Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11021999 - D2 _. D.2 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Date. November 2, 1999 Matter of Record Subject: Public Comment On this date, the Board of Supervisors heard comments from the fallowing people: Roger Acuna, Independent Living Resource, 3200 Clayton Road, Concord, on affordable housing, Chris Larsen, C.V. Larsen Co., 1846 Ludwig, Santa Rosa, on the requested payment for a change order regarding a contract, T. H. Myers, 2567 Henry Avenue, Pinole, regarding alleged toxic substances in Pinole; and Warren Smith, 1100 Bailey Road, Pittsburg, regarding wildlife problems on his property, Also, the Chair announced that the following person sent a letter to the Board members regarding the loss of 500 parking spaces at the Pleasant Hill BART station: Craig Kauffman, 1036 Oak Grove Road, #14, Concord. TRIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY NO BOARD ACTION WAS TAKEN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PAGE � 0F ! PUBLIC WORK DEP""'T. NO. FIELD OR Et RECEIVED ,, DATE PROJECT: 1�' a � CLERK OVAHU Ur SUPEW:15 rRA ?STA CO. — .. INSTRUCTIONS: ��"•c�# rte {�i/'i�� n�rr 'r� ���._._ � ����.....����t��....t`s��(...�7_.._ ost 4 ~!;'? `Y COMPANY —� SIGNED: SIGNED: GINI: } '^_^" DATE (CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIVE) DATE THE SIGNATURE OF THE CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIVE DOES NOT NECESSARILY DENOTE APPROVAL < OR DISAPPROVAL OF THIS ORDER BUT DENOTES RECEIVING THE ORDER AS SUCH. " WHITE--•CONTRACTOR'S COPY CANARY-PUVLIC WORKS FILES ' PINK-RESIOENT ENGINEER t; -..- Pine Creek Repairs Original Contract Amount $ 71,998.71 Work Completed At Contract Prices RSP: 1290.7 Tonnes x@$51.99 $ 67,103.40 Erosion Contol : LS $ 1,292.31 Subtotal $ 68,395.80 Work Completed on C.C.O _Change.to..Quarter-Ton.. $ 2,851.06 Placement of earth on rock. :`' $ Ot�A Force account"at site 1 $ 4,352.00 G Force Account at gas line $ 133.00 4-C 00 Force Account to reconstruct ramp $ 6,426.77 Subtotal $ 20,762.83 TOTAL OF WORK COMPLETED $ 89,158.63 Claim Letter Submitted on 9/27/99 Delay Claim on equipment- 12 days $ tt� 7 Plus 15% Markup $ C.V. Larsen's staff cost during down time $ 3, 0'° Plus 33% Markup $ � 5 Addition Excavation at Site 3 Labor $ 248.25 Equipmbnt $ _81,6:60 Markup 33 and 15 $ 1 269�2 � Additional Excavation at site 3C Labor $ 822.45 Equipment and Materials $ 2,048.75 , Markup 33 and 15 $ x'3449.92 Work on site 3B Labor $ 728.32 Equipment $ 335.40 Markup 33 and 15 $ r'"1 35 TOTAL FOR CLAIM $ 18 741.42 RECE IVEb P 2 9 1999 5L RECEIVED 14 LIAP "MMOIrJEE�trJO COr*J'rr%^C-rC)R CLERKBOARD EBFSUPE R1 ?BS 1846 Ludwig Avenue.Santa Rosa, CA 95407-6413 Co AC Ct3. (707) 526-3750 27 October 1999 Mike Carlson Assist. Public Works Director Contra Costa County Public Works Construction Dept. 255 Glacier]give Martinez CA 94553 Re: Pine Creek Storm Damage Repairs, Project No. 7520®6B9P48-99 Change Order No. 2 Dear Mr. Carlson: This morning the contractor received a voice mail message from your Resident Engineer, Joubin Pakpour. In this message, Mr. Pakpour stated he was directed by you and Maurice Shiu, of your office, noLtcLpay the contractor for lfyou believe the contract contains such provisions for this directive, phase copy and submit to the contractor's office. If not, please be advised by County council as to the consequences of your actions. Sincerely, Chris Larsen C.V. Larsen Co. cc: Bill Mclnerny Jr., Council M. Shiu, Admin., CC County Public Works Donna Gerber, CC County Supervisor f 40 r ., .. ..: .. ... .. :_;. „ ..: ., F:S .. .