HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03281995 - H.5 H.5
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this order on —March 28, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Bishop
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Proposed Zoning ordinance to Regulate Cabarets
The Chair convened the hearing on the recommendation of the
Contra Costa County Planning Commission on a proposed County-
initiated addition to the Zoning Ordinance intended to further
regulate cabarets.
George Delacruz, 3569 Sharon Court, Bay Point, spoke in
support of the proposed ordinance.
All persons desiring to speak were heard.
Board members discussed the issue of the Ordinance providing
for exemptions for infrequent community based or charitable
activities and of the need to include a threshhold in order for
the conditioned permit to be applicable, and the applicability of
the proposed ordinance to properties within 150 feet of
residentially zoned land. There was agreement that the ordinance
should provide for the annual review of land use permits granted
pursuant to the ordinance. Given the modifications to the
Ordinance presented, Board members concurred to continue this
matter for two weeks.
Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on
the proposed ordinance is CONTINUED to April 11, 1995, at 2 p.m.
at which time introduction of the modified Ordinance text will be
considered.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that County Counsel is DIRECTED to
modify the proposed Ordinance to include exemptions for
infrequent community based, non-profit or charitable activities
to provide for a threshhold of 50 or more for the conditioned
permit to be applicable, to provide for the annual review of land
use permits granted pursuant to the ordinance, and to exclude the
150-foot limitation.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN .
ATTESTED: _March 28, 1995
Phil Batchelor,Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County Administrator
By 22C,& 2
Deputy
cc: Director, CDD
County Counsel
• ���- s�..t ,,oma
•;' i Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ' Costa
0; :;��;����,„ � s
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON County'
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: March 28, 1995 A �oUN
SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance Addition to Further Regulate Cabarets In The County
Ordinance Code.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Find that the adoption of the Ordinance is exempt from the
provisions of CEQA pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, Section
15061(b) (3) as there is no possibility that this activity
could have significant effect on the environment.
2 . Determine whether, to direct County Counsel to modify the
Ordinance intended to further regulate Cabarets to limit the
applicability of the proposed Ordinance to properties within
150 feet of residentially zoned land; to include exemptions
for infrequent community based, non-profit or charitable
activities; and providing for annual review of land use
permits granted pursuant to the Ordinance,
or;
Direct County Counsel to modify the Draft Ordinance as above,
but without the 150 foot limitation.
3 . Direct that the hearing on this matter be continued to April
. 11, 1995 for introduction of the modified Ordinance text.
FISCAL IMPACT
The costs of the initial land use permit processing should be
adequately covered under the existing application fee schedule. A
modification of the fee schedule should be made to cover the cost
of annual review. Until such a change is adopted appropriate
conditions of approval could be included in ' land use permits
granted under this Ordinance to require the applicant to bear the
actual cost of annual revue.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT E
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS `A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Dennis M. Barry 646-2091 ATTESTED
cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
DMB/df
Page Two
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On January 17, 1995, the Board of Supervisors directed the
Community Development Department, the County Planning Commissions,
the. Regional Planning Commissions and the Sheriff's Department to
review and comment upon the proposed Ordinance; the Regional
Planning Commissions to provide comments to the County Planning
Commission; to hold public hearings on the proposed ordinance; that
consideration be given to provide some latitude with respect to
infrequent charitable or other non-profit activities of this type
along with provision of annual review of cabaret land use permits.
Workshops were held for the East County Regional Planning
Commission on February 6, 1995 and San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission on February 15, 1995. The comments from the
workshops were presented to the County Planning Commission, which
held a fully noticed public hearing on February 21, 1995.
Having fully considered the material presented, the County Planning
Commission recommended that the Board of Supervisors adopt the
Ordinance with the following modifications:
1. The Ordinance limit the applicability to properties within 150 "
feet of residentially zoned land.
2. That the Ordinance include exemptions for infrequent community
based, non-profit or charitable activities.
3 . Provide for annual review of land use permits granted pursuant
to the ordinance.
Resolution No. 7-1995
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA
COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMEW
DATIONS ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDITION TO FURTHER REGULATE
.CABARETS IN THE COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE.
'WHEREAS, on January 17, 1995, the Board of Supervisors directed the Community
Development Department, the County Planning Commission, the Regional Planning
Commissions and the Sheriff's Department to review and comment upon the proposed
ordinance; the Regional Planning Commissions to provide comments to the County
Planning Commission; to hold public hearings on the proposed ordinance; that
consideration be given to provide some latitude with respect to infrequent charitable
or other non-profit activities of this type along with provision of annual review of
cabaret land use permits; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance provides criteria for the consideration and approval
of land use permits before the establishment of cabarets in any land use zoning
district in this County; and
WHEREAS, a workshop meeting was held by the East County Regional Planning
Commission on February 6, 1995, and the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission on February 15, 1995, and comments of those workshop meetings have
been forwarded to the County Planning Commission for review; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public hearing was held
by the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 21, 1995, whereat all
persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, no one appeared to speak on this item; and
WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and
evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission
recommends to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of
California, that the draft ordinance intended to further regulate cabarets be
APPROVED with modifications to limit the applicability of the ordinance to properties
within 150-ft., of residentially zoned land and including exemptions for infrequent
community based, non-profit or charitable activities and providing for annual review
of land use permits granted pursuant to the ordinance; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission recommends that
i
Resolution No. 7-1995
the Board of Supervisors find this activity exempt from the provisions of CEQA
pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, section 15061 (b) (3) as there is no possibility that
the activity could have significant effect on the environement; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all other written and graphic material developed for
and pertaining to these proceedings is made a part of the record; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman and Secretary of this Commission will
sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board
of Supervisors all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California.
