Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06101997 - D6 - ............... - ' •.' 'i Contra •� ' Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS o; ,II&A County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON - �~ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT •°�sr--------- DATE: ----- DATE: JUNE 10, 1997 SUBJECT: REQUEST BY BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES (APPLICANT) - JEAN SEAGAL & KHALIL MOKALLA (OWNERS) , COUNTY FILE #RZ963039 TO REZONE 1.2 ACRES FROM R-20 TO R-15, IN THE WALNUT CREEK AREA. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors uphold the decision of the County Planning Commission and deny the rezoning application. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The background information for this application is discussed in the September 10, 1996 staff report for the County Planning Commission. The staff report discussed the issue of creating an island of R-15 (15, 000 square foot minimum lot size) in a R-20 Zoning District (20, 000 square foot minimum lot size) . The staff report additionally identified the findings which the Commission was required to make and discussed why in staff' s opinion those findings could not be made. The Commission, after .taking testimony, voted to recommend denial of the application to the Board of Supervisors. No new information has been provided following the Planning Commission meeting. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE\t.. 1f�.&,_,, RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI TEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) :. ACTION OF BOARD ON Juice 10 , 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER See attached Addendum 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. Contact:DEBBIE CHAMBERLAIN 335-1213 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED June 10 , 1997 cc: County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works-Mitch Avalon THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AN COUNTYMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY DC/df bo3 :rz963039 .bo ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.6 June 10, 1997 On May 6, 1997, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date, the hearing on the recommendation of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the request by Habitat Designer (Applicant), and Jean Segal and Khalil Mokalla (Owners), for approval to rezone 1.2 acres from R-20 to R-15 in the Walnut Creek area. (County File #RZ 3039-96). Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report and recommendation on the issue. The public hearing was opened, and James Kiraly, 217 Gerry Court, Walnut Creek, commented on the matter. No one else desiring to speak, the hearing was closed. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the public hearing is CLOSED; the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission is UPHELD; and the request of Bellecci & Associates (Applicant) and Jane Segal and Khalil Mokalla (Owners) for approval to rezone 1.2 acres from R-20 to R-15 in the Walnut Creek area is DENIED. BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES (APPLICANT) JEAN SEAGAL & KHALIL MOKALLA (OWNERS), COUNTY FILE #RZ963039 A REQUEST TO REZONE 1.25 ACRES FROM R-20 TO R-15, IN THE WALNUT CREEK AREA. Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County June 10, 1997 - 2:00 p.m. •. ---. . Y, Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS $ +a County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON '• `` DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �srq Uft DATE: JUNE 10, 1997 SUBJECT: REQUEST BY BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES (APPLICANT) - JEAN SEAGAL & KHALIL MOKALLA (OWNERS), COUNTY FILE #RZ963039 TO REZONE 1.2 ACRES FROM R-20 TO R-15, IN THE WALNUT CREEK AREA. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors uphold the decision of the County Planning Commission and deny the rezoning application. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The background information for this application is discussed in the September 10, 1996 staff report for the County Planning Commission. The staff report discussed the issue of creating an island of R-15 (15,000 square foot minimum lot size) in a R-20 Zoning District (20,000 square foot minimum lot size) . The staff report additionally identified the findings which the Commission was required to make and discussed why in staff's opinion those findings could not be made. The Commission, after taking testimony, voted to recommend denial of the application to the Board of Supervisors. No new information has been provided following the Planning .Commission meeting. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI TEE 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:DEBBIE CHAMBERLAIN 335-1213 Orig: Community Development Department -ATTESTED cc: County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works-Mitch Avalon THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY DC/df bo3:rz963039.bo Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS o; County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT sr,� DATE: May 1, 1997 SUBJECT: CONTINUED HEARING ON REQUEST BY HABITAT DESIGNERS (APPLICANT) - JEAN SEAGAL & KHALIL MOKALLA (OWNERS), COUNTY FILE #ERZ963039 TO REZONE 1.2 ACRES FROM R-20 TO R-15, IN THE WALNUT CREEK AREA. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors take testimony from those who wish to speak, and continue the matter to June 10, 1997. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Board of Supervisors on January 21, 1997 continued this matter for sixty (60) days at the applicant's request. The request was made to allow the applicant the opportunity to gather information. On March 25, 1997, the applicant requested an additional thirty (30) days to continue gathering information. Furthermore, on April 30, 1997 the applicant requested an additional 30 days to continue gathering information. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO TEE _ 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:DEBBIE CHAMBERLAIN 335-1213 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works-Mitch Avalon THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ` BY , DEPUTY DC/df bo3:rz963039.bo3 RESOLUTION NO. 33-1996 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING BY HABITAT DESIGNER (APPLICANT) - JEAN SEAGAL & KHALIL MOKALLA (OWNERS) , IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION PERTAINING TO THE PRECISE ZONING FOR THE WALNUT CREEK AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, a request by Habitat Designers (Applicant) - Jean Seagal and Khalil Mokalla (Owners) , County File IRZ963039, to rezone 1.2 acres from R-20, Single Family Residential District (20,000 square foot minimum lot size) , to R-15 (15,000 square foot minimum lot size) , was received by the Community Development Department on April 23, 1996; and WHEREAS, Staff determined that the project as proposed conflicted with the General Plan Goals and Policies and that no environmental documentation was prepared; and WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 10, 1996 and continued to October 22, 1996, whereat all persons interested might appear and be heard; . and WHEREAS, on. Tuesday, October 22, 1996, 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 Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors DENY the request of the applicant to rezone from R-20 to R-15 for the following reasons: 1. The changes as proposed do not substantially comply with the County General Plan. 2. The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are not compatible within the district and to the use authorized in adjacent districts. 3 . Community need has not been demonstrated for the proposed rezoning. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the County Planning Commission shall respectively sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors all in accordance with the Planning Laws of the State of California. PAGE TWO RESOLUTION NO. 34-1996 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the direction to prepare this resolution was given by the County Planning Commission at its meeting of October 22, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Clark, Terrell, Guncheon, Pavlinec, Hanecak, Wong NOES: Commissioners - None ABSENT: Commissioners - Gaddis ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None ATTEST: • Dennis M. Barry, Secret ry of the Planning Co ission, County of Contra Costa, State of California DC/df bo3:rz963036.res 2P Findings Map rK •• • er • a J t �♦ V� 4 •. Rezone From',-ZO To WALROLT 69E 'f_ Area Chair of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of California, do hereby certif i that this is a true and correct copy of _ VS. AN: ' "F_ C DWAN Y'S 1419 ZD iV t N E,-WR indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission in the matter of }{ $ITA ' Zzg(6 -ATTEST: Secretary of the Contra C sta County Planning Commission, State of Calif. 180 131 022 180 131 023 180 131 024 Victor Unsinn Marjorie Flynn Richard Peirano Karen Lynn Savelich Mark Flynn Marietta Peirano 920 Natoma Ct 930 Natoma Ct 940 Natoma Ct Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 180 131 025 180 131 026 180 131 027 Robert & Carmen Burks Gordon & Ruth Howe Thomas Potter 935 Natoma Ct 927 Natoma Ct 923 Natoma Ct Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 180 131 028 180 131 031 180 131 034 Marcus Reichmuth Richard & Yvette Cameron Kim Arthur Hemstalk Charlotte Reichmuth 922 Huntington Way Ruth Hemstalk 919 Natoma Ct Walnut Creek, CA 94596 942 Huntington Way Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 180 131 035 180 160 001 180 160 001 J & Elsa Gonzalez Lloyd & Colleen Lekse Lloyd & Colleen Lekse 932 Huntington Way 76 Mcconnell Ln 76 Mcconnell Ln Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 180 160 002 180 160 003 180 170 001 Emilio & Lizabeth Ruis Robert Thomas Jane Stevens Segal 72 Mcconnell Ln 60 Mcconnell Ln Barbara Hernandez Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 201 Gerry Ct Walnut Creek, CA 94596 180 170 002 180 170 003 180 170 004 Khalil & .Amalia Mokalla James & Grace Kiraly Gregory Bryant 209 Gerry Ct 217 Gerry Ct Elizabeth Bryant Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 225 Gerry Ct Walnut Creek, CA 94596 180 170 005 180 170 006 180 170 015. Daniel Farwell William Ludolph John & Nancy Stone Kathleen Farwell Kathleen Ludolph 256 Gerry Ct 233 Gerry Ct 241 Gerry Ct Walnut. Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 180 170 016 180 170 017 .180 170 018 W & Patricia Pfeiffer David & Gail Frederick Irwin & Elizabeth Major 5 Trina Ct 11 Trina Ct 12 Trina Ct Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 180 170 019 180 170 020 180 170 021 Delmar & Evelyne Loewe Glenn & Sheila Pamfiloff Russell Glynn Jr. 6 Trina Ct 208 Gerry Ct 98 Mcconnell Ln Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA '9-459E 180 170 022 180 180 011 180 180 012 James & Nadine Blank John & Susan Maritz Daniel Shortenhaus 88 Mcconnell Ln 8 Christmas Ct Alicia Klein Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 16 Christmas Ct Walnut Creek, CA 9459E 180 180 013 180 180 014 180 180 015 A, C & Helen Dattalo Adolph Briones Jr. Jeffrey & Nancy Newcomb 15' Christmas Ct 7 Christmas Ct 411 Green View Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 180 180 016 180 180 020 180 180 021 Peter Kotimanusvanij William Carstens M David & Dolores Olson Duang Kotimanusvanij Penelope Carstens 475 Green View Dr 421 Green View Dr 469 Green View Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 180 180 022 180 180 023 180 180 024 Manuel & Cristina Lim Daniel & Lois Flamm Masaharu Matayoshi 481 Green View Dr 476 Green View Dr June Junko Matayoshi Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 470 Green View Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94596 180 180 031 180 180 032 180 180 033 Charles & Sandra Hanson Michael & Paula Riley Stuart & Kim Weinstein 446 Green View Ct 921 Huntington Way 961 Huntington Way Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 180 180 034 Thorvald Hessellund Mary Hessellund 109 Mcconnell Ln Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Agenda Item # 3 Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - 7:30 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION HABITAT DESIGNER(Mplicant) - JEAN SEAGAL&KHALIL MOKALLA(Owners), County File ARZ963039: The applicant requests approval to rezone 1.2 acres from R-20 to R-15. The subject properties are located at the southwest corner of McConnell Lane and Gerry Court. Site address is#207 and #209 Gerry Court, in the Walnut Creek area. (R-20) (ZA: P-15) (CT 3430.01) (Parcel#180-170-001, -002). II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Conunission recommend denial of the proposed rezoning request to the Board of Supervisors. Alternatively, if the Commission finds merit in recommending approval of this request to the Board of Supervisors, staff recommends a 30 day continuance for preparation of the appropriate environmental document. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The County General Plan designates the subject properties as Single Family Residential-Low Density. The proposal is consistent with the County General Plan. B. Current Zoning: The subject properties are designated R-20, 20,000 square foot minimum parcel size. C. Proposed Zoning: The applicant is proposing to rezone the properties to R-15, 15,000 square foot minimum parcel size. D. CEQA Status: The envirorunental review for this project has not been completed due to staff's recommendation for denial. S-3 VI. CONCLUSION Staff is unable to make the findings to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning. However, if the Commission finds merit in recommending approval to the Board of Supervisors of this request, staff recommends a 30 day continuance to complete the appropriate environmental documentation. DJC/aa RZl/3039-RZ.DJC 8/26/96 Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22. 1996 - 7:30 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION HABITAT DESIGNER(Applicant) - JEAN SEAGAL&KHALIL MOKALLA(Owners), County File#RZ963039: The applicant requests approval to rezone 1.2 acres from R-20 to R-15. The subject properties are located at the southwest corner of McConnell Lane and Gerry Court. Site address is#207 and#209 Gerry Court, in the Walnut Creek area. (R-20) (ZA: P-15) (CT 3430.01) (Parcel#180-170-001, -002). This item was continued at the applicant's request from the September 10, 1996 hearing. II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed rezoning request to the Board of Supervisors. Alternatively, if the Commission finds merit in recommending approval of this request to the Board of Supervisors, staff recommends a 30 day continuance for preparation of the appropriate environmental document. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The County General Plan designates the subject properties as Single Family Residential-Low Density. The proposal is consistent with the County General Plan. B. Current Zoning: The subject properties are designated R-20, 20,000 square foot minimum parcel size. C. Proposed Zoning: The applicant is proposing to rezone the properties to R-15, 15,000 square foot minimum parcel size. D. CEQA Status: The environmental review for this project has not been completed due to staffs recommendation for denial. - S-2 IV. DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject properties from R-20 to R-15. Attachment A to the staff report is the Zoning Map for the area, with the location of the subject properties identified. The general pattern within the area is characterized by the R-20 zoning district adjacent to some large neighborhoods of R-15 zoning. The lots within those areas are generally under 20,000 square feet and development better conforms to the R-15 standards, while the parcels designated R-20 meet or greatly exceed the 20,000 square foot minimum parcel size, such as the subject properties (26,571 square feet and 25,700 square feet). Rezoning the subject properties to R-15 would create a two parcel island of R-15 in an area of R-20 zoning. The rezoning request may be justified if the requests to rezone encompassed the larger McConnell Lane area. However, the parcels are significantly larger than 20,000 square feet and due to topographic reasons subdivision of those properties may not be appropriate. V. REQUIRED FINDINGS Section 26-2.'806 of the County Code requires the following findings be made approval the request. They are as follows: A. The change proposed will substantially comply with the General Plan; and B. The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts; and C. Community need has been demonstrated for the proposed use, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. As indicated previously, the request to rezone the property from R-20 to R-15 substantially complies with the General Plan, Single Family Residential-Low Density designation. However, staff finds that the proposal to rezone two properties, creating an island of R-15 within a R-20 designation would not be compatible with the R-20 zoning district. If the subject properties were to be subdivided variances may be necessary to the R-15 standards to permit subdivision and structure setbacks would be reduced compared to those within the R-20 zoning district. Finally, community need (such as a specific plan requests to preserve or enhance community values) for the rezoning has not been demonstrated. The rezoning would only benefit the two property owners involved providing the ability to potentially subdivide their properties in the future. S-3 VI. CONCLUSION Staff is unable to make the findings to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning. However, if the Commission finds merit in recommending approval to the Board of Supervisors of this request, staff' recommends a 30 day continuance to complete the appropriate environmental documentation. DJC/aa RZ 1/3 03 9-RZ.DJC 8/26/96 10/15/96 scars AC �� - j ... +•+,..,. Jnr t ;`� � •io7! 3 fR�f v � 2 4 h ;r. r Y {. yqr A• � 4Q � 0 41 P` y � ��@bs�- �cc• � v n �4 "�• �7 t29.98 N37°/3'ot,E /t5•o9 T• ix 06 _�...-—"'r y"�•i �V 1 •'t+k w `�� •4G•4C •�-'�t .ts•y L qc a`?' �" �' �. O tc+�. ^� r'pk• "Cv 3z 4,) a�' N N32 J s y / / {•.g yy \ $b 4• •� !k3 O L y l `f k"`gqe'4 �`2 7 'G6 01 1 7� 3t•is oiL �tw� � K37�•JiS - n A`L � W 4c2M qF. ¢•.��i(} t 4 N OD y v+ �� �Vfa` � •nom m v _ �,�w $w $&', oa �(„� / A /�"'� N ! to •► �+ �-�L , �' V' �a .v.rsa'tsE � : �•O ,��-a,,f e'• '� N � Z ` 15 09 y a Ndt.tS• « a [ ...��q. = L• y� N w ••3TC' p S •. c y v N� 2,�•6� 1L0.0'F $ L" N u'.�,G79u-j•••° aY O 125 Ofd " N3r.td•oto y rte, ♦ it v` 9 b BZ N a .�,�, l a Ty 42 Ndg.tSOd;E "*°s N Q 19 00 IX 49 P ` _ If N. 00.6 C1% tn n x M ,~ m LANE , so CIS q� _Rti � y . r � cr _�Wit.a• ..� �� � `�.,`� ?m� '^� rsi�'�. Q> Z r O w+� y: is � •A .,,�+ y N^� ^� '��. o_ �i ;�'� `.-. D ec�• •� ;, �s�''�`- �mow_ � <\. 9 LA A. 90 I �.•. reit �� �y� _ O �111t.� ,._ GO- No 4 71 i t O \ �a� ,�. i cry• .ate + .}� ^ / � n r fr'� � •�p�� l (� O � p a tAt N .+•y�`�r y, .moo :,.,. Tri oN � � "� ot r � f eye `� . lf•ty• iA Q © 10, ' O N Vit r rya I• I ,Y •L Q v ..j• v � w�£ �,� � y 44 h�90 CO IV - 33 01 ® '-� cn cr J 14 ci 0rn ro leg It Qv - e a a { 73 h r#t p \ ' M , Z L as co'roi irate ,y{. b r Dob +�o O s NQS -•,�.��.. _ '► t SNF p Z, O (n o no Oma wm � G°S z .. 4 :gra MC CON •� � ..�.•„.�e _NEJ..L V �� � •r6 /'1 t '.. a; c M Q3 C. N C (31 CD �• , oc tot 9t t irv� s ,o ",�• � SyF_ aI N oh �n (DO idMMhs 0 � v w aes sc .y � P Q1r 9 `' « � u SIS > t •' � �i D' \:,/� v' •c �Os � imp`, � 0' )> d� o V'1 N W E U, >- C% O N � � p Xmv+ O . ao O O x! •v N N r �'. �► a ,�� 1♦ �1 � OR Ae X111/�*r r►tr +.,� '�1'`a' 1t1► I'fa, ► �1►' r:;:., s -:r .• :, ,►; �.-. ► . 00 ► � , ♦ ♦ err • . -���• •• �►�►` 11 a1�'1�, 1�j II �`!� ♦��1 �' tri '�. NEW LWAR WE Mok LOS ♦ r ..fir► ,� �, �► ♦ �► _ '�, 1 rte" ■ • ONA EPA ° - - • � ,� -� Lam,, �► ��` IIM : t PIP i.:. = t �t IffffAIP Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing th-e Board. Name: S ` . ��1/z��-y *hone: -2-07 C' ; �,W417-G��K- 1 am speaking for myself= or organization: ane of organ�ation) CHECK ONE: 1 wish to weak on Agw& Item #= Date.---6J/-0/1L. My comments will be: general _for "a nd!2L4OW/A v _ 1 wish to speak on the abject of LAW1,db MMM1,55ro ,dEUSio4) I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.