compiled on behalf of the Applicant, and that none of the local veteri- narians had been consulted before Staff made its recommendation. He said that although Staff included the materials provided by the veterinarians, they did not ask for their opinions or rebuttals. He asked Staff to address the reason why veterinarian clinics appear to be exempted from protection given to other businesses. He stated that Staff was insinuating that Pet Prevent-A-Care is providing a public service, when they are actually a profit-making enterprise. Mr. Roberts said the local veterinarians are supporting the Valley Humane Society. He said that although there has not been any formal City Council action, the last time Pet Prevent-A-Care submitted an application, the local veterinarians appeared at the City Council meeting, and at that time Mayor Snyder said he was pleased that the Council did not have to decide this matter because it was a difficult one to resolve. Mr. Gailey stated that the action taken at the City Council meeting was only to acknowledge the receipt of the withdrawal letter from Pet Prevent-A-Care. Rick Wendling asked if there is a local prohibition against profit-making organizations having a mobile service within the City. Mr. Gailey advised that direction of the City Council has lead to restriction on outside sales of retail items which would be in direct competition to local businesses. He said the operation of mobile vaccination clinics falls into a grey area. He advised that local craft fairs can operate if they are sponsored by a local, non-profit organization and sell hand-made items. He indicated that Staff, after consideration of City policies, and City Council and Planning Commission actions, defined mobile pet clinics as a public service rather than as a retail enterprise. Mr. Wendling asked what percentage of the total veterinarian visits are allocated to vaccinations, as opposed to other types of care. Dr. Evans said approximately 26~ of his clients come in for vaccinations. Dr. Nagel stated that the veterinary journals indicate that 20~ to 25$ of all veterinary visits are for vaccinations. Pam Will volunteer for the Valley Humane Society, said that one of the items in the Staff report supporting approval of the Pet Prevent-A-Care application related to the fact that only one circumstance had changed from the time the previous application had been withdrawn (that a single low-cost clinic had been sponsored by the Valley Humane Society in conjuction with a local veterinarian). She said the Humane Society will offer low-cost clinics, which will draw customers away from the local veterinarians. She indicated that despite this situation the local veterinarians are not opposing the Humane Society which indicates the veterinarians are receptive to a locally based service group providing a low-cost vaccination service. Regular Meeting PCM-6-171 December l, 1986 . ~ ~ ~ In response to an inquiry from Cm. Burnham, Dr. Evans said he could not provide the total number of clients who come in solely for vaccinations. In addition, he said that clients are drawn away from other communities as well as Dublin. Mr. Roberts gave a summary of services to the community provided by local veterinarians to emphasize that they are not just profit oriented operations. Dr. Peggy Roberts, All Creatures Veterinary Hospital, said that the issue had been raised that Pet Prevent-A-Care does look at all of the animals and points out health problems. She stated that in the three years during which she has been practicing in Dublin, she has received only one referral as a result of the mobile vaccination clinics. Dr. Young said that the impact as stated by the local veterinarians does not exist. He advised that there is a reluctance on the part of many people not to go to a veterinarian because of costs. He stated that Pet Prevent-A-Care staff have polled their clients several times and up to 50~ of the clients will state that they do not use veterinarian services on a regular basis. Dr. Young also stated that in most places the Humane Society is in support of Pet Prevent-A-Care, and that there have been numerous lawsuits litigated between Humane Societies and veterinarians. Dr. Young said he was convinced that Pet Prevent-A-Care has done more than any other organization towards bringing a badly needed