The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was given by
motion of the Commission on Tuesday, 21 February 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Gaddis, Braxton, Straus, Wong, Hanecak,
Clark, Terrell.
NOES: Commissioners - None.
ABSENT: Commissioners - None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.
I, Marvin J. Terrell, Chairman of the Planning Commission of the County of
Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called
and held in accordance with the law on Tuesday, March 7, 1.995, and that this
resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the following vote of the
Commission:
AYES: Commissioners - CLARK, BRAXTON, WONG, STRAUS, GADDIS,
HANECAK, TERRELL.
NOES: Commissioners - NONE.
ABSENT: Commissioners - NONE.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - NONE
Chairman of the Planning Commission
of Contra Costa County - State of
California.
etary a Planning Commission,
Contra C st o., State of California.
ORDINANCE
PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDITION TO FURTHER REGULATE CABARETS IN
THE COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE.
i
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARCH 28, 1995 - 2: 00 P.M.
6EL
.�_ Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS n•I : Costa
s
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON County
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �� _ "
DATE: March 28, 1995
°SrA couri�r't cJ~
SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance Addition to Further Regulate cabarets In The County
Ordinance Code.
SPECIFIC REQUESTS) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Find that the adoption of the Ordinance is exempt from the
provisions of CEQA pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, Section
15061(b) (3) as there is no possibility that this activity
could have significant effect on the environment.
2. Determine whether. to direct County Counsel to modify the
Ordinance intended to further regulate Cabarets to limit the
applicability of the proposed Ordinance to properties within
150 feet of residentially zoned land; to include exemptions
for infrequent community based, non-profit . or charitable
activities; and providing for annual review of land use
permits granted pursuant to the Ordinance,
or;
Direct County Counsel to modify the Draft Ordinance as above,
but without the 150 foot limitation.
3. Direct that the hearing on this matter be continued to April
. 11, 1995 for introduction of the modified Ordinance text.
FISCAL IMPACT
The costs of the initial land use permit processing should be
adequately covered under the existing application fee schedule. A
modification of the fee schedule should be made to cover the cost
of annual review. Until such a change is adopted appropriate
conditions of approval could be included in land use permits
granted under this Ordinance to require the applicant to bear the
actual cost of annual revue.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: R YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT E
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ISA
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Dennis M. Barry 646-2091 ATTESTED
cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
DMB/df
Page Two
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On January 17, 1995, the Board of Supervisors directed the
Community Development Department, the County Planning Commissions,
the Regional Planning Commissions and the Sheriff's Department to
review and comment upon the proposed Ordinance; the Regional
Planning Commissions to provide comments to the County Planning
Commission; to hold public hearings on the proposed ordinance; that
consideration be given to provide some latitude with respect to
infrequent charitable or other non-profit activities of this type
along with provision of annual review of cabaret land use permits.
Workshops were held for the East County Regional Planning
Commission on February 6, _ 1995 and San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission on February 15, 1995. The comments from the
workshops were presented to the County Planning Commission, which
held a fully noticed public hearing on February 21, 1995.
Having fully considered the material presented, the County Planning
Commission recommended that the Board of Supervisors adopt the
Ordinance with the following modifications:
1. The Ordinance limit the applicability to properties within 150
feet of residentially zoned land.
2. That the Ordinance include exemptions for infrequent community
based, non-profit or charitable activities.
3. Provide for annual review of land use permits granted pursuant
to the ordinance.
fw
0
Resolution No. 7-1995
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA
COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMEN-
DATIONS ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDITION TO FURTHER REGULATE
CABARETS IN THE COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE.
WHEREAS, on January 17, 1995, the Board of Supervisors directed the Community
Development Department, the County Planning Commission, the Regional Planning
Commissions and the Sheriff's Department to review and comment upon the proposed
ordinance; the Regional Planning Commissions to provide comments to the County
Planning Commission; to hold public hearings on the proposed ordinance; that
consideration be given to provide some latitude with respect to infrequent charitable
or other non-profit activities of this type along with provision of annual review of
cabaret land use permits; and
WHEREAS,the proposed ordinance provides criteria for the consideration and approval
of land use permits before the establishment of cabarets in any land use zoning
district in this County; and
WHEREAS, a workshop meeting was held by the East County Regional Planning
Commission on February 6, 1995, and the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission on February 15, 1995, and comments of those workshop meetings have
been forwarded to the County Planning Commission for review; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public hearing was held
by the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 21, 1995, whereat all
persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, no one appeared to speak on this item; and
WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and
evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission
recommends to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of
California, that the draft ordinance intended to further regulate cabarets be
APPROVED with modifications to limit the applicability of the ordinance to properties
within 150-ft., of residentially zoned land and including exemptions for infrequent
community based, non-profit or charitable activities and providing for annual review
of land use permits granted pursuant to the ordinance; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission recommends that
Resolution No. 7-1995
the Board of Supervisors find this activity exempt from the provisions of CEQA
pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, section 15061 (b) (3) as there is no possibility that
the activity could have significant effect on the environement; and.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all other written and graphic material developed for
and pertaining to these proceedings is made a part of the record; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman and Secretary of this Commission will
sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board
of Supervisors all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California.
