HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1986/11/25 - RegularPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 1986
•1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Commissioner Abraham led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
3. ROLL CALL
•
•
Present were Commissioners Abraham, Breazeal, Muto, Seibert and
Coolman. Also present were City Manager Koski, City Attorney
Martin, Acting Planning Director Mel Tooker, Associate Planner
David Saldana, Planning Intern Mary Martineau -Smith and Mr. Dale
Beland of Cotton /Beland Associates.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF NOVEMBER 11, 1986.
Commissioner Breazeal moved to approve the Consent Calendar,
seconded by Commissioner Muto and carried unanimously.
In order to handle heavy Agenda items, the cases were heard in the
following order:
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86 -810
Applicant:
Rancho Rio Hondo YMCA
5926 Rowland Ave.
Temple City, CA 91780
Site: 5537 Temple City Blvd.
Owner:
Request:
Grace Brethren Church
5537 Temple City Blvd.
Temple City, CA 91780
Conditional Use Permit to allow after
school day care services for approxi-
mately 45 to 60 children.
This request has been continued from the Planning Commission Meet-
ings of September 23rd and October 28th. It is a request to allow
after school day care services for 45 to 60 children. The main
issue in this case is the noise factor to the adjacent residential
sites. The Planning Commission requested the case be continued for
30 days in order for the applicant to meet with the neighborhood to
seek additional methods to resolve the conflicts. The Planning
Commission also requested the applicant to file for a state license
for a child care center.
Mr. Saldana continued by saying the applicant has filed for a state
license for a child care center. Also, last Thursday the YMCA met
with neighbors to discuss the problems involved. Attached to the
report is a copy of the application for a state license as well as
the Ranch Real YMCA proposal to the Grace Brethren Church for ap-
proval on how to remedy problems at the site. Also received by
staff is a petition signed by 90 working parents who have their
children at the facility and want approval of this request.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve a 90 -day Condi-
tional Use Permit and at least 30 days prior to the expiration date,
the applicant shall request an extension of time subject to the
procedures for a Modification of Conditional Use Permit. Also staff
recommends approval subject to the findings and revised conditions
of approval as listed in the staff report.
The public hearing was declared open.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 1986
Larry Harris, representing the YMCA, said he had met with the neigh-
borhood group last week and reviewed plans of what the YMCA had been
doing in the last 30 days. The application for a license to operate
a child care facility had been submitted to the State and the im-
provements required by the Fire Marshall have been made. They dis-
cussed their future plans with the group and tried to open up commu-
nications. The church has given the YMCA input on what they are
willing to do. They are not willing to replace the metal roof, but
perhaps it can be modified with some kind of acoustical material.
He has read the proposed conditions of approval and has no objec-
tions to them. There were no problems presented at the neighborhood
meeting that cannot be resolved. Responding to Commissioner Sei-
bert's question, Mr. Harris said he had no idea how soon the State
license would be forthcoming; however, the official at the State
licensing bureau mentioned that their office tries to make a prior-
ity of applications for latch -key programs and felt the license
would be approved in a short period, and that in about 60 days the
State would have someone inspect the property.
Commissioner Breazeal asked what assurance they had, after the State
inspector had viewed the property, that a license would be forthcom-
ing. Mr. Harris responded that the inspector checks the site, the
files and the program, and makes a written evaluation. If no prob-
lems are found, he will submit a request for approval to the State
the same day. If there are things to be done or corrections to be
made, the YMCA will be given a specific time to meet the require-
ments.
Mr. Barbara Valassidis, 9491 Olema Street, has a child at this
facility and spoke in favor of granting the request.
Chairman Coolman said that, in the interest of saving time, the
Commission had before them the petition with 90 names in support of
this request. She asked for a show of hands of those in favor in
the audience, and asked if anyone wished to speak in addition to
what Mrs. Valassidis had said, or in opposition.
Mr. Azel Larson, 9543 Broadway, expressed dismay regarding the fact
that the license had not be applied for previously, and that the use
had been allowed to function without a license.
