HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1987/06/10 Tape No.: 280
Side 2: 0-1619
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Wednesday, June 1O, 1987 Public Services Buildin9
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Shipe, Commissioners Cannon, Carson,
Fuller, Green and Tugenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Grasser - with notification
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner
Lee, Deputy City Attorney Moore, Senior Civil
Engineer Daoust, Environmental Review
Coordinator Reid, Assistant Planner Schilling,
Fire Marshal Gove
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Shipe and was
followed by a moment of silent prayer.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chairman Shipe reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its
responsibilities and the format of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Fuller/Carson) to approve the minutes of the meeting of May 13, 1987,
with the following correction: page 6, paragraph 3, line 5, change the last
word to "Cannon" instead of "Green"; and page 12, last sentence, change
"May 13" to "June 10, 1987".
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
Chairman Shipe announced that the order of the items on the agenda would be
changed. Item 4 would be considered first because it is a request for
continuance, then Item 5 followed by Items l, 2 and 3.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT EIR-87-2 - OTAY RIO BUSINESS PARK
Taken out of sequence. See page 2.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT EIR-87-4 - PLAZA BONITA APARTMENTS
Taken out of sequence. See page 6.
Planning Commission -2- June 10, 1987
3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-87-40M - REOUEST TO CONTINUE
AN EXISTING AUIO RECYCLING YARD LOCATED AT 150 CENTER STREET - STANDARD
AUTO RECYCLING
Taken out of sequence. See page 9.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-87-39M - REOUEST TO ALLOW
CONTINUANCE OF AN RV STORAGE LOT LOCATED AT 1383 BROADWAY
- BROADWAY EQUITIES
Assistant Planner Schilling noted that the applicant had requested continuance
of their major use permit until the meeting of July 22, 1987, and staff
concurs as long as the continuance is to a date certain.
MSUC {Tugenberg/Fuller) to continue item PCC-87-39M to the meeting of July 22,
1987.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-87-28M REQUEST TO REDUCE NUMBER OF
REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING AND
WAREHOUSE LOCATED AT 1650 INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD RTA
INTERNATIONAL
Assistant Planner Schilling stated that the applicant for the variance request
was requesting a continuance to the meeting of July 8, 1987 and that staff
also concurs with the request.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Fuller) to continue the variance request ZAV-87-28M to the
meeting of July 8, 1987.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT EIR-87-2 - OTAY RIO BUSINESS PARK
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated that the Draft EIR on the project
had been issued for public and agency 45-day review period on April 23, 1987.
Per the State Clearinghouse this afternoon, letters are being sent from the
Department of Fish and Game, Department of Conservation and Department of
Water Resources and CALTRANS. The contents of the letters are unknown but
they will be included in the Final EIR with the appropriate response or
modification to the text of the Final EIR. The Resource Conservation
Commission reviewed and recommended that the EIR be certified and that it was
prepared in compliance with CEOA. The Commission was furnished, prior to the
meeting, with a letter from the City of San Diego received after the packets
had been delivered and which would be included in the Final EIR also.
Planning Commission -3- June lO, 1987
Coordinator Reid commented that he would like to present some of the very
preliminary staff positions regarding the project itself which evolved out of
the issues in the EIR, the review of the tentative maps and other requests
about the traffic capacities in the vicinity of the project. Otay Valley
Road, which is the primary and only access to the project is a two-lane road
with a very limited capacity in that vicinity and staff feels that only
development of Unit I should be supported at this time. Furthermore, the
average daily traffic (ADT) on Otay Valley Road should be monitored and when
the ADT reaches a level of 7,500, no more building permits be issued within
the subdivision. He pointed out that there are various residential
developmen~ on the southern end of the subdivision that gain access to the
City of San Diego in areas where there are no existing approved tentative
maps. Great concern has been expressed about development in that area because
of sensitive habitat and the conflict with the Otay Mesa Community Plan;
therefore, staff considers the zoning of that property for residential use to
be premature. The recommendation being made is that the public hearing be
held and consideration of the Final EIR be scheduled for June 24th which is
when the project is scheduled for Commission consideration. He then
introduced Christine Keller from Keller Environmental Association to present
the findings of the EIR.