The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was given by
motion of the Commission on Tuesday, 21 February 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Gaddis, Braxton, Straus, Wong, Hanecak,
Clark, Terrell.
NOES: Commissioners - None.
ABSENT: Commissioners - None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.
I, Marvin J. Terrell, Chairman of the Planning Commission of the County of
Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called
and held in accordance with the law on Tuesday, March 7, 1995, and that this
resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the following vote of the
Commission:
AYES: Commissioners - CLARK, BRAXTON, WONG, STRAUS, GADDIS,
HANECAK, TERRELL.
NOES: Commissioners - NONE.
ABSENT: Commissioners - NONE.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - NONE
AontrChairman of the Planning Commission
of Contra Costa County - State of
California.
a
Planning Commission,
a o., State of California.
Agenda Item #
Community Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21 , 1995 - 7:30 P.M.
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a County initiated addition to the Zoning Ordinance intended to further regulate
cabarets. On January 17, 1995, the Board of Supervisors directed the Community
Development Department, the Planning Commission, the Regional Planning Commis-
sions and the Sheriff's Department to review and comment upon the proposed
ordinance. The Board requested the regional commissions to provide comments to the
County Planning Commission. In directing that the County Planning Commission hold
a public hearing on the ordinance, the Board of Supervisors requested that consider-
ation be given to provide some latitude with respect to infrequent charitable or other
non-profit activities of this type, along with provision of annual review of cabaret land
use permits.
ll. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Receive public comment on the proposed ordinance, close the public hearing and
recommend that the Board of Supervisors:
A. Find that the adoption of the proposed ordinance is exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section
15061 (b)(3);
B. Adopt the proposed cabaret ordinance after having received from County
Counsel modified provisions allowing exceptions for infrequent community
based, charitable or other non-profit activities, and providing for applicant
initiated and funded annual reviews of the land use permits granted pursuant
to the ordinance.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION
Land Use Permits for Cabarets are currently required only in certain land use districts,
where such uses are not normally allowed as a matter of right, such as the LI (Light
Industry District). In the RB (Retail Business) and other business districts, such uses
are allowed, subject to approval of a Development Plan. Conditions attached to such
approvals generally relate to how the project is built, but not how the use is
conducted. The requirement of a land use permit would allow conditions to be imposed
that do regulate the use. Such added regulation would not replace the requirement for
a Development Plan approval in these land use districts. In general, issues related to
the use of cabarets relate to hours of operation, congregation outside the business,
noise, traffic/parking and compatibility with surrounding land uses.
2
IV. REGIONAL COMMISSION COMMENTS
The text of the proposed ordinance has been supplied to the Regional Planning
Commissions, and a workshop was held with the East County Regional Planning
Commission on February 6, 1995. The transcript of the ECRPC workshop is attached,
along with the proposed ordinance text. A workshop with the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission is scheduled for February 15, 1995. Staff anticipates
that the comments from that Commission will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission under separate cover.
In summary, the ECRPC comments requested that the definition of cabarets be
clarified, that some provision for small cabarets be provided where it could be
established that the problems associated with larger establishments would not occur
(a small place with limited seating where a glass of wine and classical guitarist, for
example). The Commission supported provisions for charitable and non-profit
organizations.
DMB/df
d2:cabord.sr
2-13-95
i
01
r;0;g1RA COST A
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel KTK D5 3N 23 PH 3. 17
By: Kevin T. Kerr, Deputy County Counsel CCMt,;{jill TY
DATE: January 11, 1995 DEVELCPMENTDEPT
SUBJECT: Proposed Cabaret Ordinance
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the accompanying draft Cabaret Ordinance be referred
to the Community Development Department, Planning Commission, and
Sheriff's Department for review and comment.
2. That, following said review and comment, the Board of
Supervisors further consider and possibly adopt a proposed Cabaret
Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the Board of Supervisor's direction, the County —
Counsel, following meetings with the Community Development
Department and the Sheriff's Department, has written the attached
draft Cabaret Ordinance for consideration.
The draft ordinance should be formally reviewed and comments
provided, among others, as to whether its scope should be limited
in any particulars and any express provision made for infrequent
nonprofit charitable cabaret type activities.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATUR
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARH' COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON January 17. 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHERAX
See attached addendum for Board action.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE. BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig:County Counsel's Office ATTESTED January 17, 1995
cc: Sheriff's Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Community Development:Department. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTACT: Kevin Kerr, Deputy County Counsel AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
(646-2066)
BY , DEPUTY
d1(1): cabaret.m
ADDENDUM TO ITEM 2.1 FROM THE 1-17-95 BOARD AGENDA
The Board added the Regional Planning Commissions to the referral
of the above proposed ordinance, asking them to -centralize their
recommendations to the County Planning Commission.
The Board further requested the County Planning Commission to
receive public testimony and provide the Board with its comments
and to try to provide some latitude for infrequent, charitable or
other non-profit activities in this area.
The Board further requested the County Planning Commission to
consider the possibility of an annual review of all such permits.
F
ORDINANCE 95-
(Cabarets)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as
follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official
text from the enacted provisions of the County Ordinance Code) .