• � a 'ace. �','�„�,� ¢.tb d�.a - C; l7A COSTA COUNTY a44 1 - t '1 Of 1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 REV.NO. _ S!UPPL.NO. Sh7.o NO. PROJECT Pio. SATE P ROJECT k Storm Damage Repairs 9P48 750-6�9P48-99 octobs rE fi 1999 TO: rsen Cam an CONTRACTOR. Change requested by: Resident Engineer reby directed to make then herein described changes from the plans and specification or do the fallowing ork not included in the plans and specifications on this contract. change order is not effective until approved by the Deputy Public Works Director,Operations. TRA 'll�tt RK AT FORCE ACCOUNT A. Remove RSP from site I and place in Site 3 as directed by the Engineer(See field order#3) Estimated Increase $4,352.67 B. Excavate ramp at site 3C to section shown on plans. Place fabric and'RCP(light method B)(See fell order#4) Estimate Increase $15,600.00 Labor, equipment and material appr,ovea by the Engineer as necessary,will be paid for in accordance with ract specifications relating to extra'Work at force account. the provisions of the.cont Total Estimated Increase $191852.67 BY REASON OF THIS CHANGE 3 WORKING DAYS EXTENSION OF TIME WILL BE ALLOWED. We,the undersigned contractor,have given careful consideration to the change proposed and hereby agree, is sit s(Wrvices approved,that we will provide all equl nt,furnish an materials,axcept as may otherwise be noted ve,a perform necessa for the work above s d will acre t as full a ment therefor the rices shown b e. R �� SUBMITTED: RECOMMENDED: A SISTA UBL# ECTOR, PO RES DENT °NG#NEER CO ST # D#V. (8) j lel (DAT EPTED CONTRACTOR =., :. . D� APPROV . PU8L#C W I D R., .... OPERATIONS If the Contractor does not sign acceptance of this order, his attention is directed to the requirements of the specifications as to proceeding with the ordered work and filing a written protest within the time therein specified. I\pws'#tsNARDATAtGRPDAT,AICONS'nCHANGE*ORDERS\9998 PR0JEcrslpjNE cco-2.Boc AudiforIContractorICotlistruction LngineerlResldent Engineer/Accounting-Atte: R. Gilchrist ... .- �5" el.•aU CONTRA COSTA COU" NTYy PAGE —._ _____OF�� c670� PUBLIC WORDS DEPT. NO. FIELD ORDEIR DATE TO: `..' t 1 �ell ' PRczJECT: �'vtfC' �"�Srtn � ei1F" NaSZ -t5'6'9 1 INSTRUCTIONS: i 1 i i / COMPANY SIGNED: ' .SIGNED: 1NEER TE (CONJOACTOR'S REPRESENTATIVE) DATE THE SIGNATURE OF THE CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIVE DOES NOT NECESSARILY DENOTE APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THIS ORDER BUT DENOTES RECEIVING THE ORDER AS SUCH. WHITE-CONTRACTOR'S COPY CANARY-PUBLIC WORKS FILES PINK-RESIDENT ENGINEER r" r��+�rn�r���x►ru+� c+��rz�.a.c-x-r�s�� 1846 Ludwig Avenue-Santa Rasa, CA 95407-6413 (707) 526-3750 CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL EXCAVATION . NOT SHOWN ON DRAWINGS PINE CREED SIMM DAMAGE REPAIRS, PROJECT NO. 7520-6139P-48-99 COSTS AS OF 9/24/99 SUBMITTED 9/27/99 2nd Submission 10/4/99 Cat EL200B Excavator 96 hrs Q$27.45/hr $2,635.20 Jahn beer Rented 555 G Track Loader 96 hrs @$13.901hr $1,334.40 Cat 416 Backhoe 96 hrs @ $14.83Ihr $1,423.68 Portable Toilet 12 days @ $2.80/day $33.60 Extended overhead ($3281/mo) 12 days $1,312.40 1/2 ton pick up truck 96 hrs @$5.09/hr 488.64 8/ ,'''./, A11t with Jovbin Miabn site irtt Owner 2.5 hrs r@ 951hr $237.50 Administrator 2.5 hrs @ 35/hr $87.50 Maeda"County Public Works re* drawiOgAis eomc-S Owner/Engineer 3 hrs @ 95/hr $285.00 Administrator 3 hrs @ 35/hr $105.00 9/7199 Letters. Calls to C.Q.Co n v. (R, Travenier&,_.A. Ahrrty) Resew stands sr ec lobs etc d swing 1 '3tt Q Owner 5 hrs @ 95/hr $475.00 Administrator 5 hrs @ 35/hr $175.00 9171wrl study drawings- draft cess section c mpa t Qns 5:301-83D-P M Owner/Engineer 3 hrs @ 95/hr $285.00 91,&990 ►I#s& I tl 3o Mike C r1son 8:00-10:0 a.m. Owner 2 hrs r 951hr $190.00 Administrator 2 hrs @ 35/hr $70.00 9/ 16.92h" twit-M rlson in Martfn2ZjM-4L9� .r33 Owner/Engineer 3 hrs(a 95/hr $285.00 Administrator 3 hrs @ 351hr $105.00 1/9/99 Meet with_,3Wubin on site, assist with survey. vide pictures 9:00-11.30 Owner 2.5 hrs @ 95/hr $237.50 Administrator 2.5 hrs @ 35/hr $87.50 9I9/9��111:�jt �for R�a.