Christine Keller, Keller Environmental Association, Inc., 964 Fifth Ave., Ste
535, San Diego, stated that subdivision of the 210-acre site is proposed with
79 lots to light industrial development, 49 lots to single-family residential,
1 lot for park and natural riparian open space and 1 lot for open space.
Development, subject to City approval of the precise plan would occur at a
later stage. The precise plan would detail the mitigation requirements
including landscaping, signs, setbacks, etc. Each subsequent developer would
comply with the precise plan which the City would check development against.
Requested is a General Plan Amendment from Low-Density Residential and Park
and Open Space to Research and Limited Industrial and Medium-Density
Residential and Open Space. Secondly, a rezone from A-8 (Agriculture) and F-1
(Floodway) to Limited Industrial Precise Plan Residential 1, F-1 (Floodway)
and A-8 (Agriculture). Third, approval of a tentative subdivision map.
The EIR was initially prepared reviewing 20 different issues and significant
impacts were found in the area of geology because of the proposed development
from land slides and encroachment into a mineral resource Zone 2; in
biological resources in riparian areas; to archeology because surface
artifacts were initi'ally identified through site visits; land use due to the
rapidly changing land-use pattern and development; and potent-~l impact to
water and sewer services, public schools and traffic.
The Chillingworth Corporation therefore revised their proposal to mitigate
significant impacts; namely, they eliminated development from the land slide
area; conducted further sub-surface geotechnical investigations into the
quality of the sand and gravel areas in the mineral resource Zone 2 (the
investigation indicated the resources were not of a commercial quality);
eliminated development from the riparian area (less than 1 acre would now be
disturbed); and conducted intensive archeological surveys over the entire
Planning Commission -4- June 10, 1987
site. They also negotiated with the City of San Diego, the Otay Municipal
Water District regarding provision of water and sewer and divided the project
into two phases to mitigate potential traffic problems as well as impact to
schools and other public facilities. Since that revised EIR was submitted for
public review, several changes have occurred; including dealing with potential
problems in widening the road on Otay Valley because of impacts on the
sensitive species as well as the City of San Diego's indicated opposition to
developments in their jurisdiction (including Robinhood Ridge) until the Brown
Field Master Plan is completed and the contours and compatible land uses
identified in that area.
Herman Basmaciyan, Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc., Transportation and Traffic
Engineering Consultant, noted that the traffic related impacts have been
evaluated within two contexts; namely, (1) long-term growth and development in
the area (assuming that the planned circulation system growth rate would be in
place); and (2) hypothetically superimposing the entire project over the
existing traffic levels (assuming the entire project would be superimposed
immediately on the existing roadway and traffic). The project generation is
anticipated to represent an increase of about 10,000 over the General Plan
designation; however, in the context of the planned area circulation system
and overall growth and development, there would be no incapacity for
operational causes. The key issue would be the impact of the
project-generated traffic when added to current traffic on Otay Valley Road.
With no improvements made to that road, the total traffic (16,000 ADT) would
exceed the carrying capacity of the present road, which in accordance with
City standards allows 5,000 vehicles daily at LOS "C". The County, in
comparison, estimates LOS "C" to be in the order of 7,100 ADT. Mr. Basmaciyan
pointed out that the daily traffic is a function of many things, and that for
the prevailing roadway and traffic conditions in the area, a value of 7,000 to
8,000 might be more appropriate. Monitoring traffic on Otay Valley Road is
consistent with the findings of the traffic study as to the level of traffic
that can be supported without improvement to Otay Valley Road.