SECTION I. Chapter 82-34 is added to the Contra Costa County
Ordinance to read as follows:
CHAPTER 82-34 CABARETS
Article 82-34 .2 General
82-34 .202 Purpose. This chapter requires and provides
criteria for the consideration and approval of land use permits
before the establishment of cabarets in any land use zoning
district of this county. The County finds it necessary to
establish land use permit requirements and criteria in the
interest of the public health, safety and welfare for the
establishment of cabarets. This chapter alone does not allow or
permit cabarets, but only applies to cabarets where otherwise
allowed or permitted within an involved applicable land use
zoning district. This chapter does not authorize the
establishment of cabarets in any land use district where they are
not otherwise allowed or permitted by the applicable involved
zoning district's regulations.
(Ord. 95- . )
Article 82-34 .4 Definitions
82-34 .402 Definition of Cabaret. "Cabaret" means any place
where the public is admitted, where entertainment is furnished by
or for any patron or guest present upon the premises, including,
butnot limited to singing, vaudeville and dancing, and where
liquid refreshments or foods are sold; except where the only
entertainment furnished is by recording machine, commonly known
as a jukebox, and dancing is not permitted.
(Ord. 95-_. )
82-34 .404 Limited Definition of Cabaret. The definition
of cabaret in section 82-34 .402 is limited to this chapter, and
does not apply to or supersede other definitions of cabaret,
including the definition of cabaret in section 88-12 .404(6) .
(Ord. 95-_. )
Article 82-34 .6 Applications
82-34 . 602 Application Contents. In addition to the
applicable requirements of chapters 26-2 and 82-6 and the
1
ORDINANCE NO. 95-
involved zoning district, an application for a land use permit
approving a cabaret shall contain the following information:
( 1) A description of where the proposed cabaret is to be
located on the subject property, including a description of the
building or structure within which the cabaret is to be located;
(2) If alcohol is to be sold to patrons or guests, a
description of applicable alcohol beverage licenses;
(3) The true name and complete address of each owner of the
building or structure within which the proposed cabaret is to be
located;
(4) The true name and complete address of each lender,
shareholder with 5 percent (5%) or more financial interest in the
proposed cabaret, and any other person to whom a share or income
of the cabaret is to be paid;
(5) A description of the entertainment, to be furnished at
the proposed cabaret;
(6) A description of all proposed cabaret activities;
(7 ) If dancing is intended at the proposed cabaret, a
description of the area where dancing is to occur; and
(8) A description of the security measures planned for the
proposed cabaret, including on-site supervision.
(Ord. 95-_. )
Article 82-34 .8 Land Use Permits
82-34 .802 Requirement. No cabaret shall be established and
maintained unless and until a land use permit is first obtained
pursuant to this chapter and maintained in full force and effect.
82-34 .804 Additional Findings. In addition to the findings
established in Article 26-2 .20, no land use permit for a cabaret
shall be issued unless the following findings are made:
( 1) The cabaret will not adversely affect the health,
safety, and welfare of the surrounding community;
(2) The cabaret will not significantly increase the demand
for police services;
(3) The cabaret will not produce an undue concentration of
cabarets in the surrounding community;
(4 ) The cabaret will not detrimentally affect nearby
2
ORDINANCE NO. 95-
residentially zoned communities;
(5) The cabaret will not be unduly close to residences,
schools, youth centers, playgrounds, public parks and other
similar locations frequented by children and their families; and
(6) The cabaret will include adequate security measures and
on-site supervision.
(Ord. 95-_. )
82-34.806 Granting. Land use permits for the special
cabaret uses enumerated in this chapter may be granted as
provided and required by this chapter and in accordance with
chapters 26-2 and 82-6 .
(Ord. 95-_. )
SECTION II. Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective 30
days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be
published once with the names of supervisors, voting for and
against it in the a newspaper published
in this County. (Gov. Code, SS 25123 & 25124. )
PASSED ON by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of
the ,Bo.ard and County Administrator
By:
Deputy Board Chair
(SEAL]
df(l): cabaret.ord
3
ORDINANCE NO. 95-_
This Page ]Left
Intentionally Blank
WORKSHOP ON CABARET ORDINANCE-EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING
COMMISSION-FEBRUARY 6, 1995
Mary Fleming opens workshop with description of proposed Cabaret Ordinance and
describes procedures following recommendations by East County Regional Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Wetzel: Through the Chair, I have a question. Mary, is this already in
existence, this ordinance? Do they require the permits now at this time?
Mary Fleming: Not at this time. This is a brand new ordinance, there is nothing in our
ordinance right now that relates to facilities that have entertainment. The only thing that
relates at all is the adult entertainment ordnance which has some restrictions on things
which are considered adult entertainment.
Commissioner Hanson: Would this just pertain to the County, not within the city limits.
Mary: That's right, it would just be a County ordinance and pertain to the
unincorporated area.
Commissioner Wetzel: You are sure it's not in existence right now?
Mary: Yes, I am. Do you think you recognize it?
Commissioner Wetzel: I have a problem.
