Google Groups Against the Motion CFMS...
12
Google Groups Against the Motion CFMS 16-1470 Kerrin Clark Posted in group: Clerk-PLUM-Committee Feb 14, 2018 5:11 PM Kerrin K. Clark 10331 Dunleer Drive Los Angeles, CA 90064 Honorable Paul Koretz Councilmember District 5 Los Angeles 200 North Spring Street, Room 440 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Councilmember Koretz For the past year, residents of the Cheviot Hills neighborhood concerned about the process that has resulted in pending CFMS 16-1470 motion, as well as unexplored ramifications of the R1V2 zoning category, have submitted updated comments, information and signatures into the public record in support of keeping this area under the protection of Rl-1 zoning. The attachment to this letter identifies more than 390 individuals on the record in favor of Rl-1 zoning for Cheviot Hills, expressing that preference in polls, surveys and individual letters. In contrast, fewer than 2 dozen individuals have come forward to publicly support the pending motion and yet the motion continues to be considered. Since March of 2017 when the ICO expired and Cheviot Hills came under the Rl-1 zoning code, at least 68 houses have been sold, more than for same time period in the each of the previous two years. Clearly being in the Rl-1 category has not had a chilling effect on sales or prices. There are more than 20 active and/or pending applications for remodels or rebuilds under the current Rl-1 zone and another 16 projects are proceeding or near completion under the ICO, which has generally more restrictive RFAR than R1V2, despite claims that it is “the closest option to” the ICO. With no evidence that Rl-1 has presented a hardship for homeowners or developers, no evidence it has depressed prices or activity and no on-the- record support for R1V2 in any significant or verified numbers, we urge the City Council to reject this motion and keep Cheviot Hills under the protection of the Rl-1 zone. Given the history of the motion - initiated at a Planning Commission meeting on December 8, 2016 without appearing on any agenda, later passed out of PLUM with no additional discussion or evaluation as had been encouraged at the Planning Commission meeting, and continued for almost a full calendar year with little publicly documented support for it -1 continue to be baffled that it has life. The City Planning Department staff initially recommended Cheviot Hills, then grouped with surrounding neighborhoods into “Lower CD5”, be placed in the R1V3 zoning category which would have permitted houses 20-50% larger than the historical average RFAR. (Actually, the recommended category was then called R1V2 but in the zany way this effort to “preserve neighborhood character” has played out, the current R1V2 [renamed from its original R1 VNew] allows 22-33% more square footage than the original R1V2. This obfuscatory labeling has actually allowed a prominent advocate for R1V2 to state publicly “R1V2 was originally chosen for Cheviot Hills as the most appropriate zoning for our community by the city’s professional planners” neglecting to mention that the R1V2 “initially recommended” is not the same R1V2 being considered today.) How this neighborhood went from a recommendation of R1V3 (then R1V2) in October 2016 to a recommendation of Rl-1 in November of 2016, to a recommendation it be pulled out of “Lower CD5” to its own distinct entity in December of 2016, to a recommendation that this
Transcript of Google Groups Against the Motion CFMS...
Google Groups
Against the Motion CFMS 16-1470
Kerrin ClarkPosted in group: Clerk-PLUM-Committee
Feb 14, 2018 5:11 PM
Kerrin K. Clark 10331 Dunleer Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Honorable Paul Koretz Councilmember District 5 Los Angeles 200 North Spring Street, Room 440 Los Angeles, CA 90012
Dear Councilmember Koretz
For the past year, residents of the Cheviot Hills neighborhood concerned about the process that has resulted in pending CFMS 16-1470 motion, as well as unexplored ramifications of the R1V2 zoning category, have submitted updated comments, information and signatures into the public record in support of keeping this area under the protection of Rl-1 zoning. The attachment to this letter identifies more than 390 individuals on the record in favor of Rl-1 zoning for Cheviot Hills, expressing that preference in polls, surveys and individual letters. In contrast, fewer than 2 dozen individuals have come forward to publicly support the pending motion and yet the motion continues to be considered.