In reply to questions by Commissioner Tugenberg, Mr. Basmaciyan replied that
the traffic from both Phase I and Phase II had been hypothetically
superimposed; that most of the traffic from developments on the north side of
Otay Lakes Road, as well as the proposed Otay Rio Business Park, are expected
to be oriented to and from the west and will not affect the bridge crossing;
the added traffic from Otay Mesa developments traversing Heritage Road was not
considered because the location of the developments was not yet known.
In reply to Commissioner Cannon's query about the 5,000 ADT capacity suggested
by the City and the 50 percent increase in capacity proposed during the
presentation, Mr. Basmaciyan confirmed that the traffic study indicated the
7,000 level would be more appropriate for the type of roadway and traffic
conditions prevailing on Otay Lakes Road and the reasons were contained wi thin
the study.
Planning Commission -5- June 10, 1987
Commissioner Green referenced the noise problems between Robinhood Point and
Hyspan and asked why with the proximity of residential to light industrial in
this project was not addressed in the EIR. Director Krempl answered that the
houses in Point Robinhood had been in the area prior to Hyspan and the noise
regulations put into effect since that time are intended to ameliorate the
problems of proximity between residential and industrial.
Commissioner Shipe was informed that the traffic mix anticipated would consist
of regular passenger vehicles with truck traffic in the order of 3 to 5
percent of the total.
Commissioner Cannon requested the Commission be provided with a traffic
analysis based on the Chula Vista standard for a road capacity of 5,000. The
applicant agreed.
Commissioner Tugenberg called the attention of the Planning Commission to the
City of San Diego's report which indicated a volume of 56,000 ADT on Otay
Valley Road at build-out which exceeds the recommended maximum desirable ADT
of 40,000 for a six-lane street. Environmental Coordinator Reid said the
Final EIR would address that statement and Mr. Basmaciyan interjected that the
City of San Diego's reference in this context is to long-term traffic and not
the superimposition of the project alone.
Commissioner Cannon retorted that it was necessary to look at the long-term
livability of the City, not just project by project and that it was time the
two Cities got together and figured out how we were all going to live together.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Anthony Ambrose, HCH and Associates, 4877 Viewridge Ave., San Diego, 92123,
representing the Chillingworth Corporation, noted that concerns about the
traffic were shared; the project had been planned with the idea of being
virtually self-contained because of the commercial uses Ibanking, food
servicing, recreational facilities) provided. He added that Mr. Gill as well
as Mr. Bob McCrary from Chillingworth Corporation were present and available
for questioning.
Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, CV, asked whether the threshold would be the
"line on the map" or the actual traffic count. Mr. Reid replied that any
issuance of building permits for construction with Unit I would be keyed to an
on-going monitoring of the traffic on Otay Valley Road. When that reaches a
certain threshold, no more building permits would be issued, even if it were
to be Phase 1. Mr. Watry expressed his approval that the actual count, not
the estimated count would be used.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) to continue this item to the meeting of June 24th for
consideration of the Final EIR.
Plannin9 Commission -6- June 10, 1987
Commissioner Cannon said he would like to compliment Keller Environmental on
the preparation of the EIR. He would like to see, however, from a planning
and environmental review standpoint when the roads were going to be built so
that the phases could proceed. He would like to see something a little more
concrete--10 years, 5 years, or even 3 years from now and at what levels--a
four-lane road, a six-lane road.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT EIR-87-4 - PLAZA BONITA APARTMENTS
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid said the DRAFT EIR was issued on May 5,
1987, had a 30-day review period through the State Clearinghouse because the
only commenting agency anticipated was CalTrans. However, the only agency
commenting was Park and Water Resources with the basic comments submitted on
all EIRs. The Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) reviewed the document
and the project also; it was their recommendation that the Commission not
certify the EIR because it would be recommending denial of the project and
thus a final EIR would not be needed. Their reasons for recommending denial
were based on the project density, traffic conditions in the area, the timing
of the General Plan Amendment relative to the overall update of the General
Plan, the Bonita Road Traffic Corridor Study, the aesthetic impact on the
Gateway to the City of Chula Vista and the traffic noise. Staff's
recommendation is to hold the public hearing and schedule the Final EIR for
consideration on June 24th.