Commissioner Hern: I think I am reluctant to speak because earlier tonight one of my
fellow Commissioner's asked what a Cabaret was and I'm afraid if I address this issue
some people may conclude that I inhabit cabarets. But at that risk, I don't know what
prompted this and it is unfortunate that nobody told what problems created the need for
us to comment on it but absent that, and I;'m not even sure that us as a planning
commission normally would get involved in this type of a subject , but my only
observation would be that I find the definition of Cabaret in my opinion to be pretty
restrictive. I'm thinking for example, in Byron we have a restaurant by the name of Spurs
which serves alcoholic beverages, which has stage shows, occasionally has singing and
dancing, and if I read this definition literally, Spurs Restaurant would be considered a
Cabaret. I don't know for example, where something like a Elk's or other lodge where
members normally go but can also invite outsiders to their meetings and their parties and
so forth would fit in this thing. Yacht Clubs, I suppose could have a similar problem, so
I think really that whoever drew up the definition of what constitutes a cabaret ought to
redefine it to address whatever problem created the need for this ordinance in the first
place and not make it so broad that it is going to be to restrictive on legitimate operations.
i
Commissioner Hanson: I would like to comment because I know that in Bay Point we
had continually complained because new bars were constantly coming into business and
our MAC never heard about this and we said how come these things can happen and we
don't hear about it ahead of time to say that bar is next to a church, how come there is
already 6 bars in that block and now they are going to have another one.. Maybe we
were continually asking the Liquor licensing bureau why they were permitting these things
and I think that maybe the County picked up on that because the bars that were going
in were within the ordinance and were given liquor licenses and one particular facility and
that has since been opened, we'll see what happens, but it was just given a license, the
gentlemen was just given a license over the counter with no review of his past record,
and his past record involved running facilities within the City of Pittsburg and within the
City of Concord that brought forth a lot of-police calls and parking lots full of people
fighting and a lot of problems, and we do have that right now with the facility that has just
opened now in the County. There was no review process in existence and that may be
what triggered it, but I have a problem with the way this is written also, because I don'[t
see it addressing the problem in Bay Point. It says where liquid refreshments are sold,
it doesn't say liquor, it doesn't say alcoholic beverages. This would cover an ice cream
social in a church if they served coffee and they had the church choir singing. The way
it is written, I don't see any way it would not cover anything at all where you served a cup
of coffee.
Mary: If you look in the following sections under applications, its on the second page of
the ordinance, it does seem to be a little more specific there in number two, it talks about
if alcohol is sold.
Commissioner Hanson: It says if, it doesn't say only if alcohol is sold. It says when liquid
refreshments.
Commissioner Wagner: I think what they are trying to do there is in cases when these
teen clubs don't serve alcohol they want to have some latitude to control them.
Commissioner Wetzel: And I agree, that they should have some control because
referring to Spurs again, they came in there without, I don't think they have a permit to
change that from the Odd Fellows Hall to a bar/restaurant, 2:30 in the morning when all
the motorcycles leave, it's no fun at all and you know the music gets very loud, and I
have to say my son plays there, and I complain to him all the time. I think it should have
some kind of control. We also now have the bar down the street, whatever it's called
now, the Wild Idle, they to opened up an area. They have it fenced off but they have
outside entertainment, and in the summertime it's not very pleasant at 2 o'clock in the
morning and they're still playing music.
Commissioner Hern: Well, if it's a nuisance, then there can be an ordinance to abating
nuisances but this doesn't tackle that problem, this just talks about how they are going
to license activities in the future.
2
Commissioner Wetzel: If they required a use permit for that then a lot of those issues
would be covered before it was ever issued a permit to operate. They just go in and
open up a business, I don't have any problems with them opening up a business, but
there should be some restrictions there, also.
Commissioner Hern: I'm not opposed to that and I agree with that, all I'm saying is the
way it is written here and what they are talking about constitutes a cabaret to be covered
by this, it's awfully, awfully broad covered.
Commissioner Hanson: It is very vague and it wouldn't address the problem that we have
in Bay Point because we don't have any place to that has live entertainment except for
the one particular place that has just opened last week. He proposes to have live
entertainment but other than that we have a lot of places where Liquor is sold.and we.just
said on our main street, Willow Pass Road, all we have are liquor stores and car parts
places, garages and we want to get a little bit of a change. We didn't like to see
whenever a new business goes in, why is it a bar?
Commissioner Hern: Well, Janess, you haven't been to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, have
you? You guys are just trying to emulate what's going on back there.
Commissioner Wagner: I think that would probably be a different ordinance that would
have to be drafted in to just deal with the land use permit to have drinking
establishments, but as far as cabarets go, I don't have a real problem with this ordinance
as long as they exempt non-profit organizations such as the churches and private clubs
like the Yacht clubs and the Elks Club. I think if they had some language in there that
exempted those organizations, because a lot of these organizations such as the Elks
Clubs and the Masons, they don't have a large budget and they can't afford to go through
the permitting process for a land use permit. They only meet once a week or once a
month, something.
Commissioner Hanson: Or they might have one fund raiser a year.
-Commissioner Waqner: Yeah, they're not doing it for profit.
Commissioner Hern: I guess when Discovery Bay has it's wine festival and it's marina
festivities once a year, that might constitute a permit for that.
Commissioner Wetzel: It might come under it..
Commissioner Hern: I can just see some bureaucrat really interpreting this thing so
literally that almost everything is included.
Commissioner Wetzel: So, what would you like to see? That they bring this back to us
re-written?
3
Commissioner Hern: I don;'t think they have to bring it back to us, they just wanted our
comment and we have given them our comments and they can take those under
advisement and hopefully change their ordinance to reflect it.
Commissioner Hanson: It saying land use permits, not cabaret shall be established and
maintained unless and until a land use permit is first obtained. I think one of things that
I object to here is that it doesn't address the problems in Bay Point and if it was intended
to help Bay Point, it won't because it won't over 95% of our places where liquor is sold,
if it only includes when live entertainment is occurring and that is what it sounds like.