Since March of 2017 when the ICO expired and Cheviot Hills came under the Rl-1 zoning code, at least 68 houses have been sold, more than for same time period in the each of the previous two years. Clearly being in the Rl-1 category has not had a chilling effect on sales or prices. There are more than 20 active and/or pending applications for remodels or rebuilds under the current Rl-1 zone and another 16 projects are proceeding or near completion under the ICO, which has generally more restrictive RFAR than R1V2, despite claims that it is “the closest option to” the ICO. With no evidence that Rl-1 has presented a hardship for homeowners or developers, no evidence it has depressed prices or activity and no on-the- record support for R1V2 in any significant or verified numbers, we urge the City Council to reject this motion and keep Cheviot Hills under the protection of the Rl-1 zone.
Given the history of the motion - initiated at a Planning Commission meeting on December 8, 2016 without appearing on any agenda, later passed out of PLUM with no additional discussion or evaluation as had been encouraged at the Planning Commission meeting, and continued for almost a full calendar year with little publicly documented support for it -1 continue to be baffled that it has life.
The City Planning Department staff initially recommended Cheviot Hills, then grouped with surrounding neighborhoods into “Lower CD5”, be placed in the R1V3 zoning category which would have permitted houses 20-50% larger than the historical average RFAR. (Actually, the recommended category was then called R1V2 but in the zany way this effort to “preserve neighborhood character” has played out, the current R1V2 [renamed from its original R1 VNew] allows 22-33% more square footage than the original R1V2. This obfuscatory labeling has actually allowed a prominent advocate for R1V2 to state publicly “R1V2 was originally chosen for Cheviot Hills as the most appropriate zoning for our community by the city’s professional planners” neglecting to mention that the R1V2 “initially recommended” is not the same R1V2 being considered today.) How this neighborhood went from a recommendation of R1V3 (then R1V2) in October 2016 to a recommendation of Rl-1 in November of 2016, to a recommendation it be pulled out of “Lower CD5” to its own distinct entity in December of 2016, to a recommendation that this
now carved out area be put under R1 V2/New, also in December of 2016, is shrouded in mystery. The language used in the various Planning Department documents recommending each of these three zoning categories is exactly the same. The Planning Department has never articulated a reason for changing its recommendations so frequently, nor who even requested such changes. The representative from Council District 5 repeatedly asked at the December 8 Planning Commission meeting that Cheviot Hills be kept in Rl-1, at least until such time as a greater sense of community preference could be established. Despite being explicitly advised that a change of zoning category from Rl-1 to a variation zone could be revisited at any future date (and, in fact, has been for other neighborhoods), the Planning Commission chose to move Cheviot Hills forward under R1V2 even though no agenda or posted notice indicated they would be considering such a move.
And still, we persist. We know good intentions went into the first BMO, created back in 2008. No one anticipated the exploitation of those provisions to result in the massive over building that took place, and while new rules applicable to all single family residences will curb some of those provisions, R1V2 introduces new elements whose full impact are unknown at this time. The lot coverage element encourages second story massing and may restrict accessory dwelling units which are seen as a way to increase housing availability; the added height with no roof slope requirement will encourage rooftop decks and other uses; the sliding scale of RFAR based on lot size incentivizes subdivision, and the list will get longer. No neighborhood deserves to be the canary in the coal mine of redevelopment to see just how much can be tolerated before yet another revision to the zoning code is necessary.
To uphold the concept of due process and the tried but true axiom “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, we hope the City Councilmembers will each vote to defeat the motion before them on February 16, 2018.
Sincerely, Kerrin K. Clark
Cc: Honorable Herb Wesson, President, Los Angeles City Council Los Angeles City Clerk
AGAINST THE PENDING MOTION CFMS 16-1470. IN FAVOR OF R1-1/BMO FOR CHEVIOT HILLS. VERIFIED SIGNATORSRESIDE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AREA AFFECTED BY THE MOTION.
