Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1960-05-24; Planning Commission; Minutes1- 2- 3- 4 - 5- ~ ~~ _- 4 MINUTES OF REGULAR PiEZTING 0% CARLSBAD CITY PU”lNING COMMISSION May 24, 1960 me meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Stringer. Present besides the Chairman were Commissioners Zahler, Ward, Thomas, Miller and Jarvie. Absent, Commissioner Netka. Cornmissioner Jarvie moved and Commissioner Thornas seconded that the minutes of the meeting of May 10, 1960, be approved as submitted. All ayes, motion carried . Writ ten Communications: There were no written communications. Oral Communications: There were no oral cmunications. “.. HEARING - CONDITIONAL - Notice of hearing was notice of hearing and PERMIT - Request of Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego, Corporation Sole, for Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a parochial 5ChO01, church and structures pertinent thereto on portion of Thum Lands Tract 236. read, The Secretary certified as to the publication of the mailing of notices to property owners in the area. 0 The Secretary then read the application, as submitted by the applicant, setting forth the reasons for requesting the Conditional Use Permit on subject property. The application also stated that the property in question is in escrow at the present time and that a more exaat legal description would be presented and that a final plot plan for development of the property would be submitted for the Commission’s approval before any construction is commenced. There were three items of correspondence received: (1) Letter dated May 21, 1960, signed by George E, and Janet R. Eyre, 3819 Adams St., protesting the issuance of this Conditional Use Permit. Their reasons were that this would create a traffic problem on Pi0 Pico Dr. and that it would cause a decrease in the valuation of their property. (2) Petition dated May 21, 1960, containing 7 signatures protesting the placement of a parochial school and church on said property. (3) Letter dated May 24, 1960, signed by Mrs. John R. Keenan, opposing the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit as requested, the reasons being that this would create a dangerous traffic hazard and it would lower the evaluation of their property, MR. PAUL SWUISKK, representing the applicant, stated that the fact that the surrounding property is residential does not exclude considering it for a church and parochial school, He stated that this is the purpose of a Conditione- Use Permit. He pointed out that it is a real problem to find an available site large enough for a school and that for this parochial school it is necessary for the site to be located close enough for walking traffic, as they do not anticipate any type of bus service. He further pointed out that this would certainly be compatible with the area as it exists, since the adjacent property is being utilized by another church. n He stated that the appj iC?i-tt was un?5le to pi'e::c-ln+. 2 detailed plot plan Of their proposed development at this tin:, klt i:h:tC they will definitely be meting all requirements of the City's 0~2ii~tlW~S. 'Ihe applicant wishes it to be clearly understood that the Permit be granted an the condition that a final plot plan be presented to the Cmissionfm its approval before any construction is started, Mr. Swirsky also stated that: there are many large blocks in Carlsbad which present a usage problem. In this Case the epplicant is acquiring all of the property in the center of the block, thus eliminating this problem. He stated that Father O'Dwyer would be happy to answer any questions regarding the application. MR. HENRY MSZEAUX, 1148 Las Flores, stated that he did not want to discuss the rise and fall of property values resulting from the establishment of a school, but that we have something more important to consider. Carlsbad has a serious problem in the gramrnar schools, of not being able to accommodate all students on full-day schedules, He feels that the establishment of this school would automatically release space and be of great help to the grammar schools. MRS. JOHN R. KEENAN, 1030 Tamarack Ave., stated that she has no objections to a parochial school in Carlsbad, but she does object to the location. She believes that the Church's location on Elm would be a good location for the school, since it is close to the bus and the church. She feels that a dan- gerous traffic problem would be created on Pi0 Pic0 Dr. if this application is approved as submitted . MR. GEORGE EYRE, 3819 Adams St., asked why they could not use the vacant land which they already have on Elm? MR. PAUL SWIRSM, pointed out that the property they now own on Elm only con- stitutes 1.6 acres. They do not own all of the area as many people believe. This area is not an adequate size; the property they are contemplating con- sists of 4,43 acres. Also, it has been revealed through study that the high- est use o€ the property on Elm is comnercial use. A sketch of approximately what is being considered for the area was presented to the Commission by Mr. Swirsky. The public hearing was closed at 8:OO P.M, The Commissioners discussed the matter and generally agreed that this location is a suitable one, They