Marsha Gross, RBR and Associates, 233 A St., Ste 804, San Diego, 92101, stated
the proposed project featured a 96-unit apartment on a 4.6 acre site with
on-site parking for 161 vehicles and 24 spaces underneath the buildings.
Access would be gained from two driveways off Bonita Road with no access
directly from "E" Street. Discretionary actions necessary to implement the
project included a General Plan Amendment from Medium to High-Density
Residential, a rezone from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to R-3 (Apartment
Residential), a precise plan, a grading permit and a design review. A
tentative subdivision map to subdivide airspace might be required at a later
date if the units were to be sold as condos.
The EIR focused on seven issues identified by City Staff during the Initial
Study as potentially significant; namely, (1) transportation access, (2)
noise, (3) land use, (4) land form aesthetics, (5) community infrastructure,
(6) geology/ soils, and (7) hydrology/groundwater. She then summarized the
impacts and mitigation measures for six of the issues and outlined the
alternatives to the proposed action.
James Federhart, Federhart and Associates, 2321 Marina Blvd, S.D., informed
the Commission that the existing traffic had been analyzed at the critical
intersections, (1) the west intersection of the ramps at 1-805 and Bonita (at
LOS "F") and (2) the east ramp at the borderline of LOS "C" and "D", plus
addition of cumulative traffic projections of approved developments not yet
generating traffic. Mr. Federhart explained that the completion of SR-54 with
its direct connections will be freeway-to-freeway and will eliminate present
Planning Commission -7- June lO, 1987
diamond ramps at I-5 and "E", the easterly traffic and present intervening
signals. People coming south on I-5 will be taking SR-54 to 1-805 instead of
coming south on I-5 and taking "E" Street across.
Commissioner Shipe expressed concern over possible congestion of Highway 54
and the backing up of traffic to the east.
Concerns expressed by the Commission included: (1) possible congestion of
Highway 54 and resultant backing up of traffic to the east; (2) the short
distance between exiting the 1-805 westbound ramp and Bonita Glen Road, which
with the addition of a second exit ramp going west on "E" will limit the
distance to make a left-hand turn to Bonita Glen to about 45 feet; (3) the
traffic in and out of the proposed complex would be directly onto Bonita
Street causing traffic to back up on that street, which, in turn, will cause
the signal to stay green longer because of the amount of traffic~ thereby
backing up the traffic on street further up the hill Furthermore, with
stoppage of traffic at each of the signals, cars will stack up further onto
the freeway so that when the signal turns green to exit the freeway, the wait
at the intersection for the freeway traffic to exit will be even longer. Each
instance will cause more backup of traffic on "E" Street; (4) at what point
would would a determination be made that there is a significant impact on the
property; (5) and the need for the mitigation measures to be more specific.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Carol Freno, 3703 Alta Loma Drive, Bonita, speaking as a member of Crossroads,
voiced concern on the need to bus children to other schools thus depriving
them of the benefit of all after-school activities; the magnitude the proposed
project on a road that has been designated "scenic" and a "Gateway to Chula
Vi sta".
Alan Perry, 225 Broadway, San Diego, representing the applicant stated there
are two other consultants present to answer any questions.
Other speakers in opposition were: (1) Larry Pride, 16 Bonita Road, CV; Peter
Watry, 82 Second Ave., CV; (3) Thomas Balestrieri, 76 Bonita Road, CV; (4) Bob
Swift, 36 Bonita Road, CV; (5) Jim Burley, 6500 San Miguel Road, representing
the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association; (6) Louise Joseph, 36 Sandalwood
Drive, CV: (7) Rosalee Mason, 38 Toyon Lane, CV; (8) Maynard Joseph, 36
Sandalwood Drive, CV; (9) Raymond Prisbylla, 75 Bonita Road, CV; (lO) Helen
Little, 271 Rogan Road, CV; (ll) Therese Vezina, 31 Toyon Lane; CV. Their
concerns included: (1) Traffic build-up on "E" Street~ chose area because of
school qualifications, does not want busing; increase of speeders; devaluation
of property by rezoning; and concern over apartment-generated traffic.