NAME ONLINE HAND COLLECTED IN PUBLIC RECORD
ABRAMS,Julie 15-Dec CPC 2016-2112-ZC (11/22), 16-1470 (2/28)
Yes - 8/22ABRAMS, RochelleYes - 4/30ACKERMAN, MarkYes - 4/30ALBERTSON, LaurenYes - 6/23ALDERSON, JohnYes - 8/26ALISON-MAYNE, Blythe
ALPERT, Eden YesANDERSON, Andi 13-SepANDERSON, Don 13-Sep
Yes - 8/27ANDERSON, DougARNOLD, C YesASH, Larry YesASHER, Stephanie Yes
Yes - 5/1AUERBACH, JaneAUSTIN, Greg Yes
Yes - 2/13BACHRACH, MarilynBALINI, Flavia YesBALKAN, Carole 16-JanBALKAN, Ed Yes
Yes - 2/28BARFIELD, Donald CPC 2016-2112-ZC (11/21), 16-470 (2/28)
Yes - 2/28BARFIELD, Victoria CPC 2016-2112-ZC (11/21), 16-470 (2/28)
BEER, Jane Coogan YesBELL, Barbara 10-JanBELL, Caroline 13-SepBELLET, ChrisZne Yes
Yes 5/1BENTRY,AlissaBERENSON,Betsy YesBERG, Rick YesBERGER,Patricia YesBERMAN, Jeffrey 20-DecBERMAN, Susan 16-Jan
Yes - 5/1BERNIER, JacquesBERRY, Jim 16-JanBERRY, Karen 16-Jan
Yes 4/30BEUGG, LindaYes - 4/30BEUGG, Michael
BHUTH, Sunita YesBIANCHI, Silvia 19-DecBLACK, Daniel CPC 2016-2112-ZC (12/21), 16-470 (2/28)
BLACK, Jan CPC 2016-2112-ZC (12/21), 16-470 (2/28)
BLANCHARD, ANN 24-DecBLOOMER, Larry 4-Jan
AGAINST THE PENDING MOTION CFMS 16-1470. IN FAVOR OF R1-1/BMO FOR CHEVIOT HILLS. VERIFIED SIGNATORSRESIDE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AREA AFFECTED BY THE MOTION.
BOEKA, Gary YesYes - 5/1BOWEN, LynnYes - 4/30BRAND, Gary
BRINER, Stacey 23-DecBROMBERG, Dora Yes
Yes - 5/1BUCHTOLD,Mary AnnBURKE, Celine 16-Dec CPC 2016-2112-ZC (11/21), 16-470 (2/28)
13-JulBUSHONG, SteveYes - 8/26BYLSMA, MargaretYes - 8/26CAMPBELL, ChrisZneYes - 8/27CAMPBELL, JeffYes - 2/28CAPER, Ruth
CARMAN, Beverly YesCARMAN, Radha(Ronald) 10-Jul, 11-Jul
Yes - 9/13CASPAR, JenniferCELICK, Nancy
Yes 9/12CHANG, EricCHARBONNEAU, Manuelle 12-JulCHRISTIAN,Shawna YesCLARK, Karen YesCLARK,Kerrin 19-Dec CPC 2016-2112-ZC (11/29), 16-470 (2/28)
COHEN, Dena YesCONTRERAS, Amy Yes
YES - 1/31COOPER, EdYES - 1/31COOPER, JudithYes - 5/1CREWS, Elizabeth
*CROSSWAITE,Lynn 10-JanYes - 5/1CURRAN, DarrylYes - 5/1DANIELS, AlexisYes - 5/1DANIELS, LawrenceYes - 12/14DAVID, Alex
DECAVALLES-HUGHES, Gigi YesDEMERS, Carolyn Yes
YES - 4/30DEVEREAUX, PatDOYLE, Timothy 23-Dec
Yes - 2/28DURKIN, RyanYes - 5/1EBERLEIN,Robert
EIDELMAN, Robin YesELKIND, Marcy YesENDO, Richard 28-JunENGS, Anita Yes
Yes - 6/24EZELLE, GregoryFAUCHER, Rene Yes
AGAINST THE PENDING MOTION CFMS 16-1470. IN FAVOR OF R1-1/BMO FOR CHEVIOT HILLS. VERIFIED SIGNATORSRESIDE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AREA AFFECTED BY THE MOTION.