pointed out that Pi0 Pica Dr. is not considered a primary NortheSouth road; there is Harding St, on the West side of the Freeway and also Jefferson, They also pointed out to those who were protesting on the basis of a traffic problem and the children walking in the street, that the sketch of the area indicates sidewalks running the full length of the property and that the City's plan is to widen Tamarack to 84 feet by the time this property is developed. The Chairman also stated that the City will widen Pi0 Pic0 Dr. by 12 feet on the Ease side, due to its being, a secondary street. Commissioner Miller stated that he would like to ask one question - How is it that they are allowed to build on this site, when they do not have enough property to meet State requirements on size? The public schools must meet these requirements in order to build, and he would like to know why they are allowed to build on a substandard site. FATHER D'DWYER stated that these requirements art set forth by the Board of Education and only apply to public schools. He stated that they had been 6- searchir.g for 2-1/2 years to find a sitx thai -.]as tal:.+? enough for their pur- poses and close enough for walking traffic, He skiled that they plan to run an educational institution, not a gymnasiam. It was moved by Commissioner Ward and seconded by Cmissioner Jarvie that Resolution No. 160 be adopted, granting a Conditional Use Permit as requested by the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego, Corporation Sole, to allow the construction of a parochial school, church and structures pertinent thereto on portion of Thum Lands Tract 236, for the following reasons: Said 1, The site is well-suited to the use requested because of its central location and availability to walking traffic. 2. It would not be detrimental to the surrounding properties, since there is already a church in the imnediate area. 3, The establishment of a parochial school would tend to alleviate the crowded condition of Carlsbad's elementary schools, 4, This would be an asset to the coarunity. Conditionel Use Permit shall be issued subject to the following conditions: 1, That before any construction is campenced, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Comrrission for its spproval a final plot plan for the development of the area, which plan also includes provisions for all necessary on-site and off-site improvements. 2. That the applicant make an offer of dedication to the City of Carl&& of an adequate amount of property along Tamarack Avenue and Pia Pic0 Drive to permit the widening of these streets in accordance with the Master Plan of the City of Carlsbad. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote: AYES: Chairman Stringer, Conmisslonerd Zahler, .Ward, Thomas, Miller 6 Noes: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Netka. Jarvie, Resolution No, 160 adopted. Request of Donald Briggs, Jr. for reduction of front yard from 20 feet to 2 feet; reduction of rear yard from 20 feet to no rear yard and the increase of the side yards from 10 feet to 15 feet, on portion of Tract No. 2, Laguna Mesa Tracts. Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified as to the publication of notice of hearing and the mailing of notices to property owners in the area. The Secretary then read the application submitted by the owner setting forth the reasons for requesting the variance, The Secretary pointed out that the variance is being requested on 3 adjoining lots. There were several items of correspondence received on this matter, which were read by the Secretary: (1) Letter dated May 20, 1960, from George T. McDonald of 2363 Jefferson, urging favorable consideration by the Planning Comnission of the application for the following reasons: (ai A variance was gro*:t.ed in the past for the building of 2 residences on the sam side of Jefferson; (b) Granting the variance would be in keeping with progress and the beautification of the City. (2) Letter dated May 21, 1960, from the applicant to the City Manager, request- ing an opinion from the City Traffic Safety Committee or Police Department as to the effect this variance would have on traffic. The reply from U. Max Palkowski, Chief of Police, stated that an investi- gation revealed that no hazard would be created by the proposed variance. (3) Petition dated May 23, 1960, containing 2 signatures, protesting the granting of said variance for the following reasons: (a) The setback of 2 feet violates any past rezoning of the Planning Commission in regard to setbacks on main thoroughfares; (b) In the widening of Jefferson St., the hazard to any homes built in this area would be serious; (c) There is a hazard of curve approach to occupants of dwellings; (d) The dwelling on adjoining property was built several years ago under County jurisdiction; (e) The present street usage does not designate the true street and could be misleading to future purchasers. (4) Petition dated May 23, 1960, identical to item (3) above, containing 2 signatures of members of the Buena Vista Lagoon Assn, (5) Letter from D. R. Dfnius expressing the hope that the variance would be granted for the following reasons: (a) Development of property in question would change an