HomeMy WebLinkAbout0332.000I
I
'.'
•
. i
"" f' a» ita'L, d 1 _______ ----.
"" ! I. 1990
HONORP2tE (IT~ COUNCil
PaT. ATto. (aTlfor.l,
Prop~sed Reaional land Use PDlicy Frame~ork for the San Fran(fsce Bay Ar~a
llember' of t~e (ouncO,
The Executiye Board of the A,soci,tion of Bal Area Goyernments (ABAG) ha,
requested local reyiew of the attached Proposed Regional land Use PoT iCY
Framework. As ~ote~ 11 t~e April 30, 199n memorandum trans~itting the Policy
fra~~ork, ABAG's Regfonal ']ann1D9 Committee developed the framewori at the
request of ABAG's (xecwtive Board. ra1s rEq~est was triggered fl large part
by growing regional (e.g .• B" fi,lon 2020) and State (e.g .• the (ongestion
Management Program element of Propos;tfon III and numerous legislative
~roposals) ilterest 11 increasing subregional and regional coordination and
possiblJ contral Df land ase, transportation and relat~d ~eyelapment
decisions.
At bQth the regional and State level. there appear to be increasingly strong
doubts about the appropriateness of continulcg tne traditional local
government-domf~ated land use dec;sfon-makfng process~ There is growing
sentimeDt that broader land use polfcies and specific developmeRts t~at have
an is-yet ~ndeffned level of multl-jurisd;(tfonal impact ~eed to reflect
subregional (whfc_ is usualls regarded as countJ) and regional perspectives.
The -guidlog princfple-of t~! Regional Planning Committee~s recommendations
is that -local 90vernments ~ust find I way to balance local self-determf~ation
~t~ effective subregional and re9ional policfes and decisfon-matfng.-Tne
Committet believes t~at t~e Bay ATea shoald develop its own approacb to
deveTopment·related decfsfon-makiog rather than waiting fer State legislation
and/or admiBistrative mandates to establfsh rewised decision-maiing
procedures. The Comm;ttee~s approach is consistent with Pale Alto's
object1wes iI Jlartfcipating ill the Golder:! Triangle Tas\ force and the Golden
Triangle Commuter Network as well as the active encouragement the (ity has
gfven toward earll establishment of I Santa (larl Count! (ongestion "anagement
Program Agenc! under the prowlsfons ~f Propoittion III.
The Polic} framework focwses on sfx polities. related act fans and seven
recommended Stitt actions. The centrll theme of the policies is -,
c1tl-centered concept Df wrban develapme~t, with ~alan(ed growt~ guided
CHR:33Z:0
. "
r t
I
f
,
-
,--
.-
.. ..::.
Staff does Dot believe t~.t tnl or t~e 26 .ctlons ldentlffed undeT the six
polfcles are contTary t •• dOpted Citl policies, Policl 5, Action ( ("loc.l
jurisdictions shall partfcfpate fl f~ttr.gen(1 tl~ s~lrrn9 agreements on a
subreglon.l basis When appropriate to b.lance flsc.l inequities caused by land
use polfcies,") identifies. policy ar., that the Cit! has not previously
IYlluated~ (ertai,', any Effort to establfsb interagency tax s~aring wou1d be
• long and complicated process Dffering the Cit, numerous opportunities t~
evaluate $p~c1ffc optfons and alternatives. En~orsement of t~e work of the
Regional PlannfD9 Committee would not restrict the CitJ~5 options in t~e area
of fnteragency ta~ sharfng.
Tne seven recommende~ State actions include I number Df sfgnfficant changes
from the current State/local government relitionshi,. As noted belo~~
establfshfng subregional and reglonal authority to Cirry out a~opted land use
polfcfes (Recommendation A) means that unresolved operitional and
implementation fssues need t~ be addressed. almost undoubtedl, PTjO~ to
adoptloD to any detailed legtslation. Provision of a new and stable source of
l~al or regional governmental fund fog {Recommandation Cl is an emotional
issue Uat may seriousl, impede ClHer modiffciltions Clf tne decisio!'l-making
proeess_ However, it fs impossible to refwte t~at for ~any local
jurisdfctfDns~ revenue ;m~acts are a primaTY ~otiYition behind land ~se and
development decisions. Actual and potenti.l loss of c~rrent O~ expected
revenues would generate strong oppositioD to other elements of the Regional
Planning Cornm;ttee~s recommended policies and Ictions_ The ability of an
undefined State, regional or subregional entity tD w1thho1d Dew revenue a~d
grant funds (Recommendation fJ is an essential ·stick-t~ go with the ·carrot"
of • nev revenue source.