(2) Location of project is absurd; the EIR is the most "creative" he has ever
reviewed; the EIR says that after the completion of Highway 54 that traffic is
expected to drop from 23,000 per day to 13,000 yet in all his figuring he can
not imagine more than 2,000 cars now tak~,nEg,, "E" Street who would take 54 and
it is wrong to consider that traffic on Street will ever be less than it
is today; the £IR says the LOS at Bonita Road is "B", yet the pictures he was
Plannin9 Commission -8- June lO, 1987
submitting showed traffic backed up from the freeway past Bonita Glen, past
Flower and up the hill and those taken on May 8th show traffic backed up past
Hilltop toward First Avenue - which to him indicates a LOS "D" condition
described as"a zone of increasing restriction approaching instability at the
intersection", (3) There are already three stop lights within 1-1/2 blocks and
the project proposes a fourth; an article in the paper states, "..if land use
regulations go too far, (cities) could be liable for damages". (4) The land
use and land form are in strong conflict with the single-family medium density
neighborhood and will reduce the quality of living; visual corridors are only
open spaces between buildings} the project should be denied and the property
developed at no greater than the R-1 zoning at which it is currently zoned.
(5) No changes to the planning and zoning rules at the present time with the
present study in progress (that the City is helping pay for)~ the traffic
situation at "E" and 1-805 is at gridlock now. (6) When will the connecting
road between the two highways be in; against busing children; parents in the
school to which children are bussed resent the intrusion. (7) The EIR speaks
of special building materials to reduce the noise for the Plaza Bonita
apartment residents but nothing is said about the noise levels along Bonita
Road; the buildings are too massive, the eucalyptus trees won't even be
visible with such massive buildings; no good social impacts can come from such
high density; will miss the foxes and hawks and the great horned owl in the
area. (8) The old Bonita Road that goes up to First Avenue can't be widened
after Hilltop Drive, there's no room for it; Stafford Gardner in their January
meeting told the nearby residents they were lucky only 96 units were going in
because it could have been doubled; it is just a money-making project which
will congest the area and make it less livable. (9) Scenic highway doesn't
mean two massive buildings on either side of the road~ the EIR uses vague
language that is not defined, such as, "sufficient amount of landscaping";
questioned the future growth in the area for the land where the church (which
is for sale) is located; also, will the lot on the north side of 1-805 which
according to the General Plan is high density, be used for apartments to add
more pressure and traffic; (10) There comes a time in a community when the
members need to say no; those who live in the area now can't go any further,
it is necessary to do what is good for the people now; stability means a lot
to children; let's keep the nice community we have;---Ill) Traffic is so bad I
can't get out of Toyon Lane; I'm trying to sell my home but no one wants to
live with the traffic, the property has depreciated al ready.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) to continue the item to the meeting of June 24, 1987.
Commissioner Cannon added that, before consideration of the Final EIR, he
would like to see in the EIR when the improvements are going to be made to the
intersection at 1-805.
8:55 - 9:00 p.m. - The Commission recessed.
Planning Commission -9- June lO, 1987
3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-87-40M - REQUEST TO CONTINUE
AN EXISTING AUTO RECYCLING YARD LOCATED AT 150 CENTER
STREET - STANDARD AUTO RECYCLING
Assistant Planner Schilling said this requestistocontinue an existing auto
dismantling yard in operation since 1959, under a Major Use Permit by the
County of San Diego and which expired on April 27, 1987. The site is
approximately 3.37 acres, contains a storage yard and a 26,400 square foot
metal building used partially for parts storage with the remainder of the
building leased by a tenant for boat manufacturing. The site is served by a
21-space parking lot. A proposed landscaping/irrigation plan has been
submitted along with the Major Use Permit application which has been approved
with minor modifications by the City Landscape Architect. Since the use has
been in operation under the City's jurisdiction, Zoning Enforcement has
received no complaints regarding the manner in which the business had been
conducted. Staff has noted that the conditions of approval originally granted
by the County appear to have been complied with except for the storage of
wrecked autos in the front parking lot.