unsightly eroded cliff into a residential area of great beauty; (b) The improvement would benefit the community as a whole; (c) All costs of future improvements on Jefferson St. in this area would be reduced to present Owners by including this 400' of frontage in pro-rating costs; (d) the type of Construction necessary to develop this area will be a beautifying addition EO the entire community. DON BRIGGS, JR., applicant, presented some large maps of the property. He stated that he had talked with many people in the area, who did not wish to become interested parties and sign their names to anything, however, there were 8 assents to the variance. MRS. IVA GROBER, 2366 Jefferson, stated that she was trying to decide why the applicant is asking for no rear yard. One may assume that he plans to reverse the usual frontage on Jefferson Street to the rear yard. This would be a mora serious hazard than the 2 feet requested for the front yard. She also stated that with the house and garage built so close to the street, the City would be put to great expense for the widening of Jefferson St. She continued, saying that when sewers were put in, this particular piece of property was declared of no value or usage and the sewer was never paid for on this property because it was felt it could never be used. Also, this piece of property went without paying any taxes for many years for the same reason. Mrs. Grober stated that she assumes he is asking for no rear yard in order to have the house fronting on the ocean instead of Jefferson St. with the garage right next to the street. She said that the present aparent size of Jefferson St. is misleading and that it is hardly 30' wide, making backing in and out on that street dangerous. She stated that when traffic is heavy, they cannot get out of their driveway. If YOU have cars backing out from 3 houses, this would create a real hazard. -4- MRS. LAURA SHAW, 2034 Lincoln St., Oceanside, spe~qking on behalf of the Buena Vista Lagoon'Assn., stated 'that their property adjoins this property in question. She stated that the Lagoon Association had not received a notice of this hearing. She said'that they were concerned about the road leading down from this property. This road is now vacated and is the only entrance of the Association to the water. They will be needing this road and are eager that property in this vacated road not become involved in any proceedings. MR. GEORGE A, GROBER, 2366 Jefferson, stated that he was personally against putting anything there because of the traffic hazard. MRS. WILLIAM H. MARTIN, 1100 Las Flores, stated that she does not object so much to traffic hazard, but when they bought their property, they were told that no buildings could be put in front of them, because the property had no value. Why should some speculator come in and put some houses in there against all planning rules. Why shouldn't everyone abide by these rules? MRS. FRAN PINCKNEY, 2386 Jefferson, stated she lives directly in back of this property, She is very proud of the view they now have; they have put $50,000 into their home and they do not want to have to look down in the back yard of this property. DON BRIGGS, JR. stated that, according to an opinion from the City Hall, the road could not be used. He has title and fee policy with the exception of the right to use that 20 feet. He would like to have that 20 feet counted as rear yard set back, leaving 45 feet on the narrowest lot between Carlsbad Road and Jefferson, He would still be 20 feet from the rear of the property. As fer as putting in sewers and the value of the property, he paid what he considered a lot of money for that frontage. He pointed out that many times land has been set down as of no value and then oil or other things are dis- covered on it, He stated that hillside building can be regarded as very beautiful, He said that there really isn't any difference between front yard and rear yard, both should be beautiful. He would have 2 front yards and no back yard. He has planned a W*' shaped driveway for the front, which will not necessitate backing out onto the street; it will provide a drive-thru situation, with a turn-around area at one end. He is increasing the side yards to 15 feet to prove his intention as to the type of development he has planned, He could get more lots out of the property with smaller side yards. Mr. Briggs brought out 8 scale model of the house he intended to build on the most northerly of the 3 lots, and a discussion of the model was engaged in by all interested parties. MRS. FRAN PINCKNEY, asked how they could know what he intended to build on the other 2 lots. DON BRIGGS, JR., pointed out that one could never know what would go on a vacant lot. However, he did not feel that anyone would pay what he was asking for the lots just to build a shack on them. MRS. IVA GROBER said that according to the ordinance, having 15 foot side yards would mean 30 foot set back in the rear. It seemed to her that Mr. Briggs was changing the whole ordinance. FIR. GEORGE GROBER stated that he cannot see how anything could be built on the lots. It would have to hang in the sky. ” I 8 The public hearing was closed at 8:55 P.M. The Secretary stated to Mrs. Shaw that the