My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1993_0621_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1993
>
1993_0621_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/25/2011 3:12:16 PM
Creation date
10/25/2011 3:07:39 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
110
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
to evaluate those designations fromtime. to timee <br />Ctem 12 No commentm <br />- - .. # • - i <br />II <br />II <br />"' community o e a I <br />1 i - to all sides of <br />the, 'issue d again II <br />the ov,erlia o I n IN I I IN <br />Item 1 - See Item #2 * <br />These items that, Should be • _ 17 and 1,9 Item, r should, not but dr,ive - # � • • ` based <br />I <br />on what, i,si the best overall need for, the community as a whole and <br />o necessarily <br />what iis best for the chu,riche <br />Item, • * This Comment .• <br />person in the community and as previously 3"Lndl"cated, the users of <br />the park, f + I In T relevant. <br />1 <br />be r based <br />Item <br />Item 24f 2,81t 310jt 32 and, 33 - Relate to what options has the <br />church explored o reduce - amount of park . d . would • a <br />needed,. I don't have a, good feel, for what their ultimate needs <br />are to _ able to w <br />comment <br />if <br />t a _ <br />I I, and 31 - See Item #2e <br />~ II s • relevancy s <br />51 16 it 6 f iede <br />stiati,stici would ® II , <br />ii have to be veri <br />Item 34 - See Item <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.