Unresolved Issues
The April 30th memoran~um notes t~at t~e Policy Framework -does ~ot seat to
address or 1de~tif1 imp'eme~tatfon or operational issues.· Rowever , the
Polfcy Framework contai:r,s se'lleral refereoces (f.e .• Policy Three. Action (,
Polfcy ffve~ Action A) to subregfDnal and regional policy development and
decisi~n-ma\in9 authorit, that go well beyond mec~anisms currently in place irn
the Bay Area,
Staff believes that ABAG .~ould be strongll encouraged to expand t~e ~ork of
the Regional 'lanning Committee to confront the very difffcwlt implementation
O~ operatfonal issues. Defi.itions need t~ be de'lleloped regarding what land
use l~d ether development issues ire lEgitimatel, subregional and/or regional
ind thus candidates for decrel$es fl or supersed~nce over local government
deCisions. FUTt~er. the ~ec~anis~s fo~ expanded subregional and regional
revfew of development 'issues need to be identiffed~
A significant issue that is not addressed f. t~e Proposed Policy framewori is
bow the traditional line-countJ Ba, region should interact ~tk adjacent
counties tkat haye emerged as leg;timit, parts of the Sa1 Area's demographic
and economic e~yiro"ment. These counties fnclude at least Santa Cr~l, ~a~
Joaquim and Sta"fslaus; and 10gfcl1 arguments have beeR made for San Be~ite~
CHR:332;~
regionallKS
,--. -"'-
5/31/90
,2-
\
\ ,
•
•
::-.
,.,.
~.:'f .
, -.
": ,
--1 ...
. ", ...
, .
, ,
,--
•
c
r,ll and eye~ Sacramenta Count,. T~YS issue is ~~ite reltvlnt. espeefal1,
Qi'lftn tfle wi:~ 0' .~!I~ !ft!1:S!~ !I'to;i e~!!":"'\':;"": t~.:it 1m,pc:a:1t1uii (if 5igtiHic.oIint
deweiopceot contrDls w,11 accelerate the dis~ersal af new development to areas
outsfde of tfle .rel IIf la.nd list control s~
RecDlDTlend.Uons
Staff recommends t~.t tne Cit] Council authorize the ~ayor to send I 'ett,r to
ABAG:
Recommendiog ABAG [xecotfv, Bo.rd approv.' of Tne Proposed Policy
framework wit~ whatever changes and Dther comments t~. Cou~ctl
belfeves are approprilte; and
[ncouraging ABAG to expand the ~rk of the Regional Planning
Committee fncloding, having the RPC define I} what land •• e and
Qther develo~ment issues Ire to be rega~ed IS ~aYlng subregional
and/or regionil fmpacts~ 2} mechanisms f~r expanded 5ubregfonal and
regional review IIf development fssues~ and 3] procedures for Ictfve
COQ~dfnatfon of Bay Area development polfc1es ~t~ adjacent counties
that have sfgnlficant actual or potential demograpbic a~d economic
loteraclfon with the Bay Are ••
Respectfull] s"bmltte~, ...r/ _/ -? :l . /~4-:k<:bt /: 4:1vUd{,
KENNETH a. SCHR[IBfR »
Director of Planning and
Communltl Environment
~~ ~~~5~~nt elt! Manager
Attachments: 4jlO/90 ~mor.ndu~ and Proposed Polic1 fr.mewor~
CMR:312:0
reglonallK S
5/31/90
·3·
..,J,rl'T ...... · •. ,~·~····L
." ....
-
'. .'
-...
-~
."-",--
, ,
f ,
* , ,
;-
I
' ..
h.-.·.-.'I' f . .
-
•
t
. -
----.-------~.£ "
.~!I
1IJIIIInl~'
Jo'5ep~ p 90rl Me:IDC~r,:e'
EIQ~':~. & Oa-, St'tee:s.