Buena Vista Lagoon Assn. was notified of the hearing; the notice was sent in care of Mr. C. Fennel, P. 0. Box 305, which is the name and address given in the Tax Assessor‘s roll. He pointed out that this is the record that we are required by law to follow in sending out the notices. Considerable discussion was given the matter. Conmissioner Jarvie stated that he had gone up and looked at the property and had not been able to figure out how anything could be built on it, but now he was certainly convinced that it could be used. He feels that the Commission should grant the variances on one lot at a time as more or less a safeguard to the other property owners in the area. He felt it would certainly be an improvement over the patch of weeds there now. Chairman Stringer stated that he felt this should be treated in the same manner as beach and water front property. Commissioner Zahler moved, seconded by Commissioner Jarvie, that the variance be granted as requested on the most northerly of the 3 lots only, for the following reasons: 1. Similar variances have been granted on beach front property where the topography precludes construction with normal set backs. 2. That granting the variance would permit the best use of the land, due to the extreme topography. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Zahler, Thomas, Miller lu Jarvie. NOES: Chairman Stringer, Commissioner Ward. ABSENT: Conmissioner Netka. The motion failed to pass for lack of a 2/3 majority vote of the Commission, Mr. Briggs stated that he felt he had been turned down due to lack of agree- ment on the number of lots the variance would be granted on--just one or all 3-- and asked for a reconsideration of his application on the basis of including all 3 lots. Commissioner Jarvie stated that he did not understand why the Chairman had voted against granting the variance on one lot, when he was in favor of granting it on all 3. Chairman Stringer stated that the Commission has been fronted with a lot of piece-meal proposals. A lot of study and work has gone into this and he does not feel that they should just do the job half-way. Commissioner Zahler stated that it was his opinion that they had not acted on the request as submitted by the applicant, which request was for a variance on all 3 lots. The Secretary pointed out that the motion had not covered the whole appli- cation and they had not denied the variance on the other 2 lots. -6- c It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Zahler that Resolution No. 161 be adopted granting the variance on all 3 lots as re- quested by Donald Briggs, Jr. in his application, for the following reasons: 1. That granting the variance would permit the best use of the land, due to the extreme topography. 2. That similar variances have been granted on beach front property where the topography precludes construction with normal set backs. 3. That granting the variance would not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote: AYES: Chairman Stringer, Commissioners Zahler, Thomas, Miller. NOES: Commissioners Ward and Jarvie. ABSENT: Commissioner Netka. The variance was denied due to lack of a 2/3 majority vote. Commissioner Jarvie stated that he had cast a no vote because he felt the Commission should act on one lot at a time. Mr. Briggs stated that he had no objection to having just one lot at a time considered. A ten-minute recess was called at 9:20 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:30 P.M. 7- CONTINUED HEARING RECLASSIFICATION - Request for change of ,zone from R-1 and R-P to M of certain properties lying westerly of a proposed street running north and south between Tamarack and Chestnut, the centerline of said street being 260' easterly of the A.T. & S.F. Railroad right-of-way, and of certain parcels lying easterly of said proposed street from R-1 and R-P to R-3, said requests being made by D, R. Dinius and by the Carlsbad City Planning Commission by its Resolution of Intention No. 15. The Secretary reviewed what had transpired on the matter. The application sub- .mitted by the owner was then read, setting forth the reasons for requesting the reclassification. The Secretary then read Resolution of Intention No. 15, adopted by the Planning Commission on April 12, 1960. The correspondence which had been received on the matter for the original hearing was re-read by the Secretary, and then several items of new correspondence which had been received were read: (1) Six identical petitions, dated May 12, 1960, protesting the reclassification, bearing some 106 signatures. (2) Letter dated May 21, 1960, from Richard R. Coe, submitting an alternate proposal for the zone changes and proposed street. The Chairman stated that this particular area had been the subject of several hearings and that several plans had been turned down because they would have constituted spot zoning rather than a plan for the entire area. He stated that at the hearing on April 26, 1960, when Mr. Koyl had requested B : continu- ation of the hearing, he had stated that he would come'in with another plan for the entire area which also included a street. Therefore, the Chairman '0 asked Mr. Koyl for his plan. -7- MR. ARCHIE KOYL presented a map to the