Mr. John Gallagher, 9558 Wedgewood, said that in previous meetings
the problems of noise and of debris being thrown into neighboring
properties was brought to the applicant's attention, and that has
been corrected. Also at those meetings the matter of a license was
mentioned, and the applicant said they had a license. Upon Mr.
Gallagher's investigation it was revealed that they did not have
one. He presented a publication from the State licensing bureau for
child care, stating the conditions that must be met to obtain a
license. He stated he did not feel the applicant can meet these
conditions. He wanted the facility closed until proper licensing
was approved and suggested the YMCA work with the Temple City School
District to use their facilities.
Mr. Charles Reese, 9563 Broadway, Unit 6, said the video shown by
Mr. Saldana during his staff report, did not show the Temple Town-
house, where there are 44 units, located directly south of the
subject site. He questioned who was to operate the child care
facility as the application for a permit is by the Rio Hondo YMCA
and the application for State license is by the Foothill YMCA. Also,
the staff report mentioned two buildings on this property. One of
those buildings is filled to capacity with papers, boxes, and not
usable. He does not have much confidence in this organization
because they have operated without a license and without approval of
the Fire Department and, further, he feels that once they are per-
mitted to operate, it will be difficult to remove them.
Mr. Larry Harris, in rebuttal, said the first official application
went in to the State in August, but because of changes in staff it
was necessary to re- submit the forms. The Fire Department has
checked the property and the YCMA has made the required corrections
such as new locks and fire extinguishers. They have lessened the
noise impact; the condo area is out of bounds for the children. He
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 1986
has asked the school district for space on any of their campuses but
they have not responded. The YMCA intends to work with the commu-
nity with monthly meetings to hear about concerns and problems.
It was moved and seconded and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Breazeal said he was the instigator to continue this
hearing from the last time; this is the third hearing. The licens-
ing of the facility is not one of the issues of concern. The three
criteria for granting a conditional use permit must be met: 1) the
site is adequate in size and shape for the proposed use, 2) the site
has sufficient access to streets and highways, and 3) whether the
proposed use will have an adverse effect upon adjacent property. The
only negative comments heard tonight were regarding the licensing.
Nothing has been said about noise or throwing of debris. The appli-
cant has made an effort to be a good neighbor. He was in favor of
granting the request but for 180 days rather than 90 recommended by
staff.
Commissioner Muto said the problems that public testimony brought
out in previous meetings have caused the applicant to make improve-
ments to alleviate them. There has been no testimony from the
public that there still is a problem. Applicant is in the process
of getting the required license. A conditional use permit does not
go to people but to the property itself and the administration of a
child care facility is not the issue. With the conditions proposed,
which are rather strict, and with a limited time to operate, such as
90 days, there are safeguards. He was in favor of granting this
request.
Commissioner Abraham said the applicant is not profit motivated, but
have the best interest of the community at heart and should have the
opportunity to carry out their proposal. He was in favor of a
120 -day permit.
Commissioner Seibert concurred. Applicant has made mistakes and has
worked hard to correct them. He was in favor of 120 days. Chairman
Coolman agreed. The facility will meet a need which is evidenced by
the people who expressed themselves and the number of people who
have turned out for the hearings.
Commissioner Breazeal said he would suggest that, since the church
has not agreed to do anything with the metal roof to soundproof it,
the children should not use that area, and that the permit should be
granted for 180 days. He moved to grant the conditional use permit
for the reasons given previously, with modification of Condition No.
1 regarding the metal roof, and No. 7, that the permit shall expire
in 180 days, and to adopt by title only the resolution to this
effect. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Seibert and carried
unanimously.
City Attorney Martin read title to Resolution No. 86 -1297, A RESOLU-
TION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANTING
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN CASE NO. 86 -810.