�&.�ike to sho�r up hien met with I�ab on site { � & � L a : ♦ '. ,,,: ;? - '`w ... _s...s��.�;i£43.ski's�;`r:."w'�'".fc�,' :k>.'�+` 1130.2°45p,{ll. ". Owner 3.25 hrs @ 95/hr $308.75 Administrator 3.25 hrs @ 35/hr $113.75 91.10/92-Meet Mh JQub' Rob on site Owner 4.25 hrs @ 95/hr $403,75 Administrator 4.25 hrs @ 35/hr $148.75 Remove Fabric from 3C 2 laborers 1 hr ea @ 33.34 $66.58 91IDM-Additional F-xcavatl ;at site 3A Caterpillar EL200B Excavator 1 hr @$66.60/hr $66.60 Cat EL.2008 Operator 1 hr @ 48.21 $43.21 2 laborers 2 hrs ea @ 33.34 $133.36 L12!92 b li e track IQ Ott QIher side cif rSr, t was duty !tied tIL„kob, unday. double-lm Lowbed 5 hrs @$150/hr $750.00 EL200B Excavator 9.5 hrs @ $66.60/hr $632.70 EL200B Operator 8 hrs @48.21 $385168 EL200B Operator 1.5 hrs O.T. @ $66.45 $99.68 1 10 wheel dump truck&driver 9 hrs @$651hr $585,00 1 10 wheel dump truck&driver 6,5 hrs @ $65/hr $422.50 Flagman 8 hrs @$33.34/hr $266.71 Flagman 1.5 hrs O.T. @ 46.92/hr $70.38 112 ton Pick up truck for fagging 9.5 hrs @ 11.83/hr $112.39 1 Rall Geosynthetic Fabric $296.16 2114199 Move rock-off-road into toes with track loadff-leplace fabric Additional excavatio at site M EL,200B Excavator 2.5 hrs @ $66.601hr $166.50 EL200B Operator 2.5 hrs @ 48.21 $120.53 Jahn Deer 555G Track Loader 5 hrs @ $33.78/hr $168.90 John Beer 555E Operator 5 hrs Q 48.211hr $241.05 Laborer 3 hrs @ $33.34/hr assist operator w/addl. excavation $100.02 Replace fabric 2 laborers 2 hrs @ 33.341hr Site 3B $133.36 Replace fabric at Site 3C 1 taborer 4 hrs @ 33.34 $133.36 for 9/22 and 9123. 9115, 9/20, 9/21 spoils trucking$3,196.40 Bid amount for offhaul spoils$2,600.00= difference of $596.40 Loader Operator 3 days (24 hrs) @ $46.62 $1,118.88 Loader 416E 3 days (24 hrs) @ $31.13/hr $747.12 Add ti nal time to gQ to Method Alla acement troL�specified Method whichment. add 40%to arAual time spent placing RSP is Actual time 56.5 hrs,40% 22.6 hours adds Tonal EL200B Excavator Z2.6 hrs @ $66.60/hr $1,505.16 EL200B Excavator Operator 22.6 hrs @ 48.21/hr $1,089.55 9/227 i e !son&J ubin P cu.uoj-Cj im �r Owner 3 hrs @ 95/hr $285.00 d` Administrator 3 hrs 35/hr $105.00 P#`epar,�tion of tm�d...��!ment t fir Ci�m 10/2/99 3 hrs Owner @ 95/hr $285.00 10/2/99 5 hrs Administrator 0 $35/hr $175.00 10/3199 2 hrs Owner @ 95/hr $190.00 10/3/99 6 hrs Administrator @ $35/hr $210.00 Subtotal $22,134.80 Markup on Labor(8,857.45) 33% $2,922.96 Markup on Materials/Equipment(13,277.37) 15% $1,991.61 Bond 2.5% $676.23 Total Additional Work as of 10/3/99 $27,726.60 i ♦4 . i RECAP OF BASIS OF CLAIM 1) The work which was already performed (and approved) prior to the job being stopped, exceeded the dimensions of the standard drawing; 2) The work which was already performed (and approved) prior to the job being stopped, exceeded the written specification (which overrides standard drawings) which read to, "Excavate (for) a cut off wall at the toe of slope and at the edge of the waterway. All other areas shall be trimmed". The excavation that was already performed was far greater than. "trimming". Caltrans Standard Specifications 5-1.44 states, "The special provisions shall govern over both these standard specifications and the plans"; 3) The County's representative, Joubin Pakpour