Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/2009 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission~1TY c°~~ Cc~Lt.~t;l~ ~rA~1t~N ,~r~arvr~ri~x~`C' llr~~rJnrntxet Srrc"i<'t^s MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Workshop Meeting Thursday, February 19, 2009, at 5:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: John Nichols, Noel Bauman, Paul Greer, Doug Slack, Thomas Woodfin, and Hugh Stearns COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Winnie Garner CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ben White, Lynn McIlhaney, John Crompton, James Massey, Dave Ruesink, Dennis Maloney, Larry Stewart CITY STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planners Jennifer Prochazka and Lindsay Kramer, Staf f Planners Jason Schubert, Matt Robinson, and Lauren Hovde, Graduate Civil Engineer Erika Bridges, Assistant City Engineer Josh Norton, Senior Assistant City Engineer Carol Cotter, City Engineer Alan Gibbs, Transportation Planning Coordinator Joe Guerra, Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock, Assistant City Manager David Neeley, Assistant to the City Manager Hayden Migl, City Secretary Connie Hooks, Director of Parks and Recreation Marco Cisneros, Director Bob Cowell, First Assistant City Attorney Carla Robinson, Action Center Representative Carrie McHugh, and Staff Assistant Brittany Caldwell 1. Call the meeting to order. Chairman John Nichols called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. 2. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items. There was general discussion regarding Consent Agenda item 3.2 and Regular Agenda items 5 and 7. 3. Discussion of Minor and Amending Plats approved by Staff. Final Plat - Replat -Cove of Nantucket Phase 1 (08-00500327) Chairman Nichols reviewed the Plats that were approved at the staff level. 4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the draft Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, in joint session with the City Council. (DG) February 19, 2009 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3 Economic Development Director David Gwin reviewed the draft Economic Development chapter. There was general discussion regarding the draft chapter. 5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update to the Commission on the status of items within the 2009 P&Z Plan of Work (see attached). (JS) Jason Schubert, Staff Planner, gave an update regarding the 2009 P&Z Plan of Work. 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings. • February 26, 2009 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ 7:00 p.m. :• March 5, 2009 ~ Joint Planning and Zoning Meeting with City Council ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 5:00 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. Chairman Nichols reviewed the upcoming meeting dates for the Planning & Zoning Commission. 7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the Comprehensive Planning process. Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner, stated that there would be a Joint Meeting with CPAC, Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council on April 15, 2009. 8. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Plan. Director Cowell stated that there was a Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Community meeting scheduled for February 24, 2009, at 6:30 p.m. at the Conference Center. 9. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on the appointment of a Planning and Zoning Commissioner to the Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee. (BC) Chairman Nichols appointed Winnie Garner to the Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee. 10. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board, Council Transportation Committee, Joint Bryan P&Z/College Station P&Z Committee on Common Gateways and Corridors, Joint Parks/Planning & Zoning Subcommittee, CSISD Long Range Education Planning Committee. Molly Hitchcock, Planning Administrator, gave an update on the CSISD Long Range Education Planning Committee. February 19, 2009 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 11. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning and Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. None 12. Adjourn. Commissioner Slack motioned to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Woodfin seconded the motion, motion passed (6-0). Meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m. Appro Jo chols, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Attest: I Brittan Cal ell, taff Assistant Planning and Development Services February 19, 2009 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 ~r~~~r OIl_~~ ~OrMl~c~~ ~ r~-r rc~N ~45T.7fNJX1~' 1~Je't~^le~p~~rrtf :~t{`i`d MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Thursday, February 19, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: John Nichols, Noel Bauman, Paul Greer, Doug Slack, Thomas Woodfin, and Hugh Stearns COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Winnie Garner CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynn McIlhaney CITY STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Lindsay Kramer, Staff Planner Jason Schubert, Matt Robinson and Lauren Hovde, Graduate Civil Engineer Erika Bridges, Assistant City Engineer Josh Norton, Senior Assistant City Engineer Carol Cotter, City Engineer Alan Gibbs, Transportation Planning Coordinator Joe Guerra, Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock, Director of Parks and Recreation Marco Cisneros, Director Bob Cowell, Assistant Director Lance Simms, First Assistant City Attorney Carla Robinson, Action Center Representative Carrie McHugh and Staff Assistant Brittany Caldwell 1. Call Meeting to Order. Chairman John Nichols called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. 