6. NEW BUSINESS
C. PUBLIC HEARING: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Acting Planning Director Tooker stated to the Planning Commis-
sion that the General Plan is being amended to clear up discrep-
ancies between existing land use and the present General Plan so
as to have consistency between zoning and land use. To assist
in formulating the proposed amendment, six public meetings were
held plus a joint work session of the Planning Commission and
City Council.
Also, the General Plan is being amended to, reflect existing
zoning and land use, to show the desire of the community as to
what the land use should be rather than what presently exists,
and to perform "housekeeping" tasks that will clarify indefinite
land use boundary lines.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 1986
When all public hearings are completed, the Planning Commission
will finalize their actions in two ways: 1) recommend the City
Council certify the Environmental Impact Report as being com-
pleted in substantial compliance with the California Environ-
mental Quality Act, and 2) recommend the City Council adopt the
General Plan as approved by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Tooker proceeded to give the background on the General Plan
of the City and the need to revise it. The revision represents
a community -wide effort, and the Land Use Element of the General
Plan is the portion of the Plan that is of most interest to the
general public. Mr. Tooker turned the meeting over to Mr. Dale
Beland of Cotton /Beland and Associates who introduced himself
and said his company was composed of planning consultants, and
has been employed by the City of Temple City to review the
existing General Plan and Zoning and bring the Plan into compli-
ance with State law.
Map A
He began by referring to Map "A" and the changes proposed there-
on, listing the present zoning, the land use, the existing
General Plan designation, and what is proposed.
Mr. Peter Weiss, 6119 Oak, asked if the Map A showed only the
properties to be changed, or would there be others, and Mr.
Beland said the unshaded properties would not be changed as
their use is consistent with existing zoning. The shaded areas
identify where there are the largest number of inconsistencies.
Mr. Weiss said he was concerned there would be changes made on
individual lots other than those in the shaded areas.
Map B
Mr. Beland went to Map "B" and gave description of proposed
General Plan revisions for this area.
Mr. Ted LeMay, 9038 Longden, asked what happens to a property
where there are four units on the lot presently in area 3, and
this is proposed to be low density residential. Mr. Beland
explained for all present that any existing development not
consistent with the single - family residential classification
would become nonconforming and allowed to remain for the rest of
its useful life as R -2. Mr. LeMay said he bought under County
regulations of one residence per 5,000 square feet. Now he will
not be able to put another house on his lot. Mr. Beland ex-
plained that no land owner has a guarantee of future development
of his property. Cities have the power to downzone. Mr. LeMay
said he would prefer to remain R -2.
Area 1:
Barbara Smith, 6239 Rosemead Blvd., was told she could not build
on her property, zoned R -1 presently, because she had only a
50 -foot frontage. The proposed change in the General Plan will,
therefore, not benefit her. Mr. Koski said hers is still a
legal lot and the proposed change would not limit her to higher
density. Mrs. Smith said then she could concur with the high
density change.
Mr. Peter Weiss, 6119 Oak, speaking to Area 5, felt the proposed
changes were inconsistent with the use. No one can build condos
as it would be inappropriate. The area is R -2 now but the area
has a lot of single - family homes. He would like it to be R -1.
Earl Lauppe, 6210 Sultana, was in favor of downgrading to Low
Density Residential in Areas 3 and 4. Sultana is a small street
with traffic problems presently.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 5
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 1986
Mr. John Stacy, 6110 Rosemead Blvd., referred to Area 1 on Map
A, which is proposed for Low Density Residential, but on Map B,
Area 1 on Rosemead is proposed for High Density Residential, and
it seemed to him this was an inconsistency. Mr. Beland said the
properties on Callita and Emperor are not oriented toward
Rosemead in Map A and in Map B they are. Throughout California
it is typical that the property fronting on a major highway is
not zoned single - family residential.
Mrs. Chris Weiss, 6119 Oak, regarding Area 5, said this was an
inconsistency to change the existing General Plan to Medium
Density Residential. This is an R -1 area in land use, and this
area sees a lot of intermediate and high school traffic.