Resident Engineer, measured and approved each excavation. The Contractor was directed by the R.E. to proceed with the next item of work, placement of erosion control fabric, at all sites. In -= addition, Mr. Pakpour approved rock placement to start at Site 1 and once rock placement was in progress, he stated to our personnel, "The height is perfect, continue what you're doing. I don't mind paying extra for as much rock as we can get on the slope without it rolling down."; Once RSP at Site 1 was complete, we were approved to begin rock placement at Sites 3A and 3E, which had started when the job was stopped by Flood Control; 4) The standard drawing has no scale. It omits scale by the note, "Not to Scale". This drawing has no horizontal measurements other than the width of the toe cut of wall. It has been argued by the Flood Control staff that these excavations were not deep enough. In fact, the excavations cut out all of the erosion scars and proceeded several feet deeper than the scars themselves. This, by far exceeds the required, "trimming" Also, the degree of the slope shown on the drawing, 2:1, is an error. The actual slope is between 1.25:1 and 1.,5:1. This accounts for a 50-75% shorter slope; 5) The standard drawing has no channel width. The concernover the slope impeding the flow and where the edge of the waterway existed, was impossible to ...; determine without the channel width, survey of a tangent line, or as-built drawings f of the channel. None.of,tliis information was available to the contractor. L , 6) The contractor requested staking twice, prior to starting work. No stakes showing depth of cut or distance to cut were provided. The only staking that was provided was for "boundary". Also, edge of waterway, as stated in the specifications, was not staked until after the initial excavations were complete and the job had been stopped 10 days, when original as-builts of the creek were brought out. 7) During a conference at the site with Kevin Emigh, Supervising Designer, he concluded that the excavations were acceptable, and agreed that existing conditions for Sites 2 and 3 differed from the drawing; 8) The standard cross section was for informational purposes only and the original direction of the R.E. should have prevailed. Section 2-1.03, Examination of Plans, Specifications, Contract and Site of Work, Paragraph 8 reads, "When cross sections are included with the contract plans, it is expressly understood and aged that the cross sections do not constitute part of the contract."; 9) The final determinations of the Construction Division Office, after review of as-built drawings and survey of existing channel, were as follows; a) The flow line of the channel has dropped due to scours 2-4.5 ft. in depth. { The erosion on the bank was not caused by hydraulic erosion failure but by scour. The as-built channel has nearly no erosion from toe to hingepoint; b) The excavations performed at Site 2, 3A and 3B were acceptable with very minor modifications. Neither the toe, established during construction, nor the RSP, intruded into the channel, as argued by Tim Jenson, Contra Costa County Flood; 11) The Contractor was ordered to place the RSP one rock at a time and directed by the Engineer to randomly move rocks that may be visually unapcaling to Flood Control, String lines were placed and rock placement was checked against this horizontal control. The Contractor bid the project according to the Special Provisions Section 10-1.08 (Caltrans Section 72) Method B Placement. Substantial additional time and equipment was required to place the RSP one rock at a time, at the specific direction of the R.E. (Specialized Method A Placement). The delays on this project were not caused by any failure on the part of the Contractor. Before moving to the next item of work, our work was completed per the specifications and approved by.the Resident Engineer. The additional work performed and the delays experienced by the Contractor should therefore be compensated by the County of Contra Costa. :ti.. Jul --09..