Yes - 5/1FAYERMAN, HilaFELCH, Catherine 25-Jan CPC 2016-2112-ZC (12/21), 16-470 (2/28)
FELTON,L.P. YesYes - 4/30FERREIRA, Lisa
FEITELBERG, Meg YesYes - 5/1FIDLER, ArleenYes - 4/30FIGUEIREDO, Linda 14-0656 (11/8, 2/8), 16-1470 (5/1)
Yes - 4/30FIGUEIREDO, Paul 14-0656 (11/8, 2/8), 16-1470 (5/1)
Yes - 4/30FINESTONE, StevenYes - 4/30FINESTONE, Tracy
FISCHER, Joel 24-MayFISCHER, Lula yes
Yes - 1/31FLEG, RichardYes - 1/31FLEG, SusanYes-9/12FOURNIA, David
FOX, MarZn YesYes - 4/30FRIEDMAN, Cynthia
FRIEDMAN, Glenn 25-Jan CPC 2016-2112-ZC (12/21), 16-470 (5/1)
Yes - 5/1FRIEDMAN, JayYes - 4/30FRIEDMAN, JoeYes - 5/1FRIEDMAN, Judith AnnYes - 8/9FRIEDMAN, Lauren
FRIEDMAN, Sydney YesFIENBERG, Beverly Yes
Yes - 8/27FUKS, HenryGABRIELSON, Jan 3-Aug
Yes - 5/1GALLANT, Sharon 10-JanYes - 4/30GAPPELL, MillicentYes - 5/1GERST, Catherine
GILLESPIE, Margaret 21-Dec 16-1470 (4/17)
GILMAN(?), Leonard YesYes- 2/13GOFF, KevinYes - 1/31GOLD, Sarah M.
GOLDBERG, Theodore YesGOLDMAN, Donald CPC 2016-2112-ZC (11/21), 16-470 (5/1,14-0i
Yes - 9/12GOLDMAN, MiaGOLDSTEIN, Michael Yes
Yes - 4/30GOLVIN, CharlesYes - 4/30GOLVIN, Ezekiel 3-Apr
GOLVIN, Mary 27-MarGOLVIN, Olivia 27-Mar
Yes - 5/1GOODKIN, JessicaGRANT, Irvin 26-May
AGAINST THE PENDING MOTION CFMS 16-1470. IN FAVOR OF R1-1/BMO FOR CHEVIOT HILLS. VERIFIED SIGNATORSRESIDE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AREA AFFECTED BY THE MOTION.