Chairman, stating that this was the plan which majority of the people in the area favored. The Chairman stated that this map would be studied at the conclusion Of the public hearing. MR. D. R. DINIUS, applicant, stated that he would like to point out several facts about this matter. He stated that this is the largest piece of un- developed land between the Freeway and the ocean within the City Limits. He has, over the past 4 years, considered several plans for developing the area, and several plans had been turned down because there was no plan for the entire area. He feels that this plan is the most feasible and practical for development of the area. Mr. Dinius stated that there had been a good deal of misrepresentation regarding his intent for the use of the property. He said that he has no definite comnitments of any kind as to what will be put in; he has no intention of putting in a rubber plant or slaughter house, or any other similar operation. What he ha5 in mind is an electronics or soft-goods type of industry. He continued, saying that the M zoning above this area is in its present state due to lack of planning. That area was developed as individual pieces of property, whereas the area now under consideration could be developed as a whole. This is the only plan he has been able to work out for the extension of Tyler Street, which extension would certainly benefit the entire City. MR. P. A. CLOUD, 271 Redwood, stated that when Mr. Dinius purchased this prop- erty it was landlocked, and this was his responsibility. He stated that making this an M zone would be detrimental to the property owners throughout the whole area, and that if Mr. Dinius were a local resident, he would realize this. He stated that the City had spent $35,000 of the taxpayers' money for a Master Plan; why aren't they using this for the guide to development? He stated that he does not feel it is very likely that an electronics plant would come into this area because it is an out-of-the-way location. Furthermore, to connect a 50' street to Tamarack, which will be widened to 80'~would certainly create a traffic hazard; there is enough traffic now, without making an M zone to create more. This would be a serious hazard to children walking on Tamarack to and from school. DR. W. I. GULLETT, 250 Tamarack, stated that creating a manufacturing area right next to a school could lead to a situation like New York has, with the school surrounded by industrial establishments, and he does not believe that children should go to school in an area like this. He stated that he feels the number of signatures on the petitions of protest speak more eloquently than anything that could be said. MR. WILLIAM HUNTIMER, 371 Redwood,.sfated that if the reclassification becomes effective, they have no way of knowing what will go in there. He said that there are children walking on that street all day long and the traffic created would be a danger to them. MR. C. T. POWELL, 330 Redwood, said that he felt that the type of residences that would go in the buffer zone between the M zone and the school are the type we are trying to protect our children from. Furthermore, how can school be conducted with all the noise of industry right next to it? MRS. RICHARD JOHNSON, 260 Tamarack, stated that when they bought their home 3 years ago, they were told that Tamarack was going to be widened and sidewalks installed; they are still waiting for this to take place. However, even if -8- this is accomplished, children still ride their bikes in the street. There have been a lot of animals killed on this street already, and with more traffic it could create tragedy. MRS. WILLIAM HUNTIMER, 371 Redwood, said that it was her opinion that if manufacturing went in, they would have to put in more railroad tracks. MR. JACK HUGHES, 290 Redwood, stated that it appeared to him that there is only one man in favor of the reclassification. ms, PAULINE POWELL, 330 Redwood, said she would be in favor of something such as a stationery store being established there, but not manufacturing right next to the school. MR. C. T. POWELL asked how closely the Master Plan is being followed. Why aren't we following it? MR. D, R. DINIUS, stated that there could certainly be no dispute with people worried about the traffic on Tamarack being a danger to the children. However, there is a plan to widen Tamarack, making it a main thoroughfare, so whether or not this property is developed, there will be heavy traffic on Tamarack, At this point in the hearing, the Commission took time out to study the new plan submitted by Mr. Koyl, and also the alternate plan submitted by Mr. Coe. Chairman Stringer directed a question to Mr. Koyl, stating that the petitions which had been circulated in his favor stated that those signing it were against any extension of Tyler Street, and yet this new plan showed a street in this general area. The Chairman asked Mr, Koyl if he would go along with a 1911 Act to open up this street, MR. ARCHIE KOYL stated that he would not go along with a 1911 Act, as it would cost 35% more to put in a street under it. He said that if Mr. Dinius owns 60% of the area, then let him pay for putting in the street across his own properties and he will pay for a