service to this community. Dr. Young indicated that those who opposed Pet Prevent-A-Care seemed to want a decision based on economics. He said the issue is not one of economics, that the veterinarians are licensed practitioners who make money in the community, and that the established median annual income for veterinarians is $65,000 net. He said that "community services" does apply to the services rendered by Pet Prevent-A-Care. He stated that the need for their services will continue to exist until such time that the price disparity for vaccinations which currently exists is eliminated (i.e, local veterinarians ad~ust the regular fees for vacinations downward). Dr. Young stated that Pet Prevent-A-Care clinics have been offered in Dublin since before it was incorporated, and that property owners have told him they want the services provided. Dr. Young concluded by stating that he thought Dublin could only benefit by continuing to permit the clinics to operate in the City. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Petty, Dr. Young advised that in a recent poll, it was verified that between 1 in 10 to 1 in 30 clients are referred to local veterinarians as a result of health problems with pets who had been brought to the clinics. Cm. Raley closed the public hearing. Cm. Barnes stated that she agreed with the Findings of Approval as presented by Staff . Regular Meeting PCM-6-172 December l, 1986 . , a ' ~ ~ Cm. Burnham stated that Staff had mentioned several other cities had opposed the mobile pet vaccination clinics. Mr. Gailey indicated that the example provided from the City of Los Angeles is probably very typical. He said a key factor in how business enterprises are regulated is whether or not they operate within enclosed buildings. Mr. Tong said there are, through policy determination, certain exceptions ta the overall general policies regarding operation of exterior commercial activities. Pet Prevent-A-Care and other similar operations fall under those exceptions, as do items such as Christmas tree lots. Cm. Petty stated that he is in favor of any activity which will encourage pet owners to vaccinate their pets. He indicated tha~ he did not think the clinics were held frequently enough to pose a problem. Cm. Raley stated the same consideration should be given to local veterinarians as to other businesses. He advised that he opposes the clinics. Cm. Petty moved. seconded by Cm. Barnes, that a Resolution appxoving PA 86-117 Pet Prevent-A-Care Conditional Use Permit for four mobile pet clinics in the Village Square Shopping Center parking lot be adopted. The motion failed due to a split vote. Cm. Burnham and Cm. Raley opposed the motion. Cm. Mack was absent. ~c~c~~ NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Tong advised that the City Council decided to continue the appeal of the Howard Johnson Variance application, and directed Staff and the Planning Commission to examine a Zoning Ordinance amendment which would possibly permit two freestanding signs on properties with two frontages. He said this item will be placed on the Planning Commission agenda in the near future. ~ ~ ~ ~ OTHER BUSINESS Cm. Barnes said a point was raised while discussing Pet Prevent-A-Care's services regarding other services to the community, such as vision or other types of health screening. Mr. Tong said that no requests for any of those have arisen since the City was incorporated, and that a permit would probably not be required for them. However, he advised that if such a request is received, Staff would ask the City Attorney for an opinion prior to making a decision on how to process the request. Regular Meeting PCM-6-173 December 1, 1986 , + . ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Barnes said that there are still a number of used cars for sale on the Central Bank property. Mr. Tong indicated that the Zoning Investigator has sent letters to the property owners, and that an attempt has been made to communicate with the person operating the lot. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Petty, Mr. Tong said the only interest expressed for development of the Camp Parks/Santa Rita property annexed by the City was by Alameda County, and they would have to contact the City and enter into a contract stating what the land use would be and the same procedures would have to be followed as that for a PD, Planned Development. He said the General Plan defines that area as "public agency lands". Cm. Raley said the car which was parked on the west side of San Ramon Road on Dublin Boulevard the last time the Commission met was still there. Mr. Tong advised that he had spoken with the Chief of Police regarding this, and they are looking into the best way of handling this problem. He said the Ghief of Police had indicated that the towing companies must meet certain requirements established by the Vehicle Code, and that at this point in time, it is not worthwhile to them to tow vehicles such as the one parked on Dublin Boulevard. Cm. Barnes asked if there is a limit to the number of cars which a private individual may buy and sell in the course of a year. Mr. Tong said there is a limit, but did not know the exact number. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.. ~ ~ ~ ~ Respectfully submitted, ~rr _ j' . , Planning Commission Vi irperson °1 Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting PCM-6-174 December l, 198b ~KER SLIP Meeting Date: Dec,~ I q & JT COMPLETELY (Print or Write Legibly) ~m of Concern: fE)- 1-' PPe-<.jJ!/.y-\-- C-L C A--tZ.L LA. s (:; fC-t C R-o <'~<Z_ ++1 , f~':? /dAZ-Tlf I (!tel k'r -; J.;? 0 5 ~1-zJ'-?\Lclc(j fl_ D a. PI eAc C7Z'<-7l -\-z<---rr //71 ';-1 V '::, -C? (-; ytime Telephone Number: e-l/<;-) (lffLI c '1 (/ J H'cVJ ne(s): ()/C/C.'1 \. iling Address: NE A. LB. I am (we are) in favor of the item. I am (we are) opposed to the item. iNE /' A. I (we) wish to speak on the item. B. I (we) do not wish to speak, but submit this Speaker Slip record my (our) concern. COMMENTS: AKER SLIP Meeting Date: J/},,!rc UT COMPLETELY (Print or Write Legibly) (jU/(}-{/!1;(;ft-ft - Cd/lr0 em of Concern: [/L/ me(s): iling Address: ytime Telephone Number: NE A. r- B. I am (we are) in favor of the item. I am (we are) opposed to the item. NE / A. I (we) wish to speak on the item. B. I (we) do not wish to speak, but submit this Speaker Slip record my (our) concern. COMMENTS: KER SLIP Meeting Date: \ J-~ 0 1- ~ IT COMPLETELY (Print or Write Legibly) ,f ~m of Concern: ? A- ~ 0 - II'{ ?-e I {:}tf uf' rY~- A C {\ r ,ling Q~ I u\/\ b \ \ r L(iC:; ~ rtime Telephone m _A. /B. I am (weq.re) in favor of the item. I am ~ opposed to the ~tem. y/ A. B. '~ I 6YWiSh to speak on the item. I (we) do not wish to speak, but submit record my (our) concern. this Speaker Slip COMMENTS: \KER SLIP Meeting Date: I - S" /" )} .. - '-t' aT COMPLETELY (Print or Write Legibly) em of Concern: \l rJ.. C ( I iv' (, f !c...-u , "-__~ j ))1 ' -( ~ <l me(s): (..,.. t".11 (l - iling Address: :;. lA r Jt/il e) (! / I ' Lilt! - D r1 )o/"tt,j ,1y- U~~,I I, 7- , V,?' , ) f7( (,</ (t ytime Telephone Number: ( t.../! )') ~ J.. S.., 5 ~ ,). (1 INE A. I am (we are) in favor of the item. ~B. I am (we are) opposed to the item. INE L.-- A. B. I (we) wish to speak on the item. I (we) do not wish to speak, but submit this Speaker Slip record my (our) concern. COMMENTS: ~KER SLIP Meeting Date: J <.. / 1/'5"( ;' / JT COMPLETELY (Print or Write Legibly) ~m of Concern: Pc r fro vF'l.1 - /f~C~6 A",4E.'!G Joy V.....\.L.-/~<1vtl/ll" c/,,,,.t, ne(s): Af / \.. N Yaw",--.J Lling Address: /..( I .... J-- 5. /J1.... r( ~ ~,,'1"_ f(cs,,-, C '1~''Iu7 rtime Telephone Number: (7 J7) ~l" V <{)... ~ 1. "" vo N'E L A. B. I am (we are) in favor of the item. I am (we are) opposed to the item. N'E / A. B. I (we) wish to speak on the item. I (we) do not wish to speak, but submit this Speaker Slip record my (our) concern. COMMENTS: AERSLIP Meeting Date: jZ// /;-;6 lfCOMPLETELY (Print or Write Legibly) em)f Concern: 1ft f"'t~ - //3 me(\: xl'; LL/CJ1 d hyl() ilir. Address: ?/T~ n-k el- If'.. L' ,/) c~-7 6':- J ) {( ;: /I//'. C/T 7>,Sr y: ytimeTelephone Number: (1J:sr 6;(:9,- jJ~7t:, INE A ~- E I am (we are) in favor of the item. I am (we are) opposed to the item. !ME A. I (we) wish to speak on the item. -- B. I (we) do not wish to speak, but submit this Speaker Slip 1 record my (our) concern. ~, fIz~It>.~ ft;'JIf~1;f~~ ;-ft ~/ (I ( ~I -J-Li. ',I I /; r ' . " j,;')', ;,,. . I ;/~ .;>/~/c;c;7'v7/ /'?Y'rA;;f) <PC'(~~S~J/ -/k-'-I/ ;?~r~J/~f w:rj~-, f!)?2. r~}/ ~~;;i;/'r~. ,/.. Y/ 4,t' ~.c fllJ7{I/}/ /4r .S/l-cc=T 7)~'s///J7~- ~;,;k I~ rrk~o~ *#~ #I(h/~c:r /~ ~S :~;/~k/?0 l' e' t:{)/l~/Z'7J ('; G:rr Itl54