2. Hear Citizens. None 3. Consent Agenda 3.1 Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for the Castle Rock Subdivision consisting of 292 lots and 21 common areas on 76.654 acres, generally located north of William D. Fitch Parkway across from the Castlegate Subdivision and Forest Ridge Elementary School. Case #09-0050006 (JS) 3.2 Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for the Pebble Creek Subdivision Phase 9C consisting of 51 lots on 13.037 acres generally located south of the intersection of Royal Adelade Drive and Pebble Creek Parkway. Case #09-00500007 (LK) February 19, 2009 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 4 Commissioner Bauman motioned to approve consent agenda items 3.1 and 3.2. Commissioner Stearns seconded the motion, motion passed (6-0). Regular Agenda 4. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. 5. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regazding a Rezoning from R-1, Single-Family Residential and R-6, High Density Multi-Family to PDD, Planned Development District for 3.198 acres located at 1600, 1600A, 1604, 1606A, 1608A, 1624, 1624A, 1626, 1626A, 1626B Pazk Place and more generally located east of Scandia Apartments. Case #08-00500258 (MR) Matt Robinson, Staff Planner, presented the Rezoning and recommended approval with the condition that a sidewalk and pedestrian access easement be provided at the back of the cul-de-sac as described in the staff report. Chairman Nichols suggested building the sidewalk to connect with the other sidewalk behind the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Greer expressed concern regarding parking on Park Place and the proposed cul-de-sac. Commissioner Woodfin asked where the water would flow. Josh Norton, Assistant City Engineer, stated that water would be going to the high point of the property. The Commissioners expressed concern about the traffic that the development would generate on Park Place. Joe Guerra, Transportation Planner, stated that the development would generate approximately 61 trips per day. He said that he made these calculations by using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Report. There was general discussion regarding the Rezoning. Chairman Nichols opened the public hearing. Ration Metcalf, RME Consulting, stated that there are pazking issues because Pazk Place does not meet the standazds that are required today. He said that there will be a minimum of four pazking spaces provided per dwelling unit. He also said that the developer would alleviate any drainage problems because they would be over-detaining. February 19, 2009 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4 Reverend Thompson, 1628 Park Place, College Station, Texas; Cedrick Johnson, 1629 Park Place, College Station; Pamela Chmelar, 1602 Park Place, College Station, Texas. Some of the concerns of the citizens were traffic, parking issues, and drainage. Vernon Thompson stated that he was in support of the project. Glen Hudson, 2020 Oakwood Trail, stated the he owns rental property on Park Place and was in support of the project. Chairman Nichols closed the public hearing. Commissioner Woodfin asked what the fire hydrant requirements were. He also suggested that the sidewalk go on the north side of the property rather than the south side. Mr. Norton stated that a new hydrant would be installed. Commissioner Stearns motioned to recommend approval of the Rezoning as presented with the condition that the five-foot sidewalk be constructed on the north side of the proposed street and extend to the back of the cul-de-sac; aten-foot pedestrian access easement be dedicated that runs east from the end of the cul-de- sac to Park Place through the existing sidewalk and drive aisle; afive-foot wide sidewalk and/or concrete area be installed and maintained through the length of the easement. Commissioner Woodfin seconded the motion, motion passed (6-0). Commissioner Slack motioned to recommend that a study be done regarding parking issues on Park Place. Commissioner Greer seconded the motion, motion passed (6-0). 6. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Rezoning of 1.5 acres from A-O, Agricultural-Open, to R-1, Single-Family Residential at 2716 Barron Road located approximately 500 feet east of the intersection with William D. Fitch Parkway. Case #09-00500008 (JS) Jason Schubert, Staff Planner, presented the Rezoning and recommended approval. There was general discussion regarding the Rezoning. Chairman Nichols opened the public hearing. Robbin Alcaraz, 2670 Barron Road, stated that he would like a fence built along the side of his property for privacy. Steve Brock, applicant, stated that the Rezoning would not affect Mr. Alcaraz's property. Chairman Nichols closed the public hearing. Chairman Nichols asked if there were fencing requirements. Mr. Schubert stated that there were not fencing requirements. February 19, 2009 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Greer motioned to recommend approval of the Rezoning. Commissioner Bauman seconded the motion, motion passed (6-0). 7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Rezoning of 2.419 acres from A-O, Agricultural-Open, to C-3, Light Commercial at 2937 Barron Cut- off Road generally located at the southwest corner of William D. Fitch Parkway and Barron Road. Case #09-00500004 (LH) Lauren Hovde, Staff Planner, presented the Rezoning and recommended approval. Chairman Nichols opened the public hearing. No one spoke during the public hearing. Chairman Nichols closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bauman motioned to recommend approval of the Rezoning. Commissioner Greer seconded the motion, motion passed (5-1). Commissioner Stearns was in opposition. He was in opposition of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property as well. 8. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning and Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. None 9. Adjourn. Commissioner Bauman motioned to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Woodfin seconded the motion, motioned passed (6-0). Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Approv Jo i ols, Chairman Pl g and Zoning Commission ttest Brittan Cald ell, aff Assistant Planning and Development Services February 19, 2009 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 4 Long Range Educational Planning Committee Recommendation The Long Range Educational Planning Committee (LREPC) has met a total of eight times since September 8, 2008. Over the course of the meetings, the LREPC has studied the district student growth projections, the student capacities for each school, and the Texas school finance system. In fairly short order, the LREPC determined the district's need for an eighth elementary school. And, the committee determined quickly the district's need for a new high school. In a series of discussions about a second high school, the committee determined that a new high school should: • Have comparable academic programming • Have comparable extra-curricular programming • Provide equitable (not all the same) career and technology education programming • Have comparable facilities in relation to fine arts, athletics and other programs The LREPC spent considerable time discussing the need for the second high school (College Station High School) to quickly develop a positive identity. It was determined that a positive identity for College Station High School would be the result of the school having comparable academic programming, comparable co-curricular and extra-curricular programming and aself- sustaining facility. In other words, there was consensus in the group that implementing a "comprehensive" high school meant establishing a facility that was not reliant on AMC High School for academic programming, co-curricular and extra-curricular programming, an auditorium, gymnasiums, or other athletic fields. Depending on cost constraints, there may be a need to initially share some of these types of facilities between AMCHS and CSHS until CSHS is 100% complete. Additionally, the committee discussed the district's need for improved support services facilities for a district transportation office, maintenance building and purchasing/warehouse center. Currently, these three support service operations function from space behind the central administration office, and each of the spaces have been utilized beyond their useful capacity. Though each of these operational spaces has needs, the transportation center is the highest priority due to the additional parking spaces that are needed for buses and an updated office and staff training area. As the LREPC discussed the need for a new support services facility, there was consensus that any move to update these facilities should be done with the "end in mind." In other words, the district should acquire some land (or use land currently owned by the district) to build these .f r INVESTING IN THE CHARM AND ECONOMIC VITALITY PROVIDED BY LOCALLY OWNED INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES & AVOIDING THE DANGEROUS PITFALLS OF BIG BOX RETAIL I have been surprised at an apparent lack of appreciation among many in College Station for the value of locally owned independent businesses and the assumed value of formula businesses, especially big boxes. I'm afraid that I have not done an adequate job of shining a light on this important subject. This draft of the Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan provides motivation to put a little more energy into this effort. While I am grateful that locally owned independent businesses are recognized in this chapter, I present this in hopes that we can do more to invest in the value that they provide and to avoid the pitfalls of big box retail. Locally-Owned Businesses This chapter states that'?he city is not prepared to promote locally owned independent businesses at a level of service that exceeds the current amount of support to all other businesses. " Luckily this statement is not true. The city, in certain circumstances, does promote locally owned independent businesses at a level of service that exceeds the current amount of support to all other businesses. For example, the city gives preference in bidding situations to focally owned businesses in the amount of a few °~ points. So if a locally owned business is competing with a business that is not local and the local business' bid is only slightly higher, they will be awarded the contract. There are several reasons why the city does this. First of all, the revenue from that contract stays in town stimulating our economy. Secondly, the owner of that business is a resident of our community and, generally speaking, the city supports its residence above those who are not. There are other reasons to support locally owned independent businesses too. Unlike other businesses, including formula businesses that happen to be located in College Station, locally owned independent businesses keep a larger percentage of their business and their money local. Not only do franchises and other formula businesses ship their profits out of town, they also ship a majority of their administrative and professional jobs out of town. These tend to be higher paying jobs. It is good to support the businesses that support our lawyers, accountants, marketing agents and other professionals. In terms of economic stimulus there is little that can match the impact of supporting locally owned independent businesses. Not only do they return three and a half times more revenue to our local economy, they hire more local people. While our community of locally owned independent businesses appceaates the bidding advantage that we get from the city of College Station, it is a stretch to claim that "the city makes every attempt to assist locally owned businesses..." The fact is that College, Station does