Mr. Dutch Halldin, 9027 Rancho Real, asked for an explanation of
the zoning terms of low, medium and high density, which were
explained by Mr. Beland.
Mr. Robt. Bruce Foltz, 5843 Muscatel Avenue, Area 9 on Map C,
said the area behind him is County. This area is proposed for
Low Density. He would like it to be Medium Density Residential.
Mr. Bruce Cannon, 9610 Las Tunas Drive, speaking of area 10,
proposed to be changed to commercial, the use now is residen-
tial. Mr. Beland said existing residential units would be legal
nonconforming. However, this area is in the Community Redevel-
opment area and if the CRA Plan designates that site as commer-
cial, it will be developed in accordance with that plan. Mr.
Cannon said he had not been notified of any of the General Plan
hearings. Mr. Beland told him the City was not required by
State law to individually notify property owners, but had made a
heroic effort to do so. It was further pointed out that the
local newpaper had carried stories and articles about the meet-
ings on the General Plan. Mr. Cannon asked if the City had the
power to take his property for the CRA and was told it had. In
response to his further questions he was told the CRA was passed
in 1972.
Map C
John Stacy, asked about Area 5, a single parcel, on Map C.
He was told that on the existing General Plan, which is vague in
delineation of boundaries, that property has two General Plan
designations, and this proposal was a bit of housekeeping to
have only one designation on that property. He felt it was
inconsistent to change the classification on Area 3 to low
Density Residential and Area 1 to Medium Density Residential.
Mr. Beland explained that Area 1 backs up to the higher density
proposed facing Rosemead.
Mr. Pat Scoffinger, 5807 N. Myda Avenue, Area 6, which is being
changed to Medium Density Residential, expressed concern that
high density would develop on Rosemead. He was told only Medium
Density Residential is proposed.
Mr. Harry Lewis, 5800 Rosemead, Area 6, asked about the incon-
sistency of high density all the way down Rosemead to Elm and
the property between Elm and Hermosa R -3, the traffic and noise
are the same. He was told it is R -2 and R -3 now and the General
Plan is being changed to accommodate that. Mr. Lewis would
prefer it zoned R -4.
Mr. John Mairs, 6201 N. Ivar, speaking to Area 1, said he was
against the change from R -1 to R -3 as the apartment houses above
Longden on Rosemead are not very desirable. The higher density
will lead to more high density. It is R -1 on Reno and he would
like it retained. He questioned the capacity of Rosemead to
accommodate increased density on surrounding properties. Mr.
Beland said with the changes proposed throughout the City, much
downgrading, there would actually be less traffic on Rosemead.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 6
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 1986
Don Madison, Sultana, said he was one of the largest parcels on
Sultana and he objected to the downzoning to R -1. He would
prefer R -2.
Mrs. Joyce Wang, 5919 and 5923 Sultana Avenue, wants to keep R -2
zoning. She has a large lot, and if anything happens to one of
her units she wants the option to rebuild.
Mrs. Sharon Banks, 5946 Sultana, said the downgrading from R -2
to R -1 will cost a lot of money to those people who are selling
their property. However, she plans to stay in the City and
favored the downzoning to R -1.
Mrs. Judy Burns, 5926 Hart, favored the downzoning to Low Den-
sity Residential. Eventually this property will be quality just
because it is single - family.
Dolores Hutro, 6019 Sultana, spoke against the downgrading to
Low Density.
Map D
Mr. D. C. Foxman, 9018 Rancho Real, said Noel dead ends at the
end of Areas 3 and 4, and it is being proposed to change the
designation to High Density, and he questioned how safe that
would be. Also, Sultana is a very narrow street at the location
of Areas 1 and 3. He would like consideration to downgrading
from high density. He would like Rancho Real changed from High
Density to Medium Density.