Chair Planchon: Bars, taverns, that's what it's been called for the last 40 years. You go
back to the 30's and they called them cabarets. I think there is-an old song about take
me back to the cabaret or something like that.
Commissioner Hern: Well, that was French.
Commissioner Hanson: Entertainment is furnished by or for any patron or guest, singing,
vaudeville or dancing and liquid refreshments or food is sold, but they are not saying
exempting if there is a recording machine or juke box and there's no dancing, what I'm
saying is that covers 95% of the bars in West Pittsburg, so this would not affect West
Pittsburg and do anything for West Pittsburg,
Commissioner Andrieu: Through the chair, this sounds like a band aid to cover a
problem that exists that might be enforced through current means.
Commissioner Hanson: I don't know why they tried to write it but I know that Supervisor
Torlakson was trying to respond to the needs that we have in our community, this will not
do.
Commissioner Andrieu: If a business is causing a police problem, and there is alcohol
served, that becomes the jurisdiction of the ABC.
Commissioner Wetzel: We can't goback and condition some of these places now for a
use permit to be reviewed every year, can it be done?
Mary: The way the ordinance is written right now you can't go back and do existing, this
applies to new facilities, and you could have a land use permit that required an annual
review, that would be a possibility and that is one of the things...
Commissioner Wetzel: If it is grandfathered in you can't review that..
Mary: Won't apply to existing that would still apply to any new uses or uses that changed
in such a way that they began to offer entertainment.
I
i
I
4
l
Chair Planchon: Annual review is fine, short term permits for the new ordinance is fine.
I would have to agree with all of my fellow commissioner's that they would have to clean
the language up before I could go on with it. You need to have more clearly defined what
is a cabaret.
Commissioner Andrieu: That says it all.
Mary: Well, more clearly defined in that you want it to be more restrictive, are you say
you want it to apply to things that are not necessarily providing entertainment?
Chair Planchon: I want a little better definition of what they call a cabaret, what does it
really consist of? They don;'t have the parameters for me, they don't include exactly what
it is.
Mary: O.K., I guess the question that I have is what would you like for it to include? If
it is not clear here, what kinds of things does it not seem to cover that you would like to
have it cover in this ordinance?
Commissioner Andrieu: Spell out the problems, what is the problem, why is this being
proposed? Give us something to look at to determine if there is a need for this now. We
had some comment from the West Pittsburg Commissioner, okay, if there is a problem
out there, tell us about it.
Commissioner Wetzel: I to, in Byron think if this would of been in existence then they
would of been required to have a use permit and they would of been covered under this
use permit what they would be permitted to do on their premises, and the cabaret comes
into that effect, hey if you're going to have live music, heres the parameters, 10 clock you
shut it off or o'clock you shut it off or whatever is chosen for that, because you are in
pretty much a residential area and when they open up all the windows and the doors and
the music starts coming out of there, the whole communities know about it. I think it's
pretty close in covering, but it doesn't;t help what is there now.
Commissioner Hanson: No, it doesn't address any of our problems in West Pittsburg,
and I understand the way this worded that a cabaret is defined as a place where live
entertainment is furnished and that is not our problem in West Pittsburg. Our problem
is, I guess that the Community wanted a chance to review and to have a voice in
whenever a, o.k, have a use permit required that would be reviewed by the local MAC
every time someone new proposed selling liquor in whatever, whether it was a grocery
store or a liquor store or another bar. That is what we were after. I don't see that we
needed a cabaret ordinance because the only cabaret that we have is the one that just
opened up that had been given a business license over the counter in Martinez and the.
past record of the individual wasn't;'t,looked into and he was more or less closed down
by two cities so then he went into the County and just sailed right in.
5
Commissioner Hern: Except that the ABC is suppose to be looking into that sort of thing.
Sounds like somebody is saying the ABC isn't doing their job so now we want the County
to take over the ABC's role. They have to issue the liquor license in the first place and
investigate the people who are applying for it to make sure ...
Commissioner Wetzel: But they only notify people within 300 feet of the establishment
and that is as far as they go. They don't go to the communities and ask do you see any
problem with this or the MAC's.
Commissioner Hern: They only post a notice in the window, that great big white thing.
Notice of Intent to serve or sell alcoholic beverages, anybody that is in the area only gets
to see it.
Commissioner Hanson: Well this is what happened in our area, someone read that
notice and questioned the County as to who is this person and why are we going to have
this huge place right here in the middle of the Community because it is right in a
residential area and then they found out more about it and dug into the history and we're
pretty upset. We'll see what happens.
Commissioner Andrieu: Is it by name called cabaret?
Commissioner Hanson: It's a long story. The license was requested as a restaurant
with permission to serve liquor but it was built with no place to eat and it's all a big dance
hall. We'll see what happens.
Chair Planchon: Do you have enough Mary?
Mary: I think I do and just to clarify a, little bit, this happens fairly often, this situation in
West Pittsburg is just one of a number. It is pretty standard that when someone comes
along and wants to open a facility where there is entertainment, there are a lot of
concerned neighbors and we get this every time someone starts talking about this type
of facility, so I think this ordinance is meant to address that neighbors are always
concerned that it is going to mean a lot of people coming and going, a lot of noise,
people hanging around outside the door smoking cigarettes or whatever and that does
raise concerns and this ordinance is one way of trying to begin to deal with that.