-99 99 12 : 10 CCCo HS Deprt, _ HazoMat 92561462073 � P . Analytical Results REC for y CONTRA COSTA COUNTY JUN 2 1999 Clayton Project No . 75721 . 00 Client Reference CASE #1990525 - 02 CONTRA COSTA HEALTH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Sample Identification : aqqpi4wotDate Sampled : 05/25/99 Lab Number : 001a/G924 � Date Received : 06/09/99 Sample Type : � Bulk VEfV Date Prepared: 06/11/99 Preparation Method ! EPA 35408 JULt © mate Analyzed; 06/17/99 y Anal tical Method : EPA 82700 �'� U � ��a� Moisture (t) : - - Analyst : DS CONTRA COSTA HEALTH HAZARDOUS mATEFii t Concentration {a} LOD Analyte (pg/kg) (Pg/kg) S fS: t Base Neutral Compounds (cont i nried) :.` RECEIVED N-Nitrosodi,phenylamine <50 , 000 50 , OOO Naphthalene <50 , 000 OCT 2 6 19 50, 000 2-Nitroaniline <200 , 000 00 2070 , 000 3-Nitroaniline <200CLERK BOARD�3� ,ts, {' 2001 , 0t30 , 0007 c RA . .-. ....... 4-Nitroanil ine <200, 000 0? 203, 4070 Nitrobenzene <50, 000 50, 000 Phenanthrene <50, 000 507, 0700 Pyrene <50, 000 50 , 000 1 , 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene <50, 000 54, 000) ��ofi sup Acid Compounds CWRK g�iD cOsr FRIv Omit Benzoic Acid <500, 000 500, 000 4 -Chloro -:�-methyl.phenol <50, 000 50, 000 2-Chlorophenol <50, 000 50 , 000 2, 4-Dichlorophenol <50, 000 50 , 000 2 , 4-Dimethylphenol <50J, 0700 50. 000 4 , 5-Dinitro-2-methylphenol <200, 000 200j000 2, 4-Dinitrophenal <200, 000 000 2003 , 0007 2-Methylphenol <50, 000 50, 000 4-Methylphenol <50, 000 50, 000 2-Nitrophenol <50, 000 50 , 000 000 200, 000 ..... ........ 200, 000 50, 000 2, 4 , 5-Trichlorophenol <500, 000 500 , 000 2, 4 , 6-Trichlorophenol <50 , 0003 50 , 000 0 a ... :::;:::: . . { ........................................... ; ::::;:. .. .: ..... ...:....:::::.:.::::: p General Nates : < .- Less than the indicated limit of detection (LOD) - - Information not available or not applicable RECEIVED , z r<;.Enc 8O3 -�nNm com co { � 6 m _ _ Jul -09-99 12 : 09 CCCo HS- CJept . HatzMat 9256462073 ��.'; Detroit Regional Office 22345 Roetfiel Drive Novi, til 48375 RECEIVED (24€t) 344 177() LABORATORY �ax (248) 344-2655 CONTPA June :21 1999 HA ARDt,av 'al•,st E, ru i�.�►,i ..t-t,.��.� RECEIVED Mr .. James Gallagher JUN 2 � 1999 CUN'rRP, COSTA CC3L7A?`i'Y occupational Health/ Hazardous Materials A �C ►SYA HEALTH HAZARDOUS NtATLptAi.S 4333 Pacheco Boulevard Martinez , Ca 94553 Clayton Project No. 75721 . 00 Client Reference : CASE #1990525-02 Dear Mr. Gallagher : .Attached is our analytical laboratory report for the samples received on June 9, 1999 . Also enclosed is a copy of the Chain-of-Custody record acknowledging receipt of these samples . Please note that any unused portion of the samples will be discarded after July 21 , 1999 , unless you have requested otherwise . We appreciate the opportunity to assist you. If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact a Client services Representative at. (800) 806 -5897 , Sincerely, W/ .11 r EIVED Laura R. McMaho1W ?mp Supervisor, Client Services Laboratory Services CLERK BOARD ol~SU,-tl 7i i ta©#vT& C� Detroit Regional Office ��. r, LRM/gt Attachments Clayton Laboratriry%ervitft is a division of Clayton t'iroup Services, Inc. Atlanta • (icnton + clik.imi? + Oevelat-W • i).tn6ury • Detroit to l ioncslulu + tnthanal7olt[ + Los Angek i + Miami Minnta0xtlm + New Fork PhiladvilArta + Pc)rtl,tnti gocklord • son rnrnc•iu-to • 5svwmah ■ *.r the Wichita t . „,� ,;-;,3 �U�r,,et;%�!