GOTTLIEB, Patricie YesGREENBLATT, Don Yes
Yes - 9/13GROSS, CalvinYes - 4/30GROSS,CaryYes - 9/13GROSS, Marilyn
GUADIO,Elizabeth 21-DecYes - 9/14GUITTIEREZ, Veronica
18-JulHAKIM, RamseyYes - 8/27HALL, CarlyleYes - 4/30HAND, Marcy
HEANEY, Anthony Yes CFMS-1470/ CD5 June 9
HELLER, Lawrence 19-Dec Yes CPC 2016-2112-ZC (11/22), 16-470 5/1)
Yes - 5/1HENDLER, RobertYes - 4/30HERMAN, Steve
HIGGINS, Amy 10-Jan, 20-MayYes - 2/28HOFER, CheriYes - 8/22HOLT, ReneYes - 8/22HOLT, RogerYes - 8/12HOMSHER, DianeYes - 8/12HOMSHER, Earl
HONG, Che Yes - 8.27HONIGSBERG, Hal 13-Jan
Yes - 9/12HUTTERBACH, BenINGERSOLL, Alexander 15-DecINGERSOLL, Katherine 15-Dec
*IRBY, Kathryn 15-DecIRVING, Susan 10-Jan
Yes - 5/1JAMISON, RichardJAMIESON,Stephen 10-JanJAMPOL, Robin Yes
Yes - 8/9JENSEN, RobertYes - 5/1JOHNSON, JuliaYes - 4/30JUVONEN, Jaana
KAHN, Hofit YesKASKEY, Beverly 8-Feb YesKEHR, Ellen YesKEHR, Robert YesKIRK, Brandon Yes
Yes - 8/21KIRKMAN, SoniaKLEINBERG, Jacqueline Yes
Yes - 4/30KLEIN, JulieYes - 1/31KLIGER, Nanneie
KORN, Barry Yes
AGAINST THE PENDING MOTION CFMS 16-1470. IN FAVOR OF R1-1/BMO FOR CHEVIOT HILLS. VERIFIED SIGNATORSRESIDE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AREA AFFECTED BY THE MOTION.
KORN, Helene YesYes - 1/31KOROBKIN, MarciaYes - 1/31KOROBKIN, Sydney
KOTZMAN, Mary 13-SepKRAUS, ChrisZan Yes
Yes 6/23KRIBS, MicheleYes - 2/13KRIEGER, DoreenYes - 2/13KRIEGER, RalphYes - 5/1LALWANI, Daisy Moore
LAMISHAW, Suzan YesLAPPIN, Senya YesLAWRENCE, Greg YesLAWRENCE, Shelley YesLAX, MarZn Yes Yes - 16-470/14-0656
LEBAS, Liliane YesYes - 1/31LENAVITT, Lily
LENTZ, JenniferLEOVIN, Tanya YesLESLEY, Dolores YesLEVI, Elaine 16-JanLEVIN, Audrey 14-0656 (2/8), 16-1470 (1/29)
LEVIN, Daniel 14-0656 (2/8), 16-1470 (1/29)
Yes - 2/28LEVIN,JayYes - 2/28LEVINSON, Susan 19-May
LEVY, Melissa yesLEVY, Michael yesLEZIN, Valerie 14-0656 (2/8)
LIBSON, Susan YesYes - 2/13LIEB, JeffreyYes- 2/13LIEB, Louise
LIGHTBOURN, Michael YesLIOTTA, Carole 13-FebLIPTON, Joel YesLISSONI, Patrizia 16-JanLONG, Herbert YesLOPEZ, Roman Yes
Yes - 8/27LU, DeborahLUMPKIN, Dawn YesLURIE, Andrea YesLUTZ, Marin 20-DecLYNAS, Jeff Yes
Yes - 9/12MACKLIN, WendellMANASTER, Ben Yes
AGAINST THE PENDING MOTION CFMS 16-1470. IN FAVOR OF R1-1/BMO FOR CHEVIOT HILLS. VERIFIED SIGNATORSRESIDE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AREA AFFECTED BY THE MOTION.