little to support locally owned independent businesses, especially when compared to other university towns. For example in Corvallis Oregon their Comprehensive Plan requires that they "support existing businesses and industries and the establishment of locally owned, managed, or controlled small businesses." In San Francisco there are two districts that completely prohibit formula businesses and in other districts these businesses require conditional use permits. Santa Cruz California requires a special permit for retail over 16,000 square feet. Inconsideration of these permits their ordinance reads that it is a "...goal of establishing and maintaining a diverse retail base with a'unique retailing personality.. " In College Station we have given out large incentives for outside businesses to come in and compete with our locally owned independent businesses without regard to the huge advantages offered by local businesses. To then claim that the city makes every attempt to assist locally owned businesses is just wrong. Big Box Development In College Station there exists an urban myth that big box development is both inevitable and desirable. The rationality of this assumption does not stand up to scrutiny. It seems to be predicated solely on the idea that big boxes harvest larger amounts of sales tax revenue. While it is true that single big boxes, in and of themselves, return higher amounts of sales taxes than do businesses in smaller boxes, it is myopic to assume that this is an accurate view of the bigger picture. Here is a more complete list of what big boxes do for our aty: They Reduce Jobs Despite the frequent claims that big boxes bring new jobs to town, they result in a net loss of jobs as indicated in a study of 3,094 counties across the U.S., tracking the arrival of new Wal-Mart stores between 1977 and 2002. The study, conducted by Univ. of California economist David Neumark, found that opening a Wal-Mart store led to a net loss of 150 retail jobs on average, suggesting that a new Wal-Mart job replaces approximately 1.4 workers at other stores (The Effects of Wal-Mart on Lornl Labor Markets,lanuary 2007). • They Make Our City less Walkable Huge buildings and parking lots create vast, impassable stretches of congested concrete. They Increase The Cost Of (sty Services And Infrastructure Big-box development creates substantial public costs. These sprawling stores are not effiaent users of public infrastructure. Compared to traditional, compact business districts, they require longer roads, more road maintenance, additional miles of utilities, and more fire and police time. One case study in Barnstable, Massachusetts, found that the annual cost of providing city services to traditional downtown and neighborhood business districts was $786 per 1,000 square feet. Big-box stores were 30% more costly, requiring $1,023 in services per 1,000 sq. ft. (Tischler 8 Associates, Fiscal Impact Analysis of Reside-ttia/ and Nonr+es-der-fial Land Use Prototypes, prepared for the Town of Bamstable, Jul. 1, 2002_) In addition to incurring new costs, cities that approve big-box development often experience a decline in property and sales tax revenue from existing neighborhood and downtown business districts, as well as older shopping centers. As these areas lose sales and experience vacancies, the value of property declines and with it, the property tax revenue. Sates tax revenue also fails. One study of 116 cities in California found that, in all but two cases, the presence of a big-box store did not correspond to increased sales tax revenue. (Bay Area Economic Forum, Supercenters and the Transformation of the Bay Area Grocery /ndustry.~ Issues, Trends, and Impacts, 2004, 7481) • They Shrink The Local Economy For every $100 they receive in revenue, locally owned businesses hire more local workers, purchase more goods and services from other local businesses, and contribute more to local charities than their big-box counterparts. When chains displace local businesses, it results in an overall loss of economic activity, not a gain. A 2004 study conducted in Chicago analyzed ten locally owned restaurants, retail stores, and service providers and compared them with chains competing in the same categories. The study concluded that every $100 spent at one of the independent businesses created $68 in additional economic activity in the city, while spending the same amount at a chain only generated $43 worth of local impact. (Civic Economics, The Andersonville Study of Retail Economics, 2004.) One of the main reasons for the difference was that the local retailers bought more goods and services from other local businesses. They did their banking at a local bank. They hired local accountants, web designers, and other professionals. They turned to a local print shop for their printing, and they advertised in local publications. The chains had almost no need for these local services and spent relatively little in the aty. A consequence of this is that even modest shifts in the mix of local and non-local businesses in a community can have significant economic ramifications. A case study in Kent County, Michigan, estimates that the region would gain 1,600 new jobs, $140 million in new economic activity and $53 million in additional payroll if residents shifted lOS6 of their spending from chains to local businesses. A shift in the opposite direction - more spending at chains -would cause equivalent economic losses. (Civic Economics, Local Works: Examining the Impact of Local Business on the Western Michigan Economy, 2008.) A Loss of Economic Diversity While this chapter makes the daim that economic diversity is a goal, it also supports making additional big boxes a part of our desired retail mix. Strategy 2 encourages us "to promote and support the establishment, retention of locally-owned businesses." It should be noted that simply tieing locally owned