Oa¥;ar.d
(415-) .l£':: .7900
DATE: April 30. 1990
TO:
FR:
RE:
Mayors and Board Pr<sidents , i
I ,-,f/
Warren K. Hopkins. President f,;.W
Counci1member, City ol Rohnert Park "'" Cl..r"'.1; "'-':'~<j1 Cr ~l,..,~,~···G G
,tly OF PHO n1
Proposed Regional Land Use Policy Framework For tbe San
Francisco Bay Area
Bay VlSion 2020, a blue n"bboo. .:oIIlIl'iitlee of area ci-vk. education and business
leaders. is app<naching the middle of a one-year study, from which will corne
recommendations to the new fegislature and governor on the future of the Bay Are~
including its governance.
[0 addition,. as you know, growth management and regional governance issues bave
become topics ol great interest around the state in reanl: months. Several proposals are
currently being considered In the state legislature which deal with different aspects of
regional governance and growtb management.
ABAG's ExecutI-,e Board believes that g is in tile best interests of Bay Are. local
governments 10 be proactive .. '>if put forth • proposal outlining tile policies and enabling
actions we eovislon as necessary 1O successfuny move k)ward an improved system of reg{onal
gO\lcroance. We feel it is especiany importaIl.t 10 offer guidance to Bay VlSion 2020 as it
formulates recommendations K>r legislative and poricy adoption.
EarIier tbis year. the Executive Board requested t.nat tbe Regional P1anrung
Committee (RPC) develop a guiding pollcy, or framewori, ",hi<b would enable local
governments in the Bay Area 10 implement growtb management and mo preserve our quality
ol life in tile process. The RPC met on April 4 and 11. and developed the enclosed Policy
Framework.
The Board considered this paper at its April 26 meeting. and voted lO fOf\l.'ard it to
the member agencies for input and comment before adoption.
In considering this policy paper we ask tIlat you keep in mind that it is just tha~ a
policy framework. It does no< seek 10 address or identify implementation 0< operational
issues,. and thai is DO( what we lJe asking of you. We need your input on the concept and
policy statements...
'-
,-
7'
-.
\
\
\
\ ,
.'
. -, -
.. .J
-
t.
" .
Mavors and Board Presidents
RPC Policy Paper
Page 2
o o
We request that you consider this docu~nt and fonward YOU'f comments to ABAG's
Executive DireCIIX by Jene I, 1990. 11I .. 'e asked ~"e RPC 10 set aside June 13 and 27 !O
cansig'er your input and amend tbe pape.r as necesSA!)' foc the Bearcfs review and
anticipated adoptioc in July. This is a tight time schedule. Ho ..... e .. ·er~ in order toO ensure tbat
OUT poInt 0{ view is beard and considered by Bay V!Sion 2020 and the legislature. time ts
of the essence.
Your input will be valuable 10 this process, and I thank you in advance for taking
the time k) conSider !.his at a Council CK Board meeting in the nett month. We look {o.r· ... ,'ard
to your comme nts.
cc: OlUDty and City Administrat-ocs and Managers
County and City Planning Directors
-.
•
,
\
"
<
I , ~'"
f , , , ,
t
~ , ~''t, '. ,.
:~--' ,
-:' ,
,
-.
o o
A PROPOSED LAND USE POLICY FRAMEWORK
FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
ADOPTED BY lHE REGIONAL PLA.'iNlNG COMMITTEE OF
llfE ASSOCtA TlON OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
APRlL II, 1990
Many citizens in tlle Bay Area bave noticed'
that their quality 0( hfe is being jeopardized
by hapbazard regional gro-.'th p.nems.
People are becoming inc:rca.s:ing!y aware of
the impact of problems sueD as:
trafflC congestion
c<>st and supply 0( bousing
loss 0( opeD spac' aod deteriontion 0(
dle environment
ruminis1led air and water quality
perception of economic decll[lc
The real dilemma is not that these probl err.$
erist, but tnal they appear large 1y
unre.soh:abIe by our p~sen[ Sll'UCtUTe 0{
independem K,cal decision-making. Recent
attempts at inter-jurisdictional rand use
cooperation and coordination nave
generany faneB sbort while problems have
worseDed .
. _---..... -.. ~.--',
.~. .
"
;
; ,
, , • , ,
, '.
o
GUIDING PRINCIPLE
The Regional Planning Comminee of me
AssocialiCIC of Bay Area Governments
believes lhat 10caI governmentS must find I.
'IlII, 10 balance local self-determination with
effective subregional and regional ponci<.
and clecision-cWcing. The Committe< also
believes lhat is: is far bener 10 devdop our
own common vision and imeljurisdictional
approach 10 decision-making witrun !be B.ay
Area than 10 have unilaleral actions dictated
by lb. SLate of California
PROPOSAL OVERVIEW
The Committee proposes the c-stabfishmc:n,
of. poEey framework for future land use
decision-making in the Bay Area whic\
re~cts the Deed for StTOhg local conD1>l.
The framework advocates I city--c:en£ered
concepf or urban developmen[" w'iLb
balanced growth guided primarily into or
around existing communities while
preserving surroundlng opes space. The
proposed system reduces pubIic costs by
enc:ouraguig I. more eff>eicnt use of c:xis!:ing
and futw"e infrastructure.
Subregional decision-making is estab~shed
to resolve interjurisdK:tior.alland il"Se l-ssues
and lO carry OUI ~gional objectlvts..
FlIlaDy. tile poney framework addresses
existin g fiscal constraints and motivations
influc:ncing many existing land use
decisions..
--p .YW" ..... _ -.. -~ ~-. '.'----' --,-,
L ,
-
" ~.
o
POLICIES AND ACTIOilOS
\oVbiJe recogniring that there are numerous
growth·~Jated issues tfl3t could be
addressed in any new approacb. u,c:
Committee dect-ed '0 develop I. discrere sel
ofporicies aimed at the most critical land
'Use iss:>es confronting the Bay AIea.
•
...... ~.
-~ ..
POLICY ONE
GroWl. !han be mcouraeed' wbere
regional infrastructure capacity. sue' as
freewa" CnMit, walc=r,IDd solid wastt
capac:M!, is available or commiUl'orJ.
A. Regional ageoc its. shaD advocate .I
priori::y in aIlocaring Federa.l. State. and
special district grants, loans I11d funds 10
support"!~ousing. industry re~ntioc and new
job growth in those communities that are
easily accessible 1:0 existing conterl!J'ations.
of urx:mployed or underemployed workers.
B. Cities, counties and special districts
shan disc~gc signifl'Canl infrastructure
exlCnsloos beyond urban growth
boondzries.
C. Cities and counties. snall Qes)"gnate
vacanl or-cnde:n.zsed [and IJIith available
infrastructure for bigoer intenslt)' use in
their g.enetal plans...
POLICY TWO
Encourage developmen. patterns and
policies Ihal discourage lone distance
lutomobile commuline, and increase
residenl access 10 employment, sbopping
and recreation by transit or non·auto
means.
A C'tties and counne5 shaD designa:e
office and industrial land (in excess of Jong
leml need) $or resldcntiaI use where
necessary 10 balance future employmenr
and housing.
B. Cities and counties sllaD encow-age
empToymenland housing in prox."imit)' lO
nnsit stations.
c. Cines and counties shaD ensure t1lat
Don·transit accessible employment
improves joO/bot.lsing baJal1Ce v.'ilhin We
community or-subregional area.
D. AIl pubric agencies sbaIl suppon
GCkcommtlting opponunities.
E. Ciries and counOc:s sna.U encourage
<:mplo)lD<:nl L'l at provides jobs for local
reSidents.
F. Regional agenclc:s shan advocate
funding priority U) a-ansponatioc. projecB In
communIties with programs that reduc~ jobl
bousing imbalances.
o
POLICY THREE
Establislllirm Irowt~ boundaries r", the
urban 2re:&S of tl1e Bay Area. Urba n
development ,haD be mcour.gN .nd
permitted only within these Crowl.
boundaries.
A. Gties and counties shan develop
Jong-nnge plans to accommodate
population and employment growth
projec!e<l by the R:giooalagcncy_
Assuming reasonable residen6a1 and
employment densities-localities 5baIl
propose an urban growth lxxmdary for
inclu sioo in their general plan.
B. Land that is localed beyond urban
growllt boundaries will be prolOCted fur
agricultural or rural cse.
C. Regional agencies will. be ultimately
responsible foc final acceptance 0( locally
propo<ed urban growth boundaries.
D. Regional agencies win advocate
restricting funds 10 jurisdictions wbo 'ha .... e
plans inconsistent with this policy.
• ".1.' II' .. &..,.--:' .•. --~-L
--
4
o
POLICY FOUR
Encourage tbe lH"o,,'ision 01 housing
opportunities for an income lenls.
A Cities and counties shan mue every
effon 10 improve (he 5 u ppIy and
atTordabiIit)' ol bousing in their local plans
and programs ~ Iccommodale both local
and n:g"ional need'S.
B. en} and' count)' growth manage-
ment plans and programs shall develop
strateg1es and actions 10 meet local and
regional bousing needs.
C. Reglona! agencies shan advocate
funding .priority withio communities havirlg
effective housing policies and programs.
D. Regkloal agencies 'W111 advocate
restricting funds 10 jurisdlctions who have
plans inconsistent .,,1m t.ltis polley.
•
-.. , .
\
•
"~ ,
.
.J
; ,
I
,
j
Ira
-
.. t,
.-,..-. -,-
POLICY FIVE
Coordinale local Lane! use ptans willi
nei&hbot-inc: jurisdictions on a .
subrqional basis. -
A Cities. countits and sp¢ciil w'Suicrs
sban jointly develop subregiocal policies
and JeY1eW boaids 10 re~yc. matters relating
10 job-housing balance. the amount and
a1lowabte density or needed housing. open
space buffer~ coordination of infrastr'UCture.,
and cak'ital Deeds and Rsponsioilities..
B. Once subre:giona1 pollcics !I.a .... e: been
adoptee!. t!u:y will be refleeted ill local
geoenl plans and relevant special OISO'kt
programs..
C Local jurisdictions shall pa,ticipate
in interagency tax sharing agreements on a
subregiocal basis wbe. appropriate 10
ba]'ance fiscal inequities cau'Sed b~ rand use
poIicie ..
D. The miti"gation of significant adyerse
impacts ofa plan or project on. neighboring
community shall be requizu! onJess. on I
subregional basis, mitigation is deemed
infea5lo[e due 1O ovaridi ng social or
economic considerations..
E. CiCcs and counties shan COnslder
s1wing and pooling ollocal housing funds
OIl • subregiocal basis.
F. Cities and counties shan. cn I
subregional basis., develop procedures for
impro\lc:d c06fx::arion and communication.
aD planning and devc:topme!H issues.
5
POLICY SIX
Ano ...... for tbe development 01 new
communities arong transit corridors ... be~
the', would no( negatively impact existing
commun!ti'es..
A. Counties could designate: in t11eir
genera! plans. and reg"ional age:ncies shaD
prioritize, areas appropriate for new
communi!)' developmeot
B. New communities s1lall provide
residen rs lJorith t11 e abili ty 10 [lye:, wock and
shop within Lheir boundaries.
C. Am public agencit:s s'haJ1 ensure: mat
new communities incllJ&: a fun range-of
facJ.lities., sueR as water. sewer.
nnsponation, scbools and recreativn.
. -
,
<
--
",,"
•
-'
""..-0=. .-,.."."
'.
ORGANlZA TlONAL
CONSOLIDA TlON AJIo'D
COORDINATION
o
The QJm,mjnee recognizes that many
critical issues remain unresolved in this
proposed &-amcwock. A key to c!irecting and
impIemtnting this system is both horizontal
and vertical consistency 'bct .... eee tIle platls
and po6cies ofpub!ic agencies. No specific
recommeridarlons ba\lc yet been formed
about the n=l to merge, add 10, or abolish
wsting levels of aumori<y. Finally. tile
Committee bas not suggested the meaos of
decting or appoindng po~cy person. to
manage this proposed new sYStem, or on the
detaJ.ls of authority at either die subregional
or I'egion.al1eve1
o
RECOMMENDED STATE ACTIONS,
INCENTIVES AI'.'D ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISMS
Fun achicvcmcn[ ollhls regional policy
framework requires. state actioo in I va,ri(:ty
0( areas. II is crucial to recognize the need
for additional (f\'!nue in conjunction
.iU.lbis or an, new sysle.m .. The impact
of Proposition 13, cost!, mandated
acth'ities relating to count}' social, beattll
and justict senices,. and the need ro.r
increased maintenance of existin I:
inrrastructl:lre precludes ruH
implemenlat'Hm of' the proposed policy
Cramework without Dew nvenue. The
state s'hoold:
A. ADow for the establishment of
authority at tl1e subrcgkmaI and regional
levellO carT)' out adopted land use pollcies
and actions.
B. Require special districts, local
ageoc), f.ormation commisslor1 S
(LAFCO·s), and regional agencies 10
coordinate their efforts.
C. Either auecll)' provide J new and
stable sou:rt:c: of funding, IX enable regional
comprehensive planning 3.genc~s '10 raise
revenues to fund comprehensive planning
and infrastrucnm: programs.
D. .Reduce the 2!3 votc requirtmeru t:or
infrasr:rucrure bond issues.
E. ]mpro .... e flexibility in rules
govcrning ~ sharing 2lTi"ngcmems berwcen
local juri..~coons..
-.
z..ck
'.
,
l .' , , . ,-
d
o
f. ADow foe !he withholding 0( Dew
revenue as wen as panl funds JO dues..
counces and special dlsaicts L'331 do DO(
comply wilh adopte<lland osc policies and
1Ctiorls.
G Permit th, imposition 0(. region.1
impact rec: on devcloprnc:nlS whic:b proceed
ro!!!!>l}' Kl !he "giooal pclky fra!neworlc.
1
o
REGIONAL PL!<NNING COMMrrru:
MEMBERS
TOlD Powen, Cbatr. SupcI'" iJoc. Co:w-& Cm~ Co..nty
ItmTtJ M.. Impl" VJn o.atr.C'ouneilmembet. Palo A!' • .:l
AJbc:1 ArMIb~v.. SIJPC="is.n. M.ariJl CI)\II'II)'
001'1)(b! L Brr1Qc:r. YICt M.I)'ot; S ... 'llfad .okr1. H. BIU)L ('cuncilmembcr. Redwood Ciry
Sua CKlIne. $uperoo-ism, ColP\l)' of Solanc
Lou. M. Cor't<I'z.. CD~bo=. N.c"'III"i .ot-e:rt E.. DulL Miyar. Ccali
ralil Make. C<mSll!unt.. WfUt of WOl7Ktl .... ote:rJ;
joII. C. DIdCtll,. Bry C01UeT'Iltioa ... De .. clopnc.nL
CanurUss""
IkNIDIe [nebed. CallTrtiolI of Ld>cr-uo:3 Bl6lncD
David A. F\nnInc. COLJnl:ilmembu. v~ .. iJ1c
Mlrtt f. ClbsoD~H&SIu!n. C(Xl11Cilmembc:r-. O...i1l11ld
MAria GanZllkL La Conred£f-= ion De: La Rau Ucida
Mary GrI11ln.. Supet'Yisot. Counry or S.-n MJ.lt:()
G&r)' almbr,. B aildinJ Industry Associatioo of Nonhem
CaIitCmi.
SlaM Rearm. Leap: afW~cn VO~ of E1'or: B Ir)' A1u
JohrI Hobltllw. $lIa,.. Cub
Wuna ~ HopllfnS, .oYiAG Presl~1. COW'lCllmembc::r,
Kolinm Put:
Toal Rskll. S1J:PU"Uot.. C~ .. CCNnry ar S&l\ Fr.a\caoo
IIJbm.a It. RUI_a, Mayor, GiIrn.), Bly AT_ Air
QlaIi.t} M~ DUaid
M&I)' L. ,Jerh:r.h,. Eat 81)" RE(lOnal Pc" Oi~Lti,;:t
'f//I!Ifu,m. Ladas.. C0tn.ttW:5~ Mell"Cpclitzl
T~.uml C=~a\.
Jtennet'a .. Mener. M")'ex, F\euan:rDl't. kq:ioTW
'lr'P:l: Q.aJity Control Bovd
Xfllbtlll MIla1L Bay Area Plmnina Direa,n-', .l.s:1IIDC;U,UI;IfI.
t.an"J Orman., CfteenbellAllimce
SUSl.nna M. Sc:.'-=Tlo&:rl. CO\JI".Cllme:m1::eI.. DlUwiIle
AnI& 1. SlraC"1J$&. Bay Area CoUl'1cl
Rlehnf S.p«!.. CGlmCilmembe:r. Oakland
rtl'CJ H. Sink. k ~ 1101)' All"" Urb.n wGl.IC
wnTiaa R. St,r...:~ .\SAG A.i5oci.~
'EAwizI J. SIK1ub.art. Counci1memkr. Slll u.mdTa
Mel Varnlmal\. Supervisot, Calm!) or lIo'apa
Stlrr:
Cat)' Binl:tr. A!oAG PbraUnI DUe<::1Clr
\
,
~-
-i
!
,
<
,
• ~ .. :'~-
:'" ',,-
·i !I