12-JulMANDELL, MaggieYes - 2/13MARIE, Heidi
MANULIS, John 18-Apr 14-0656 (1/26), 16-1470 (1/26)
Yes- 5/1MANZELLA, A.C.Yes - 5/1MANZELLA, Diane
MARCONI,Samantha YesMARGOLIN, Burt YesMARK, Rina Yes
Yes - 5/1MARKARIAN, Jean 10-JanMASON, Colleen 21-Dec Yes CPC 2016-2112-ZC (12/71), 16-470 (5/1)
MATTESON, Tim yesYes - 8/26MAYNE, ThomYes - 4/30McCullough, GildaYes - 5/1McCullough, Tom
McDANNOLD, Stacy YesYes - 2/13McINTYRE, FranchonYes - 5/1MEISEL, Laura
MELENDEZ, Nicholas YesMERFELD, Diane YesMEYER, Vaughan 10-JanMOORE, Jerry YesMORRIS, Mark Yes 14-0656 (2/20), 16-1470 (2/15)
Yes - 4/30MORIARTY, DanelleYes - 4/30MORIARTY, JohnYes - 4/30MORROW, ClarkeYes- 4/30MORROW, Pamela
13-JulMOSS, LarryMURPHY, James YesMURPHY, Julie YesNASELOW, Art YesNASELOW, Melinda Yes
Yes- 5/1NATAF,MarionYes- 6/24NEWMAN, JeanneYes - 6/24NEWMAN, JohnYes - 5/1OCONNELL, FrancesYes - 5/1OCONNELL, TheodoreYES - 2/13OGULNICK, Robyn
OLAH, Virginia YesOLINDER, Bruce 16-Jan
Yes - 1/31OLIVER, M.C.OPPENHEIM, Calvin Yes
Yes - 2/28OPPENHEIM, LydiaYes - 2/28ORDONEZ, Glenda
AGAINST THE PENDING MOTION CFMS 16-1470. IN FAVOR OF R1-1/BMO FOR CHEVIOT HILLS. VERIFIED SIGNATORSRESIDE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AREA AFFECTED BY THE MOTION.
PAGE, Anne YesPAGE, John YesPAL, Pratap YesPALLER, Gary 15-Dec YesPAPACOSTA, Eva 27-Jan
Yes - 8/21PAPANEK, PatriciaPASCORELLA, Sienna YesPELLER, Loreta Yes
Yes - 8/12PENG, YuYes - 5/1PEPPARS, GordonYes - 5/1PERKINS, DominiqueYes - 2/28PHILLIPS, Michelle
POLLACK, Noah YesYes - 4/30POMERANTZ, DebiYes-8/1POMPAN, Lisa
POST, Laurie YesPOYOUROW, Carole Yes
Yes - 4/30PRUNIER, DaniellePULIS, Gregory 18-JanPULIS,Margaret 23-AprRABINOWITZ, A. 31-Jan yes
Yes - 9/12PUTNAM, JanREICHMANN, Jan 10-JanREITER, Harriet 10-Jan Yes 14-0656 (2/8)
REMPE,Gary YesRICCARDI,Gail 28-Jan
Yes - 8/19RICHMOND, NinaYes - 1/31RICKETTS, R.L.
RIGNEY, Pam YesRIVA, Mary YesRIVA, Steve YesROBBINS, Nancy YesROBERT, Kirk Yes
Yes - 5/1ROBERTS, DaveROBINSON, Michael yesROCK, David 7-Apr
Yes - 8/27ROGGENKAMP, JenniferYes - 8/27ROGGENKAMP, MarcYes - 9/13ROMOTSKY, Ed
ROONEY, Tom YesROSSITER, Hugo YesROTH, Don YesROTTMAN,Erin Yes
AGAINST THE PENDING MOTION CFMS 16-1470. IN FAVOR OF R1-1/BMO FOR CHEVIOT HILLS. VERIFIED SIGNATORSRESIDE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AREA AFFECTED BY THE MOTION.