✓:.. � may;-;! �����. NOY 29 October 1999 CLZ�iA BOAZ 09 9UPERVISOUR Board of Supervisors Clerk CONTRA SOTA C County Administration Building, Room 106 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Board of Supervisors. The planned elimination/destruction of more than 504 parking spaces at the Pleasant Hill is a mean-spirited, anti-family move that should be reconsidered! I am a single parent. I MUST take my son to school and daycare, and be at work in San Francisco by 8:15AM. I can manage that at present, but if the parking spaces at Pleasant Hill BART station are eliminated, I will have no other alternative–I cannot use public transportation to take my child to school/daycare, and get to work on time. I also cannot leave my child off at school at 5AM so that I can get a parking place at BART before all parking spaces are taken, if this parking is eliminated!!I A great deal of money has gone into public transportation–it is a vital, necessary link to our jobs. There is no reason why elimination of parking to plant trees is needed. There are miles and miles of unimproved Iron Morse trails, which I and my son have used—why not make some of these areas "respite” areas, instead of the critically-needed BART parking space. Again, support of landscaping over of critically needed BART parking can only be seen as anti- family, anti-public transit, and truly mean spirited!!! Please read this lette�-jut; ,ht record 4during the Public Comment Section at the next Board meeting. Thank you! ..:....:....... .. Sincerely, Craig.Kauffman 1036 Oak Grove, #14 Concord, CA 94518 (925) 689-2721 � q S __ iZs (3) XZVM LIMA Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers• rostrum before addressing the board, ' �,__2�2 Name: �� � � z�,r�,�,'. A phanet ., � s Address: .. 3 Cityt a I an speaking for myself or organization OWN of wwlutlT ' " CX C13M t Z wish to speak. an Agenda Item # Data: . 1y comments will be*- general for „ against I wish to spear an the subject of R I do not wish to speak but leave those comments for the Board to caonsidert _ _ .. RZQUZBT TO EPRU "PA (OKI Complete this farm and place it in the box near the speak*rst rostrum before addressing the board. L ( n Name: i L�/��F S .� iWiiWl�i I I�����li�il®i •• Address: i1 / City r 9.1� 1 ii�YYiWyi pfifYtgtc ibi itYW �y�., y �•. I an speaking for myself or organiaatiow from Of Ormfutfan) CK Oxt t I wish to speak an Agenda Item i Date; My comments gill be: general for astainst I 'wish to speak an the subject of I do not wish to speak but learnt these comments for the Board to consider: REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THEE (3) XXNUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before a dr ing the Beard. Name: Phone• r Address: amity Ian speaking for myself or organization: tit of orwitstion) SCE *ME: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # mate: My comments will be: general r against- I wish to 'speak on the subject of d ' " 6_ 4 s I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. (TMB t3) MXN E I—T T) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers" rostrum before addressing the Board. Names _ % ' .. Phone: w�..f� address s „1 r L a city: r r W fflil �fiifflifii ffY■R I an speaking for myself or organization. (now of r intiony ex on: f vish to speak on Agenda Item # Vato t My comments will be: general _ for _ against 2 wish to speak on the subject of Z do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to considers