Commissioner Hanson: And another thing that might be mentioned is the number,
because the facility that I am referring to has like 250 or 400, it's a huge facility, we are
talking a big area, a large dance floor and lots of people and the parking lot, we'll see
what happens. But a small coffee shop or something that had one guitar player and has
three tables, the way this is written, that applies to them.
Mary: I think it would, yes.
6
Commissioner Hanson: People with three tables having a glass of wine listening to a
classical guitarist and I don't think that's what they were responding to when they wrote
the cabaret, responding to the neighborhood wanting to know what is coming into their
area, having a look at it.
Commissioner Hern: Mr. Chairman, I think we need to recess this workshop so we can
go down to the cabaret and have a first hand workshop and see how it is operating.
Chair Planchon: And have a glass of cabernet. Well, are we ready to move on.
Mary: Yes, I think that gives us what we need to take back, we'll put that together, listen
to the recording and get all your comments organized and back to the Commission.
Commissioner Wagner: One more question. If you have an existing business that is
under the definition of cabaret now,' and then it changes ownership, at the point of
ownership change would it be required to come down and get a land use permit then?
Mary: Not the way I read this, I think if there were a change in ownership and a change
in the use, the new owner was going to have entertainment where the old one didn't or
a different kind of entertainment, that might trigger the ordinance, but I don't think just
a change in ownership would.
Chair Planchon: Okay, lets move on.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: January 27, 1995
TO: San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission
FROM: Dennis M. Barry, AICA
Deputy Director V
SUBJECT: Proposed Cabaret Ordinance
This is a County-initiated addition to the Zoning Ordinance intended to further
regulate cabarets. On January 17, 1995 the Board of Supervisors directed the
Community Development Department, the Planning Commission, the Regional
Planning Commission's and the Sheriff's Department to review and comment upon
the proposed Cabaret Ordinance. The Board asked the Regional Planning
Commissions to centralize their recommendations to the County Planning
Commission. The Board requested the County Planning Commission to receive
public testimony and provide the Board with its comments and to try to provide
some latitude for infrequent charitable or other non-profit activities in this area.
The Board further requested that the County Planning Commission consider annual
review of all such permits.
Pursuant to the Board's direction, staff is requesting the Regional Planning
Commissions to consider the attached draft Cabaret Ordinance and to provide
comments as the Commissions may deem appropriate. These comments will be
forwarded to the County Planning Commission, which will hold a full public
hearing on the proposed ordinance and will present formal recommendations to the
Board for its consideration.
Staff has reviewed the draft ordinance and suggests that if the Commissions concur
that some allowance should be made for infrequent charitable or other non-profit
activities in this area, they could recommend that County Counsel insert
appropriate language in the definition section (Section 82-34.402) which would
limit the application of the ordinance to ongoing, commercial activities, or provide
for specific exxemptions.
Page Two
If the Commissions are inclined to recommend annual reviews, staff would suggest
that County Counsel be requested to insert appropriate language into the
requirement section (Section 82-34.802) so that each land use permit obtained
pursuant to this chapter shall be conditioned to require the applicant to submit an
annual report to the Zoning Administrator (or applicable planning commission).
Upon the payment of appropriate fees, the assigned division of the planning agency
could make findings of continuing compliance with the conditions of the land use
permit in order for the permit to remain in full force and effect. Staff recommends
that the Commissions consider this item as soon as practically possible and report
their recommendations to the County Planning Commission for its report to the
Board of Supervisors.
DMB/df
d2:cab.ord
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Contra Costa
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years,and not a party to or interested in the
above-entitled matter.
I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa Times,a newspaper of
general circulation,printed and published at 2640 Shadelands Drive in
the City of Walnut Creek,County of Contra Costa,94598.
And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general
circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Contra Costa,State of
California,under the date of October 22,1934.Case Number 19764.
The notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy(set in type not
smaller than nonpareil),has been published in each regular and entire
issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the
following dates,to-wit:
.........................................................
all in the year of 19_2/
I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Executed at Walnut Creek,California.
On this/.S day of f <�f�... 19.2-j—
.................................................
nature
Lesher Communications,Inc.
Contra Costa Times
P.O.Box 4147
Walnut Creek,CA 94596
(510)935-2525
Proof of Publication of:
(attached is a copy of the legal advertisement that published)
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVI-
SORS
COUNTY WIDE AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on TUESDAY, MARCH
28, 1995, AT 2 P.M. IN--ROOM 107 of the County
Administration Building, corner of Pine and Esco-
bar Streets, Martinez, California, the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors will hold a public
hearing to consider the following matter:
Recommendation of the Contra Costa County Plan-
ning Commission on a proposed County-initiated
addition to the Zoning Ordinance intended to fur-
ther regulate cabarets.
If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to
the County at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Date: March 10, 1995
PHIL BATCHELOR
Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By Ann Cervelli
Deputy Clerk
Legal CCT 5421
Publish March 15, 1995
RECEIVED
MAR I Z 1995
CLERK 130A RA�C05TA CO ISORS
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Contra Costa
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid;
!am over the age of eighteen years,and not a party to or interested in the
above-entitled matter.
I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa Times,a newspaper of
general circulation,printed and published at 2640 Shadelands Drive in
the City of Walnut Creek,County of Contra Costa„94598.