Joan Turnage, 5803 Encinita, has a large lot that appears to be
in Area 6, and borders on Area 7. The lots that face Bidwell
are single - family homes. On her lot, across from Workman, she
has intentions of developing as it is too large for one sin-
gle- family residence. She would like this lot to be in Area 7
and zoned High Density.
Emilia Schneider, 5709 Loma, was concerned that upgrading to
higher density would cause a lot of multiple residential con-
struction with attendant transients. Mr. Beland said the pres-
ent General Plan has 62% single family properties, and the new
Plan would have 69 %. She would prefer Encinita and Noel to
remain R -3.
Map E
Janet Atamanack, 5809 and 5813 Cloverly are lots that are large
and should remain R -3 and not be changed to R -2. On these lots,
across from Ralphs, there is a noise factor, with the trucks
that service the market using that alley.
Louise Gonderman, 6023 and 6047 Oak, was in favor of retaining
the medium density because of the size of the property. At 6047
Oak there is only one unit. She would like the classification
to be R -2.
Peter Weiss, 6119 Oak, said the block on Oak has only one house
per lot and anything other than R -1 is out of character.
Barbara Smith, referring to Area 1, at 6239 Rosemead, said she
would prefer that area to be classified Commercial on Map B,
rather than High Density Residential.
Chairman Coolman said the meeting would be continued to December
9th to consider the remaining areas. She called a recess and
reconvened the meeting at 10:30 P.M
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 7
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 1986
5. A. CONT'D PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 86 -813
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86 -812
Owner /Applicant: Harry Sagheb
Site: 9465 E. Las Tunas Drive
Request: A Zone Variance to allow vehicular
access from Las Tunas Drive, a reduction
in width for three parking spaces, with
a Conditional Use Permit to allow expan-
sion of an existing shopping center.
David Saldana, in his staff report, said this case was continued
from October 28, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting. It is a
request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of an
existing shopping center and a Zone Variance to allow vehicular
access to Las Tunas Drive and a reduction in the width of three
parking spaces. The original request included a disproportion-
ate number of compact parking spaces than allowed by the zoning
code. The Planning Commission requested the applicant to revise
the parking scheme to provide as many standard size spaces as
possible.
The applicant submitted a new parking plan that included 76
standard size spaces and 4 standard spaces, for a total of 80
spaces -4 above the number required by code. However, 4 of these
spaces are parallel parking spaces and staff recommended that
these spaces be removed and replaced with landscaping and that
this should be added as an additional Condition of Approval.
Staff recommends approval of both Conditional Use Permit No.
86 -812 and Zone Variance No. 86 -813 subject to the findings and
conditions of approval contained in the staff report.
Commissioner Breazeal was concerned that at some future date a
use may locate at this site that would require more parking.
City Manager Koski said this concern is addressed in proposed
conditions of approval and that any use requiring more parking
will have to provide the required additional off - street parking.
The public hearing was declared open.
Gene Kearin, agent and representative for the applicant, said
that he had been present at the previous meeting on this matter
and that the applicant has improved the parking, and that in-
stalling a planter instead of 4 parallel parking spaces was no
problem. He was also agreeable to all other conditions con-
tained in the staff report. Responding to questions from Com-
missioner Abraham, he said that the proposed use of the new
portion of the building would be retail stores and office uses.
The back portion of the building can be used for both uses.
The public hearing was closed, as there was no one else to speak
to the issue.
Commissioner Seibert said the proposed development would improve
the site as long as the parking is acceptable, and with removal
of the four parallel spaces and with staff conditions. He had
concerns about splitting one building with two zoning classifi-
cations and asked if there was anything that could be done about
that. City Manager Koski said the existing zoning prevails.
Commissioner Abraham also expressed concern about splitting a
building with two zoning classification. He was in favor of the
landscaping rather than the proposed parallel parking spaces.
The rest of the Commissioners concurred. Commissioner Seibert
moved to approve the request to allow the expansion of an exist-
ing shopping center and a zone variance to waive the prohibition
of vehicular access to Las Tunas Drive, with staff conditions
and an added condition that the parallel parking spaces be
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 8
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 1986
removed and replaced with a planter, and to adopt by title only
the Resolution granting same. Motion was seconded and carried
unanimously.