The business has been informed that open storage can only occur within the
parts' building or in the storage yard. Aside from this, staff is
recommending approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report.
Three following issues are a concern to staff: (1) Condition "e" requires the
applicant to submit a revised sign plan showing which part of the site area is
engaged in the boat-manufacturing operation. This will allow staff to
determine if there are conflicts between the two land uses and if there is
sufficient on-site parking for both uses. (2) Condition "a" requires the
applicant to show there is legal access to the site from the corner of Center
Street and Britton Avenue where the public street ends and the apparent
private easement begins since that easement represents sole access to this
site and to 151 Center Street. There is an apparent private easement on which
the County required street improvements from Jack Stanley, Standard Auto
Recycling~but there is no reference in available records that any irrevocable
offers to dedicate were ever received from the property owners to the north of
the site or any record of a private easement being granted to these property
owners through this site.
The easement, however, has been used by the applicant, since 1959 and also by
the adjacent wrecking yard. Once records are produced to show legal access,
street improvements may be required either by the Engineering or Planning
Department. The easement is paved at this time and there is a turnaround at
the end of the street.
Staff members of the Montgomery Planning Committee are recommending that the
permit be granted for a period of time not to exceed 2 years or 90 days after
adoption of the Montgomery Specific Plan, whichever comes first. The purpose
of the short time period is to allow the use to continue on an interim basis
until long-term land use questions can be addressed by the Montgomery Specific
Plan. If it is determined after the Specific Plan is adopted that auto
Planning Commission -10- June 10,
1987
dismantling operations will be permitted, then the site would need to be
reevaluated as part of the renewal of the Major Use Permit to incorporate some
of the long-term design programs to be instituted.
Commissioner Green questioned the need for the applicant to prove he has that
prestrictive easement. He was answered that the Engineering Department
requires recordation of legal access to the site.
Commissioner Fuller asked if the Montgomery Specific Plan was to be a part of
the General Plan and was answered it was a separate plan and is a condition of
the annexation of Montgomery.
Commissioner Cannon asked for clarification of the conflict between the boats
and the wrecked cars. It was answered that no conflict is known at this time,
however, the use is not shown on the site plan and staff has concern about
storage of boats in the parking lot. The Commissioner then noted that the
City may be forcing the applicant to go to Court to prove legal access. If
there is no recorded easement, then there is no private easement, so obviously
there is a prescriptive easement because they have been using continuously for
5 years. Senior Civil Engineer Daoust replied there was no intention of
forcing the applicant to go to court, the requirement was to maintain a record
of what is the existing situation and there is no record now of any provision
of an access right.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC {Green/Cannon) to find this project will have no significant
environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-5?M.
MSUC (Green/Cannon) based on findings contained in Section "E" of the staff
report, to approve the request, PCC-87-40M, to continue an existing auto
dismantling yard at 150 Center Street subject to the conditions listed with
the following changes:
a. Change the text to read: The owner shall provide information about his
right of access to the property.
e. Change text to read: Storage of boats in the parking lot will not be
permitted.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director Krempl stated that at the workshop on the 17th, there will be
representatives from each of the school districts present to discuss in some
detail school issues relating to needs, evaluation, future school planning,
financing and so forth.
Planning Commission -11- June 10,
1987
- He then introduced Rich Rudolf, the Assistant City Attorney, replacing
Charles Gill, who had the great distinction of taking on the closing of
Thad's Adult Business in the City of Chula Vista.
Commissioner Shipe welcomed Mr. Rudolf in the Commission's name.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
None
ADJOURNMENT AT 9:15 p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of June 17, 1987 at 5:00
p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3
Ruth M. Smith, Secretary
Planning Commission
WPC 4210P