And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general
circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Contra Costa,State of
California,under the date of October 22,1934.Case Number 19764.
The notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy(set in type not
smaller than nonpareil),has been published in each regular and entire
issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the
following dates,to-wit:
all in the year of 19../..<--
I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Executed at Walnut Creek,California.
On this/-5—day of 1914,.
Signature
Lesher Communications,Inc.
Contra Costa Times
P.O.Box 4147
Walnut Creek,CA 94596
(510)935-2525
Proof of Publication of:
(attached is a copy of the legal advertisement that published)
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVI-
SORS
COUNTY WIDE AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on TUESDAY, MARCH
287 1995, AT 2 P.M. IN ROOM 107 of the County
Administration Building, corner of Pine and Esco-
bar Streets, Martinez, California, the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors will hold a public
hearing to consider the following matter:
Recommendation of the Contra Costa County Plan-
ning Commission on a proposed County-initiated
addition to the Zoning Ordinance intended to fur-
ther regulate cabarets.
If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to
the County at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Date: March 10, 1995
PHIL BATCHELOR
Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By Ann Cervelli
Legal CCT 5421 Deputy Clerk
Publish March 15, 1995
RECEIVED
MAR 17 1995
CLEERK BOARD OF SUPFRV1SOB6
rLRA cgL'CC" e<s
Ci
FAX HZKORANDUM
1 ! CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
" CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
;t 651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez. California 94553
Phone (415) 646-2371= FAX 646-1059
DATE: 3
FROM:
TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER
Comments PLEASE CONPTRM RE(-pTAT RY 'PFT FPTinp. Thaw
J77 T
PLUSE ADVISE IF FOR ANY PJASON YOU DO NOT nCEIVE MUS ITEM
CwLETE I
I
m =T CD CD Z r- mcg r 0 4 -0 — m Cl)
CD
O pz OO
cn m Z
C') C: C:X
LD z m j:g 0') (-) K�u
C) F� C)
0 (-n F- cu
Oz m F- (D X8 0
z M ctFi
z
0 C) C> OK PV
=3 CD =T 003 z it P-
5, M OM (A l(D 0
C/3 >
3 n
CL cr CD IN (D
z c cn U) ct 0 C:
CD M(D irt
CD 3 MOO (D 0
0 pi LH 0 0
't >
mo 0 "0 w
10 0 a: z 19, 0
CD Fl- 0 (D (t H- �l > K> x ul m
w rt �:5 Ol F 0 t:3 0 t7' C::X) M Lrl z
cr q.G) -V M
0 Fl- cn 10 m Ic L,) 0
> F1 0i w �:l 0 -D M C: C:;v
c CD r--D m > ;a>
--A I 1 10 (D a mm (a F- Z X'G 0 r-
m (D �l (D (D w — m CD —_MCA
0 L-1 I M
m m =C: W
0 z
F4 Fn se<
m cc M 0 Z
(-, 0 K >
0 0) tr <Hz Fl- ct 0 > G)-< m
cn (D H-rO :9 (n (D (n M M 0 W M
n (;� �-3 u(1)
5 =r rt 0 0) 1-0 �:5 FH M C') C)C:
z w F- a rt 0 n 7o 0K ca<m
r- �-h pi (D m 0 0 z m < 0 C/) C.)0
SD rt, o rt 0-4 M CO-4 ;� - 050-
m CO :Ei IC)
0 I(D w rt �:s 0 z C: w 10 0 z 0 < z
�-1 (D �l 0 F 1-a co m
�-A m
U) F P) (D ft F-3 m z
N 0 X F-h Fl- n C/) z
111(D �r-0 F- F-', 1= t7i c 0
-u (t > 0
F, l0 Fi rt 0 m
_0• (D
a-. (t (D 0 C) z
�r ¢ 17J m x 0 0
0 Cr rt K
I— H- m (D A. Cf)
Fl pi z 0 -1 1-3 >
�l Oj > r- 00
V> >
(D F �O F-3 m
ft 0 ft F--1 >
1H. z in C)
z
0 0
0 (7) t7i
F la) �
:1 1
F
J(D (t P-
1t5 EE- 0
Fl-
0 o En w rot }}rt
Fl- F-j-
I— 1H
--I (l i ct ft w (D (D k.0
O mn (D iFl- 0 ri U) c k.0 z
10 (D iN _0 Ul
t:r rt ;0 (D
> 5J >m m i
m (t I(D Cf)
X G) co 33
0 �lr, !F-- ft
c . m w l(n ::� 1�:l 0
z z rt I(D ct m
E 133Fl- C)
rt � cl) Cf) 0-0 T v x 0 0
(D m z
�9
m bm-u M 0 i m M m
m
z C>,) c C) 0
z
m 0 CM m F- r-
z (D
ca z
m m z 0
n 110 0
;F-
I
-U 0 0 ICD Ul
M
m c 1c)
C
0 Z m m U)
ti <
m m m
0 4 --li (D
0 x m 0
I-h :C� 0 I'D -_j
caE # t z
to
rt
10 0 IV
C) Z!
(D C)
F
Al 4- ILI)
0
CD t7lZ I-,J
m
0 (D 03
CD>
0 0 m F-
M
z PM
rL)
IF-
M
J,
> z
D
Cc,>
K all
V,
m "T
Ln
iW x 0 OU 0
NJM Z
C3 Z M M
l!
F- C-c
F- P- m CD C)c) m
C/)
Ul