City Attorney Martin read title to Resolution No. 86 -1296, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN CASE NO. 86 -812, AND A ZONE
VARIANCE IN CASE NO. 86 -813.
6. A. PUBLIC HEARING: PARCEL MAP NO. 18196
Applicant: Westco Land, Inc.
9008 Las Tunas Drive
Temple City, CA 91780
Site:
Request:
9200 Broadway
Temple City, CA 91780
Approval of a parcel map in order to create
two single - family residential lots.
The applicant proposes to subdivide the property in order to
create a legal building site for a future single - family resi-
dence. The new parcel would be in conformance with the R -1 Zone
lot requirements. Also proposed is removal of the existing
garage to be replaced on an allowable portion of Parcel 1 con-
currently with the construction of improvements on Parcel 2.
After meeting with applicant on November 17, 1986, the Temple
City Subdivision Committee recommended the Planning Commission
approve Parcel Map No. 18196 subject to conditions of approval
contained in the staff report. Mr. Saldana ended his staff
report with a video of the site.
Public hearing was declared open.
George Weigand„ Arcadia, said he had met with the Temple City
Subdivision Committee and reviewed all the proposed conditions
and had no objections to them.
There being no one else to speak on this matter, the public
hearing was closed.
Commissioner Muto said the request is reasonable. This lot is
the largest one in the general area, with considerably smaller
lots to the south and west. People like to speculate on a large
lot, and the approval before the Commission will stabilize this
corner. He moved to approve the parcel map with staff condi-
tions and to adopt by title only the resolution of approval.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Breazeal and passed
unanimously.
City attorney Martin read title to Resolution 86 -1298, A RESOLU-
TION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE . CITY AP-
PROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 18196.
6. B. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86 -817
Owner /Applicant: Richard C. Gooch
1375 Torrey Pines Road
La Jolla, CA 92037
Site: 10241 Lower Azusa
Temple City, CA 91780
Request:
Conditional Use Permit to allow the devel-
opment of a quick service oil change facil-
ity at 10241 Lower Azusa Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 9
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 1986
The applicant is proposing to construct a new quick service
automobile lubrication facility having proposed hours of 8:00
A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday. The primary function
of the facility would be automobile oil changes, with fluid
checks and refills if requested. No automotive repairs will be
done at the site. Mr. Saldana continued his staff report by
showing a video of the site.
Staff finds this request is in substantial compliance with the
standards of development for the C -2 Zone and also meets devel-
opment standards for automobile service stations. Therefore, it
is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission approve
this Conditional Use Permit subject to the findings and condi-
tions of approval as listed in the staff report.
The public hearing was declared open.
Pat Murphy, Los Angeles, representing applicant, said "Minute
Lube" is a subsidiary of Quaker State Oil and has 70 locations
across the nation. All this facility will do is change oil and
oil filters, lube the car, clean the interior of the car and
wash the windows. The whole operation should take about eight
minutes. Applicant has read the conditions and had no objec-
tions.
Commissioner Seibert was concerned about parking of vehicles
overnight at the site. He does not want this facility to become
a parking lot. He would like a condition imposed that there
would be no overnight parking or storage. The other Commission-
ers agreed.
Commissioner Seibert moved to approve Conditional Use Permit No.
86 -817 as it meets the requirements for granting as outlined in
the Zoning Code, with conditions as proposed by staff, and the
addition of one condition that there be no overnight parking or
storage, and to adopt by title only the resolution granting the
request. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Breazeal and
carried unanimously,
City Attorney Martin read title to Resolution 86 -1299, A RESOLU-
TION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN CASE NO. 86 -817.
7. COMMUNICATIONS - There were none.
8. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK - No one came
forth
9. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS - There were none.
10. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the Planning Com-
mission meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M.
ATTEST: