Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-05-18 PC MINS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 18, 1964 The regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista was held at 7:00 P.M. , in the Council Chamber at the Civic Center on the above date with the following members present: Stevenson, Comstock, Stewart, Johnson, Willhite, Adams and Guyer. Absent: None. Also Present: Director of Planning Warren, City Attorney Duberg, City Engineer Cole, Principal Engineer Harshman and Junior Planner Lee. STATEMENT The Secretary of the Commission hereby states that she did post within 24 hours of adjournment, as provided by law, the order of the Commission for the adjourned meet- ing of May 4, 1964. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Comstock - Adams) Minutes of May 4, 1964 be approved, as mailed. REZONING - TO BE SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING: Permanent Zoning on Portion of Bonita Village Annexation Director of Planning Warren submitted a map of the area discussing the interim zoning and the proposed permanent zoning. The staff would recommend the following permanent zoning: R-1-13-20-1), A-D, R-3-B-3-D and C-1-D. A portion of this annexa- tion - the southwest corner of Otay Lakes Road and Bonita Road, and that owned by the Bonita Valley Country Club would remain as interim zoned until such time as the General Plan is adopted. Mr. Warren also suggested that setbacks be established along a.-portion of the Bonita Bridge Road at 5 feet; on Allen School Road 15 feet, and on Lot 12 of the Bonita Verde Subdivision, 10 feet. City Attorney Duberg requested that the resolution state that a portion of the annexation will be left in the present interim zoning. RESOLUTION NO. 305 Resolution of the Planning Commission Stating Their MSUC (Stewart - Comstock) Intent to Consider Permanent Zoning and Establishing Setbacks for Portions of the Bonita Village Annexation-- Meeting of June 1 , 1964 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS PUBLIC HEARING: F. James Bear - 503 "H" Street, 496 and 496-A Fifth Avenue - Pro- fessional Offices and Residential Use The application was read in which permission was asked to use an existing dwelling at 503 "H" Street for professional use of legal nature, 496 Fifth Avenue for pro- fessional and related uses, such as medical, insurance, public relations, political and other appropriate classifications within the connotation of professional use and 496-A Fifth Avenue for residential use for a period of three years. -1- Chairman Stevenson questioned whether the Commission should treat this as a new application. Director of Planning Warren stated this was obviously a modification of the old conditional use permit, since that permit has already been granted. Mr. Warren then submitted a plot plan explaining the adjacent zoning and land uses , reminding the Commission that the previous application did not include the request for the residential use; this one does. City Attorney Duberg asked the Commission to treat this application as a modification of the old one, reminding them that the applicant now has the right to appeal their decision. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. F. James Bear explained the need for the new application since the old request did not specify the residential use, even though the legal description did include the entire dwelling. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Willhite said he felt there was a definite misunderstanding on the original application and commented that he could see no reason why this apartment could not remain. Member Guyer agreed, stating there was no connection here to the offices. Member Comstock asked the City Attorney what legal basis they would have to deny this request. City Attorney Duberg stated that when granting a conditional use permit in an R-3 zone for instance, the Commissioners must prohibit residential use in their resolution, if that is their intent. Member Comstock declared his original motion stated the dwelling was to be used for professional offices only, and not residential , and that the City Attorney had not informed him of this added condition, at that time. Chairman Stevenson questioned the parking for the building; Mr. Warren said it was adequate. MSUC (Guyer - Willhite) Conditional Use Permit be approved subject to the conditions stated on the previous resolution, and that 503 "H" Street be used for professirn al use of legal nature; 496 Fifth Avenue for professional and related uses, such as med- ical , insurance, public relations, political and other appropriate classifications within the connotation of professional use and 496-A Fifth Avenue for residential use for a period not to exceed three years, after which that portion of the building may be converted for professional office use. Further, that findings be based on: 1 . Granting this conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. None of the factors involved in determining this are applicable. 2. The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the types of use permitted in the surrounding areas, due to the fact there is a shopping center across the street and R-3 zoning to the west and east. Member Comstock asked the staff to remind the Commission at any time a conditional use permit is being considered for professional offices in a residential zone to be sure to impose a condition if they do not wish the residential use to remain. Vice-Chairman Stewart agreed, remarking the critical point here was the precedent they were setting. -2- r d . p.4ni KC�a�' 9d<b�k YeA6'�r tbiRUTH- an Lt31 0�6 m 'd)tatemant antis CS'a3.''i.v cin a Qo` the "Jo -4 Blau..- cce W om' usq portnIt bpi chmtpr-d to rr 4 :C H 'ar f.-upstmk ouge'lared Me w1gh+c t raznlare rusted W"s ?mato $t9On Lves s�Ng, R:Ns da: a1#1 ng, wm:i to bo Fus'mEl far of f i co's ml y d % r es i dxenV a l,: and tiet t U ty fivt t rma med Yvat t n- fit area 111M Of M"'a,m j fear su"ch a condltlQR2, % that 'dime." M UFS', 1,0 a a h i ts) b o x nutez of May 18 be approlseo" Subject to i-ki dv'Inge vequa3ted by mamftr cmatetk. A ' PUBLI-C' HEARING: Temple Beth Sholom - 208 Madrona Street - Addition to Recreation Bu i 1 d-i ng The application was read in which a request was made to allow a 20 foot by 69 foot addition to the recreation building. Director of Paanning Warren submitted a plot plan, explaining the location and ad- jacent land uses. The proposed use will not generate additional parking need. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Martin Green, President of the Church, discussed the parking, stating the Church owns two lots adjacent to this one which they may use for parking. Mr. Jack Boynton, 226 Madrona Street, spoke in opposition. He stated the area was already crowded with cars and the building addition will only bring more cars, more children and noise. When questioned as to the hours the Members of this Church keep, Mr. Boynton declared they stay until 11 :30 and 12 P.M. , when they have a social activity. Vice-Chairman Stewart felt a curfew should be placed on the activities since the Church is in a residential zone. Mrs. Barney Seligson, a member, spoke in favorof the addition and the need for no additional parking. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the lack of parking for the Church; Member Comstock declared the Church has been in this location for over 20 years and anyone buying a home in the vicinity should be aware of the parking problem involved here. Member Adams felt a condition should be imposed requiring more parking. Director of Planning Warren stated a new hearing would have to be held if the Commission places a con- dition requiring more parking on adjacent property; it involves an area not specified on the application. Chairman Stevenson asked Mr. Green if the Church would have any objection to a condition being imposed whereby the vacant land adjacent to the building would have to be improved and used as parking. Mr. Green said he had no objection, however, he could not improve�lit at this time since they do not have the funds to do this. I Mr. Warren asked the City Attorney if the Commission could impose this condition even though the area is not mentioned in the application. City Attorney Duberg stated they could since it was under one ownership. After some discussion, Vice-Chairman Stewart commented that even though the lot was made available for parking, most people would not use it - they would still park in the street because of poor access. MSUC (Comstock - Guyer) Conditional use permit be approved subject to the following condition: 1 . Use of the recreation building shall cease by 10 P.M. Further, that findings be based on the following: 1 . Granting this conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, since none of the factors as outlined in the ordinance are involved in the determinatirn of this finding. -3- 2. The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the types of use permitted in the surrounding areas since this is an internal expansion ' within the church complex. VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING: Mrs. Barney Seligson- 685 Fourth Avenue - R-3 Use in R-1 Zone Member Comstock abstained from the hearing since he was one of the property owners notified and wished to be heard as a private citizen. The application was read in which permission was requested to construct eight (8) Town-House type apartments. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan explaining the location and size of the lot. The existing house on the premises will be razed. Mr. Warren then showed the plans and elevations of the proposed apartments. Member Johnson asked about the height of the buildings. Mrs. Seligson, the appli- cant, said they would be approximately 20 feet. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Those speaking in opposition were:Mr. W. J. Gregson, 677 Fourth Avenue, Mr. Jack Sylvester, 687 Fourth Avenue, Mr. Lee Raitt, owner of two parcels at the rear of this property, Mrs. Bernice Heiter, 669 Guava Avenue and Mr. Alan Comstock, 652 Glover Avenue. Mr. Gregson presented a petition with 57 names opposing this development. Chairman Stevenson asked the people who came to protest to stand, and it was noted that approximately 25 people stood. Their reasons for objecting were: (1) There will be a large wall on both sides of the lots and the adjacent property owners do not want to be closed in this way, having to look at a blank wall ; (2) This is in the heart of an R-1 area and it should remain R-1 protecting the other single-families in the area; (3) Three years ago, the Commission denied R-3 zoning in this area because they did not think it was feasible - even R-2 zoning was turned down here; (4) Directly to the east of the proposed development are $25,000 to $48,000 homes and these people do not want R-3 use in their neighborhood; (5) No exceptional circumstances; (6) If this property is granted a variance, it would set a precedent for the other lots in the area; (7) Essentially, it would be "spot zoning;" (8) There is no indication .of any R-3 uses in the area, nor is there any need for it; Consultants have stated there is more than enough R-3 property in Chula Vista at the present time. Mrs. Barney Seligson, the applicant, stated the rear .of the deep lots in the area are not maintained by the property owners and consequently look like "cow pastures." Her apartments would be for adults only no children or pets would be allowed. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams declared he was against this variance because it would be granting a use inconsistent with the uses in the surrounding area, and it was equivalent to "spot zoning." He added the Commission should give these older areas in the single- family zones all the protection they can, for as long as possible. Chairman Stevenson said he could see no exceptional circumstances here - it is a deep lot; however, every lot on the street is the same size. -4- MSUC (Guyer - Adams) Variance be denied. No exceptional circumstances as re- quired by ordinance could be found that would justify granting this variance. Member Comstock abstained from voting. PUBLIC HEARING: Frank Ferreira and Tri-County Construction Company- 2800 Bonita Road - Bonita Cove Subdivision -- Height Variance in Front Setback or Reduction of Front Setback from 25 Feet to Zero. The application was read in which permission was requested to construct stone entrance walls which would exceed the 42 inch height l;iimit. Director of Planning Warren submitted the plot plan of the area. He stated the applicant proposes to build these stone entrances linking them with rail fences. Mr. Warren then showed the Commission a drawing of these entrances commenting that the-height will graduate to 66 inches. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Ferreira, the applicant, stated he has a great transition problem in this area - he wants to upgrade this subdivision as related to some of the homes adjacent to this property. He plans to construct homes ranging to $36,000 in this develop- ment. Mr. Ferreira stated he would also request permission for another entrance on Hilltop and Bonita Road. Mr. Warren stated this was not on the application. Mr. Ferreira declared it could be considered under the "Bonita Cove Subdivision" which is the address he listed on the application. Chairman Stevenson said he agreed that some of the adjacent homes were substandard, and it would create an undesirable setting for this development. He added this could be termed the exceptional circumstance needed. Mr. Paul Yaeger, 414 "J" Street, spoke in favor of the request, stating he is a trustee of the Calvary Baptist Church just across the street from this proposed, development. He added this proposal was discussed with the other members of his Church and the Pastor, and they all felt it would enhance the area, and possibly may even inspire the Church to beautify their grounds, especially when they build their large Church. u There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Comstock asked whose problem it would be to maintain this fence and area. Mr. Ferreira stated it would be on private property and the property owners would have to maintain this. Member Johnson asked if this proposal had been cleared with the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Warren stated a drainage ditch runs the width of the front of this property and an 18 foot deep parkway exists between the front property line and the street curb. He felt there was no traffic problem here. Mr. Ferreira stated that he also proposes to install some lighting on these entrances. MSUC (Stewart - Willhite) Application for zone variance, as outlined, be approved subject to the plot plan and elevation submitted. Further, that findings be as follows: -5- 1 . That there are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same zone. The proposed development of Bonita Cove will create a residential character not apparent on Bonita Road in this area. The entrance walls will serve to identify this character in the area south of Bonita Road. 2. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicant. Enhancement of the entrances to the subdivision are needed to draw prospective buyers. 3. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone in which this property is located. The proposed construction allows safe traffic conditions and upgrades the area. AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to Sections 33.3 and 33. 16 of Zoning Ordinance, R-1 Zone, Minimum Floor Area. Presenting the staff recommendation, Director of Planning Warren read a draft of the proposed ordinance which changes the definition of a "Family" under Section 33.3 to "not more than three persons (excluding servants) who need not be related by blood or marriage, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit." Section 33. 16 to be amended as follows: 111 . 1000 square feet for each dwelling unit having 2 bedrooms or less. s 2. 1200 square feet for each dwelling unit having 3 bedrooms or 2 bedmooms and den, family room or any other room designed for miscellaneous purposes , or more. 3. 1300 square feet for each dwelling unit having 4 bedrooms or more or 3 bedrooms and den, family room or any other room designed for miscellaneous purposes, or more. Parking space for 2 cars shall be provided with either a two-car garage containing a minimum of 400 square feet or a carport with enclosed storage space containing not less than 80 square feet. This storage unit shall be no less than 6 feet high with no other dimension less than 4 feet. The length of the storage area shall be parallel to the street frontage and shall screen the parking area from the street." Chairman Stevenson asked that the provision for a carport be eliminated. The other members agreed that this stipulation be omitted from the notice of public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 306 Resolution of the Planning Commission Stating Their Intent MSUC (Comstock-Guyer) to Call a Public Hearing on June 1 , 1964 to Consider Amending Section 33.3 and 33. 16 of Chapter 33 - Zoning Ordinance of the City Code. SUBDIVISIONS Request to Modify Tentative Map of Princess Manor A letter from Mr. Ralph Spaid, Secretary-Treasurer of Princess Park Estates, Inc. , was read in which he requested that the tentative map of Princess Manor be modified to allow access through an extension of Rienstra Street rather ..than Monserate Avenue as proposed on the original tentative map. -6- I. Director of Planning Warren showed the proposed new location on the map. This would necessitate the removal of at least one dwelling at the end of Rienstra. Mr. Warren discussed the major streets, the collector streets and the proposed freeway in the surrounding area. The reason the subdividers want to extend Rienstra is because it will be the most direct route to the subdivision - making it easy to direct out-of-town prospective buyers to the subdivision. Mr. Warren reminded the Commission that Rienstra Street is a cul-de-sac, a local residential street and the proposal to make a through collector of it is unwise. Melrose was recommended by the staff as the main road into the subdivision. Mr. Warren added that, in respect to the subdivider 's request, the staff would not look with total disfavor on the proposal if it can be guaranteed that it will be a temporary route and will not be dedicated. A conditionacan be placed on this signifying that the street will be temporary and that Melrose will be the permanent street. Chairman Stevenson asked if the public were advised of this proposal . Mr. Warren said they were not, unless the subdividers informed them. Mr. Ray Rainwater, 834 Wilder Drive, representing Princess Park Estates, Inc. , showed a film comparing the route through Melrose to the subdivision and the other through the extension of Rienstra Street, as they are proposing. He then read a report listing reasons whereby the subdividers favor this route; they pass fewer houses, making this a safety factor; San Diego Gas and Electric Company's right-of- way problems can be worked out here more easily; Rienstra, though the most direct route is nevertheless the most expensive - they will improve the unimproved portion of Rienstra up to Hilltop. They were informed by the San Diego Gas & Electric Company that Monserate crosses their right-of-way and the route would not be acceptable to them. One of the reasons for not considering Melrose is because it does not connect with a through east-west street. Mr. Warren pointed out that a system of major and collector streets have been worked out for the City, and felt it didn' t make sense to change this system simply because one subdivider wanted a more direct route to his subdivision. The Commission discussed the location of the nearby schools and noted that it would be more logical for the children living in this subdivision to use Rienstra Street. The Commission then discussed the improvement of Orange" Avenue. Mr. Lane Cole, City Engineer, discussed the problems of using Rienstra instead of Melrose. Mr. Cole said the Commissioners should keep in mind that Rienstra Street was made strictly for local traffic, and that an extension would disrupt the whole environment of the residential area. Mr. Cole then discussed the development of Palomar Street by the County; that its connection to Interstate #5 will occur this year. Member Willhite asked if two houses should go out, if the Commission approved the Rienstra access. Mr. Cole stated this would allow a more direct alignment. Member Guyer asked if the San Diego Gas and Electric Company had any objection to the extension of Rienstra Street. Mr. Art Bishop, representing the Company, stated there is an 8 foot gas line that would have to be lowered.at the Melrose crossing, but otherwise it is no problem for them. A decision on Rienstra will require further detailed study, but looks feasible. Director of Planning Warren asked Mr. Rainwater if, in their development of Unit #2, -7- they plan to have access only from Main and Rienstra or did they plan to extend Orange Avenue. Mr. Rainwater said there was a possibility that in six months or one year, Orange may be extended to Max Avenue. The Commission again discussed the feasibility of allowing Rienstra as a permanent access road in view of the practicability of the children using this road for their schools. Member Guyer felt both access roads were needed. Mr. Cole asked that, if approved for access , a curb or any other hold dike be installed along Rienstra. Mr. Ralph Spaid stated they plan to put this in. MSUC (Stewart - Guyer) Approval of modification of the Tentative Map of the P.r,in-cess Manor Subdivision providing access to the subdivision via Rienstra Street rather than Monserate Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The developer shall pave the unpaved one-half of Rienstra from Hilltop Street to the westerly boundary of Castle View Unit No. I Subdivision. 2. Two houses at the easterly end of Rienstra Street shall be removed to allow the most direct extension of Rienstra Street to the Princess Manor Subdivision boundary. COMMUNICATIONS Request from Danny Thomas Concerning La Bonita Town and Country Apartments Member Comstock abstained from the discussion. A letter was read from Mr. Thomas asking for another hearing concerning the roofing material on the La Bonita Town and Country apartments on Bonita Road. Mr. Danny Thomas explained he, made a mistake when, at the meeting in which he asked for permission to change the roof material , he referred to it as "325 Fire Chex." He said he was led to believe it came in 10 inch to the weather; therefore, he put this order . through to the J. R. Sherman Company and then discovered the company was not financially able to accept the order. Another thing, he added, 325 Fire Chex shakes did not come in 10 inch to the weather, only 5 inch to the weather. They asked the wholesale company to find them a comparable material and they suggested the 8 inch,, to the weather which is made of fiber glass; this has been approved by both the Fire Marshall and the Building Department. Vice-Chairman Stewart reminded Mr. Thomas that he did state the 325 Fire Chex as the number he intended to use. He then asked the weight of the new material - the pound per square. Mr. Thomas said he did not know. Mr. Stewart remarked that int was very thin; there was no body to it, and wondered what the chances would be from wind damage. Mr. Thomas answered this was a new type of material highly recommended by Owens-Corning, the makers. Chairman Stevenson commented that, since it has actually been installed., whether there were any objections raised from the people in the area. Mr. Thomas said there were some, but these were chiefly because the roof material was not shake shingles. He further stated that he is now planning to spend $10,000 additional for landscaping, buying full size trees, etc. , to "take the people's eyes from the roof". Member Willhite declared he was not atiall satisfied with the roof material ; however, the main point now was the fire protection. Member Adams remarked that he doubted the change of roof material they approved that night would look any better than the one Mr. Thomas has on now. He added they (the -8- Commission)"haven' t lost much." MSUC (Guyer - Johnson) Architectural approval of the change of roof material from Carey 325 Fire Chex, Underwriter 's Laboratory Class A, asphalt tile approved on January 6, 1964 to the Owens-Corning Modular shingle, 8 inch, as presently installed on the La Bonita Town and Country apartments. Mr. Warren informed the Commission that he and the Fire Marshall are going to prepare a report concerning the types of materials allowed in this zone. He will have this ready in about two weeks; this will be according to the State Code. Member Willhite commented that there is a "hazzle" at the present time between the State vs: the Municipal ; the State seems to want to take the initiative. Mr. Frank Ferreira, developer of Bonita Cove Subdivision, stated the change in this roof material by Mr. Thomas was nothing but a cost factor; that Mr. Thomas could easily put shake shingles over the present roof material right now instead of spending it on landscaping. Mr. Llanos - 796 Ash Street - Requesting continuance of Home Occupation A letter from Mr. Llamos was read in which he requested he be allowed to continue his Home Occupation which is repairing neon signs. Director of Planning Warren stated the department has received complaints that this business is not incidental to the residence and that his garage can not be used for parking, but for this business. Mr.- Carlos Llanos , 796 Ash Street, said he purchased this property on June 10 of last year. Most of his repair work is done outside in his truck; he works with an air compressor and does no painting on the premises. Mr. Warren explained that when people come in asking for a license for business to be conducted in their home, they are referred to the planning department fora ' Home Occupation permit. They fill out a form answering ten questions , if when answered correctly, are granted the Home Occupation permit. In this case, the department has no record of the permit approved for Mr. Llamos although there is, little doubt that fie did obtain one. However, Mr. Warren, added, he would never have approved the permit knowning what type of business this is, the equipment used, etc. Mr. Llanos remarked that he bought no extra equipment - this is the same equipment he brought in from Mexico where he had this same type business. Mr. Paul Brinninger, 790 Ash Street, said the complaint was issued in his name since he lives adjacen to Mr. Llanos. He declared the garage is no longer accessible for cars - they are parked in the driveway. Mr. Llanos has, at times, 2 or 3 men working for him, and the signs he brings home for repairs are quite large, some have to be hoisted by a pulley on the truck. Mr. Louis Kein, 785 Ash Avenue stated his objection. Mr. Warren mentioned that a business license for Mr. Llanos was obtained at a 583 "G" Street address. Mr. Llanos explained this was his uncle 's house, which he was renting at that time. The Commission discussed with the applicant the definition of a "Home Occupation," which definition was read from the ordinance. -9- Member Willhite remarked that this man did obtain his business license in good faith. In Mexico, nearly everyone conducts their businesses from their homes, and in view of this, Mr. Llanos was obviously under a misunderstanding about his business and should be given some consideration so that he can establish his business elsewhere. He needs a period of time to make this adjustment. Member Guyer agreed. Director of Planning Warren asked that this be held over for two weeks to give the staff time to study this. City Attorney Duberg" commented that any legal action on his part would take 30 days. Mrs. Llanos, mother of the applicant, stated she was the one that came in and filled out the application. They bought this property chiefly in which to live and to conduct this business. If they had any idea they couldn' t operate the repair shop here, they wouldn't have bought the property. Mr. Kenneth Lee, Junior Planner, explained the procedure of granting a Home Occupa- tion, stating the staff has no alternative but to grant a permit if the applicant answers the questionnaire correctly. So many times, people are granted a permit for their businesses "which are small , and then these start to grow little by little until they are beyond the meaning of a Home Occupation. The Commission discussed granting the applicant an extension of time so that he may find a place in a commercial zone in which to conduct his business. Member Comstock stated that the Commission had no authority to do this. MSC (Stewart - Guyer) Postpone action on this matter for 30 days; to be brought back to the attention of the Commission at the June 15 meeting. The motion carried by the following vote, towit: AYES: Members Stewart, Johnson, Stevenson, Willhite, Adams and Guyer NOES: Member Comstock ABSENT: None MISCELLANEOUS Resolution Approving Chula Vista General Plan Director of Planning Warren explained we should have a resolution on record for the Commission's approval of this Plan. This was an oversight on the part of the staff. RESOLUTION NO. 307 Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula MSUC (Comstock-Stewart) Vista, California, Adopting the Chula Vista General Plan. Set Date for Planning Commission Workshop Meeting Director of Planning Warren asked the Commission to set a date whereby they could meet for a "workshop" dinner meeting. In the past, they have met at the Sunnyside Steak Ranch. The Commission agreed this was a good place to meet again and, after discussing various dates, decided on the 28th of May. MSUC (Stewart - Comstock) Workshop dinner meeting be scheduled for May 28, 1964 at the Sunnyside Steak Ranch, Sunnyside, at 7 P.M. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Comstock - Johnson) Meeting adjourn to May 28, 1964 at 7 P.M. , at the Sunnyside Steak Ranch, Sunnyside. Meeting adjourned at 10:55 P.M. AJe pectfully submit-ted, nie M. Fulasz, Secretary -10-