RUCKER, Kyndal 23-JanYes - 5/1RYAN, Michael
SAGAR, Richard YesSAGAR, Susan YesSALLES, Julie YesSANBORN, Nancy 13-SepSANBORN, Ted 13-Sep
Yes - 9/13SANJIDEH, PayamYes - 5/1SARNOFF,Lawrence CD5 June 9
Yes - 9/12SCHAFFER, CliffSCHAFFER, Linda 13-SepSCHOMER, Colleen Yes
Yes - 2/28SCHOOLAR, Rosalind 16-DecYes - 5/1SCHOR, BenYes - 4/30SCHWARTZ, Leon
SCOTT, David 22-DecSEDLANDER, Mark Yes 14-0656 (1/17)
SELF, Jeff YesSERRAO, Dorina Yes
Yes - 5/1SHADDUCK, TomSHANUS, Stuart Yes
Yes - 1/31SHEA, JacobYes - 1/31SHEA, Lindsay
SHELTON, Sydney YesSHERMAN, Caryl YesSIEGEL, Judy YesSIEGEL, Richard 14-0656 (1/31), 16-1470 (1/31)yesSIMON, Anijke 24-JanSIMON, Ari 17-JanSIMON, Asher 16-DecSIMON, Blake 20-AprSIMON, Carol 20-Dec YesSIMON, Robert 15-Dec
Yes - 5/1SINCLAIR, JudiYes - 5/1SINCLAIR, MurrayYes - 12/14SINGER, JulieYes - 4/30SKLUTZ,StanleyYes - 8/9SLONINSKY, AlejandroYes - 8/9SMITH, Melissa
SMOLLER, S YesSNYDER, David Yes
Yes - 8/22SOBOL, BruceSOLARZ, Barbara Yes
AGAINST THE PENDING MOTION CFMS 16-1470. IN FAVOR OF R1-1/BMO FOR CHEVIOT HILLS. VERIFIED SIGNATORSRESIDE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AREA AFFECTED BY THE MOTION.
Yes - 6/26SOMMIER, Jean-LoupYes - 5/1SPAHR, GregYes - 5/1SPAHR, Madison
SPEISER, Barbara YesSPEISER, Irving Bruce Yes
Yes - 4/30STEIN, GregYes - 4/30STEIN, Mark
STEINBERG, Jackie YesSTEVENS, Lorelei 3-NovSTODELL, Jeff Yes
Yes - 2/28SUCHECKI, JonathanYes - 4/30SULLIVAN, AnneYes - 4/30SULZER, Ken
SVACO, Ellen 23-Dec, 27-MayTEEGUARDEN, Pam Yes CPC 2016-2112-ZC (11/22), 16-470 (5/1)
TIEDEMAN, Mark 29-JanYes - 9/12TIERNEY, LindaYes - 8/26TILLISCH, SandraYes - 6/22TORRI, GianYes - 6/22TORRI, KateYes - 6/22TORRI, Nello
TREUER, Stephen YesTURK, Jeff YesTURLEY, B. YesTURLEY, Carol YesULMER, Paul 20-DecULMER, Sue 20-DecVALLEY, George YesVALLEY, Mary YesVANDERMAL, Andre Yes
Yes -1/31VARON, KarenWACHT, Jessica YesWALLACE, Geoff YesWALLACE, Same YesWALKER, Cory YesWALKER, Ken
Yes - 5/1WARD,Glenn 17-AprYes - 4/30WARD, Beth 18-Apr CPC 2016-2112-ZC (11/29), 16-470 (5/23)
Yes - 6/23WEBER, ArtYes - 2/28WEBER,SherryYes - 4/30WEINER, BernardYes - 2/13WEIS, BonnyYes - 12/14WEISS, Mindy
AGAINST THE PENDING MOTION CFMS 16-1470. IN FAVOR OF R1-1/BMO FOR CHEVIOT HILLS. VERIFIED SIGNATORSRESIDE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AREA AFFECTED BY THE MOTION.
WEISS, Todd 5-AprWESLEY, Nadine 16-JanWESTLIN, Jay Yes 16-1460
WHITNEY, William YesWILLIAMS, Marianne YesWILSON, Gayle Yes
Yes - 5/1WILSON, WendyYes - 12/14WOLFE, JoyceYes - 6/26WOLLITZ, Debra
WONG, Gloria YesYes - 8/22YAROSLOW, Simonne
YOUNG, Patrick 1-JulYOUNG, Rachel YesZASLOW, Tracy 27-JanZICKFELD, Mallory 19-Jan Yes
Unverified Signatures Highlighted in YellowTotal Signatures: 401Verified 391
286Total Addresses