does not guarantee the full benefits offered by locally owned independent businesses. It should also be apparent that the stated goal of providing for big box retail is in direct contradiction of this strategy. The stated goal of generating economic diversity is at odds with the idea of maintaining "a big box retail equilibrium." An average Wal-Mart or Target supercenter is nearly four football fields in size (190,000 square feet) and captures about $80 million a year in spending. To understand how large that is, consider that it would take 35,000 people making 25% of all of their retail purchases, from groceries to appliances, at that one. Wal-Mart store. To take another example, the average 120,000-square foot Lowe's captures $35 million a year in sales. That's equal to the total hardware/building materials spending power of 37,000 people. Most communities, even fast-growing ones, cannot absorb a store of this scale without sizable revenue losses to existing businesses, including both locally owned stores and competing supermarkets and shopping centers. Part of the reason these companies build suds large stores is that they leave little room in the market for other businesses. As competing stores dose, residents are left with fewer choices. Many towns and neighborhoods now depend on a single big-box store for many types of goods, virtually eliminating competition. Once they attain a dominant share of the market, these retailers may raise prices. One study compared the cost of 54 grocery items at 11 Wal- Mart supercenters in Nebraska and found that the total varied by more than 13 percent. Some of the stores with the highest prices were in areas that lacked competing grocery stores. (Hometown Merchants Association, Impact of Supementers on Nebraska Economy, April 2004.) The people of Hearne learned a difficult lesson about the risk of allowing a big box in. If you think that only towns the size of Hearne are vulnerab{e, consider the number of large national retail outlets that have dosed down in College Station recently. This repn~ents a lot of jobs and a lot of tax revenue. A growing number of communities are deciding that a better way to ensure competition is to have numerous small and midsized stores, rather than one giant superstore. One way to achieve this is to place a cap on the size of stores. A loss of Community Character Big Boxes look the same regardless of where they are located. While some communities have been successful in forcing big boxes into existing buildings, this does not change the homogenizing impact of the store itself. With little history, College Station is significantly devoid of architectural character. This problem is exacerbated by the proliferation of formula businesses, espeaally big boxes. Strategy 4 in this chapter is to "Identify and pursue redevelopment opportunities that further desired community character. A sub heading in this strategy is Wal-Mart redevelopment. While it is unlikely that we could do anything about this project, it is misleading to suggest that this is in anyway an enhancement of our community character. A Loss of Tourism For many of the reasons stated above big boxes hurt tourism, which, of course, is one of the best industries to encourage, as it brings outside money into the community. With the Bush Library, Kyle Field and our proximity to large metropolitan areas, College Station could be much more of a prime destination. Unfortunately, visitors are less likely to stay over an extra day or to make College Station a destination if ourcommunity-scape is defined by big boxes and formula businesses. Destinations are unique places that offer something different. Increasingly, Bryan, with its charming down town, is capturing much of the tourism that we might otherwise have, if we could provide a diverse and unique retail and hospitality experience. Loss of Home Appeal As most people who have sat on an A&M search committee can tell you, it is not necessarily an easy sell to convince talented faculty to move to College Station. A new young faculty member recently told me that he was amazed that a community could have so little character as College Station does. He had recently moved from another small university town in the south. He and his wife are not sure if they will stay because of this. This chapter speaks to a desire to retain some of the brain trust coming out of A&M. Perhaps that is a good strategy, because we are less likely to lure talent from other areas. This is a shame because what we need, above all else, is diversity. Nearly 300 communities, including College Station, have rejected big-box proposals in the last few years, and many have adopted policies that restrict or prohibit this type of development altogether. Far from impeding growth, these policies often attract new small businesses investment as entrepreneurs seek out viable locations. Communities can spur more small business development by revitalizing their neighborhood and downtown commercial districts, launching programs to train and finance new entrepreneurs, and developing a strong Buy Local campaign to encourage more public support for locally owned businesses. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ~ '~ GUEST ~P£G~STER MF,E77NGDATB~ ~ OOq ~D~"SS 1. ---------~ 1~. wc, r/~ -~ s. 4. ___.~ 5. 6. 7. S. 9. L 10. I1. 12. I3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22, ~ 23. 24. 25. Registration Form (For persons who wish to address the Commission) - Date of Meeting Z. ~ q ~ / Agenda Item No. ~ ~, ' Name ~ v- C-~l/t. s4 - Address ~ Zo 2c7 ©~ ~ cc9 O v nct,' - If speaking fQr an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: ,, ~ e t ~, hbo rsn~ ~ ~i~ Subject on which person wishes to speak: ~ , Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and .residence before beginning your presentation. If gou~have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING FILES.