street across his property when he puts it in. Commissioner Jarvie stated that they had continued the hearing to this date in order to have something to work with, and the Cmission had hoped that those involved would agree on a compromise plan. He asked Mr. Dinius what he thought of this new plan which Mr. Koyl had presented. MR. DINIUS strated that this was the first he knew of the plan and that he would not trust any plan which Mr. Koyl might have because Mr. Koyl had stated at the time his application was before the Commission that he had no objection to M zoning on part of his parcels nor to a street, Then, after Mr. Koyl's application was turned down, he suddenly began to object to everything- The public hearing was closed at 10:SO P.M. Chairman Stringer asked the Secretary to clarify the point of just what could go in the area if it were zoned R-3. The Secretary stated that the Zoning Ordinance provides for the building of as many structures in an R-3 zone as are desired, as long as they do not cover over 60% of the total lot area, and provided 1200 sq, ft. are allowed per dwelling unit. Commissioner Jarvie stated that he wanted to repeat his statement which he made at the last hearing on this matter, that he believes the public. voice is a safety factor in making any decision. -9- Commissioner Zahler stated that several months ago Mr. Koyl had been asked for a map showing sidewalks, curbs, gutters and other improvements to accom- pany his application for R-3 zoning. However, they had never seen such a plan showing improvements. Mr. Koyl said that he had presented such a pian at the very first hearing on the reclassification of this property. The plan was drawn up by Mr. Don Holly, using the Master Plan of the City as a guide. However, he had been immediately cut off on this plan by a proposal to re-zone 200 feet of his property adjacent to the railroad to M zone. The Secretary stated that this plan, drawn up by Mr. Don Holly, had been before the Commission at the time Mr. Koyl's application was considered. The Secre- tary also pointed out that such a plan should have nothing to do with the rezoning of an area; the rezoning of an area and the subdivision of an area are two separate and distinct matters. There is no provision to assure the Cammission or anyone else that such a map will be carried out. The rezoning should be considered on the basis of what zone the property is best suited for, not on the basis of a subdivision map, A period of considerable discussion followed on this matter, after which Commissioner Zahler moved, seconded by Cornmissioner Thomas, that Resolution No. 162 be adopted denying the request of D. R. Dinius for reclassification from Zone R-1 and Zone R-P to Zone M, in view of the overwhelming opposition. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Zahler, Ward, Thomas, Miller & Jarvie. NOES: Chairman Stringer. ABSENT: Commissioner Netka. Resolution No. 162 adopted. A motion was then made by Commissioner Zahler and seconded by Cmissioner Thomas to adopt Resolution No. 163, denying the Planning Commission's Resolu- tion of Intention No. 15 due to the overwhelming opposition. AYES: Commissioners Zahler, Ward, Thomas, Miller & Jarvie. NOES: Chairman Stringer, ABSENT: Commissioner Netka. Resolution No. 163 adopted. TENTATIVE SUBDNIS ION MAP OF LAGUNA TERRACE The Secretary submitted the tentative subdivision map of Laguna Terrace to the Commission for their review and presented proposed Resolution No. 159 incor- porating the recommendations of the various departments and agencies as con- ditions for recommending its approval. The Secretary then certified to the mailing of notices to. adjoining property owners. MRS. STEEN W. SALSEN, 789 - 28th Street, Sari Pedro, stated that she was con- cerned about the drainage of the subdivision, and asked if provisions were being made to take care of it. The Secretary explained to Mrs. Salsen that the Engineering Department had recommended that one of the conditions for approval of the tentative map be that provisions for drainage be approved by the City Engineer. Another point which was discussed was the fact that the subdivider shows one of the streets crossing lands not. owned by him, The recommendation of the Engineering Department on this point was that one of the conditions for approval of the tentative map be that an arrangement be made between the subdivider and the owner of this property for allowing the street to cross it. It was moved by Connnissioner Jarvie and seconded by Conmissioner Ward that Resolution No. 159 be adopted recommending to the City Council the approval of the tentative map of Laguna Terrace Subdivision. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote: AYES: Chairman Stringer, Commissioners Zahler, Ward, Thomas, Miller & NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Netka. Jarvi e . Resolution No, 159 adopted. 9- Old Business: - There was no old business, 10- Business: (a) Report of meeting of San Diego County Planning Congress held May 23, 1960. Due to the late hour, the Chairman announced that this report would be heard at the next meeting. 11- By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 P.M. Respectfully, J. H, PRICE Secretary -1 1-