PC 12-11-86.. CT'l.Y OF CUPER1'INO, STATE OF CAL!roRNT.A
1C300 Torre Avenue '.,
CUpertino, CA. 95014
(408) 252-4505
MlliU'"i'ES OF 'IHE RW.JlAR ADJOORNED MEETING OF THE PI.ANNmG a::MMISSION .HE.r.D ON DECEMBER 11, 198 6
Meeting Held in O.tpertino City Hall
ROLL CAIL:
commissioners Present: Chairman Szabo Vice Chainnan Mackenzie Ccmninsioner Adams Callnissioner Claudy Ccmnissianer Sorensen
staff Present: Robert Cc:Man, Dlriector of Pla?m.L'¥J & Develop.tent steve Piasecki, AE:isistant Plann.i.n;I Director
Glenn Gt·igg, Traffic En:;Jineer Charles Kilian, City Atton'ME!Y
Pe3gy M. Cocker, Attorney
ITEM 4: Continued frcan Plannim canmdssion Mseting of DeC'.ember a, 1986.
Application No(s) Ai:Plicant:
Property OWner: location:
Parcel Area (Acres)
USE PERMIT (33-U-86)
33:-U-86 ~-3~0~-~FA.~-8~6~---------Ma:rri@ CQrporation Wataru an1 Kaneyo Mine and Vallco Park, Ltd. Northwest. c.orner of Interstate 280 and Wolfe Road.
To construct arrl operate a 150 room, 3-story hotel with a 50 seat restaurant.
FIRST HEARiliG
ENVIRONMENTAL DEI'ERMINATION: Negative Declaration
TENTATIVE C.."T.I'Y a:xJNCIL HEAR.rnG Di\TE: December 15, 1986
Mr. Piasecki stated that in _response to concerns raised ~t the Meeting of
December 8, 1986, he chec.k.ed. with the 'city of sunnyvaie reqarding their City requirements. Mr. Dave Gates, Planner, stated that SUnnyvale had a minimum setback to height ratio starxiard required for canmercial
developtrent as does the City of CUpert.ino. In Sunnyvale, tiw standa.rd is. within 75 ft. of adjoinin:J residential, height of buildin1s nust be equivalent to t.he height of adjoinir¥J residential build.irqs; this standard would not apply in the present case. In cauparison, O:Ipertino has a 4: 1 ratio of setback to build.in:; height; this standaI:d wcruld not be exceed in the proposed hotel design.
PI.ANNING <XMMISSIOO MINl1I'E'3 Regular Adjoorned Meetirq of December 11, 1986
PAGE 2
PC -508
ITEM 4 (a:mt'd)
Mr. Piasecki stated that Sl.lnnyval.e's parkinj ratio is similar to CUpertino's Ol::dinanco Standard. In SUnnyvale there have be.en a number of exceptions allowe::l; for e.xample, the Sunnyvale Hilton Inn was approved with a .8 ratio.
au-. Szabo invited the PUblic to address the Planning o:rmnission.
Ms. Sally Heath, 848 Shetlard Place, sunnyval.e, stated that residents of Olateau West are required to be :pJOl association member& am noted potential liability of the pool. She reviewed restaurant and bar use which impacts the. adjacent resiaential area and ask.00 that a wall be installed divi.dirq residential fl."l::ml o::mnercial developnent.
Ms cathy Worsham, 1789 Linnet Lana, ~ivale, stated that sc:roo points had not previously been ~: ' '
1. sewer capacity: she cited an exanple frat\ the City of San Jose wherein
s:l .. ngle family haoos were flocxled frc:m a sewer back up .in an adjoining"
c:orx:klninium oatq:>lex. . 2. C..\la.lity of Life: the proposOO. hotel. will impair the quality of life t:Jy
added noise and pollution, the late hours or operation of the
restaurants ard lounge, the 24 hour operation of the hotel, 150 reams
filled with transient people. A higher pq:;W.ation brirx.Js added cri.Ioo.
Mr. H.C. Reid, 840 Shetlan::l Place, SUnnyvale, stated b response to comments made b.Y air. Szabo that he 'WaS not inf ortood cf hearin:]s on the zonirq of the property in quest~.on. other members of the audience concurred that they cUd not receive Notice. Ms. COCk.er confinrer.l that
legal noticing requirement is 300 ft. with :p.lblic noticirq in :newbJ?a~ • .Mr. Reid stated for the record that he did not receive Notice.
Secorrlly, Mr. Reid cited the assurances received that gates located at the intersection of Linnet lane and Shetland Place ~d not be opened for
traffic; Mr. Cowan oon:fix:med. that thia requirement was still in force.
In response to a question, Mr. Piasec..ld state:i that there is no plarmed access to or from Becker ct. or Linnet lane associated with the prcposal.
Mr. c. s. Harr, 829 Shetland Plar)e, Sunnyvale, noted conflict.in;! traffic patterns in reports fran Marriott arrl staff~ du-. Szabo reviewed the
function of the Plan:nin;r c:anrnission. Can. Claudy added '.:hat the canunission's corcern is to see that traffic fran the proposed project, remains directed to Wolfe Rd.; in effect, this approadl prevents traffic· fran usfn3' Linnet Lana and Becker ct.
t.
PI.ANN.rnG cn1MISSION MINlJI'ES
Regular Adjocrned ?<".eeti.rq of December ll, 1986
PAGE 3
R:: -508
ITEM 4 (Cont'd)
In response to a cx:mnent that the Traffic Er.gineer already accepted· that
the Hotel was goin::1 in, Mr. Grigg stated he 11ad accepted the fact that there will be two le:ft turn lanes at the intersection in question, regardless of the Appl:l.cation um.er oonsideration. ·
Mr. Harr reviewed the Staff Report on traffic~ pa.rk.il¥J ratios an:l premises
stated in Conclusiom. He sul:mitted that both premises were incon."E!Ct:
· 1. 'Ihe Cl.lpertin::> Inn project has no adjoinirq l:w;ineases to cause conflictin;J parking. 2. '!he Marriott project is not isolated relative to parking requirements. overflow parki.n;J al.ready e..."tists due to restaurants in the area.
In summary, he recamne.n::1ed that the cai"Gldssicn abide by the Ordinance run require 169 parkinq spaoes. au-. Szabo cutlined the ca.nmissions • procedure in eval.uat.in:J parking needs for an AR;>lication; Mr. H.arr stated that perhaps the ca:rplaint regard:i.n;:J ovm:flow parking was oot with Marriott Hot.el, tut with the Rusty Pelican Restaurant. Mr:. Piasecki noted in conditions of Approval suggested by Staff, in V.A. Parking Ratio, 4.
Mr. R.L. Johnson, 836 Shetland Place, Sunnyvale, stated that the Sheriff is presently UI'l3ble to enforce the Traffic Code on Linnet Lane. In response to a question, Mr. Cowan revi~ environroontal ill\t)act studies c::x:inpleted. Mr. Johnson stated that reccmmendation of awroval of the Hotel wit.h a parkin:;J deficit will increase traffic on Linnet Lane; he
requested that the Canmi.ssion reconsidP.r the J.wlication.
Mr. Steven R. SWenson, 1789 lark Lane, sunnyvale, r;tat.ed that studies cx:lI!illeted were done so about three years ago; he revi~ the Lan:\ use diagram of the ~ Plan. He notep this Hotel will be 00.il t al::uttim
residential property" Differences cite:i betwoon the CUpertioo Inn arx1 the Marriott Hotel prc_;ccts were height and the separation of the Inn .fyom residential property; he suggested that this lack of separation f:rqn residential use is the p::>int that many people wished to· make.
IDI'ION: Com. Claudy m::Ned to close the Public Hearin:].
SEOJND: Com. Sorensen yore: Passed 5-0
cOm. Claudy noted the property has been zoned for Hot:el Use an:l that the Applicant requests only 75% of all<:1n'ed intensity; he reviewed placement of the Hotel, distance between commercial an::l resident.ial property,
traffic access, placement of the Hotel adjacent to a fr:eeNay and noted that if not use:i as a Hotfil, this site T,i,Ul].d probably be canme.rcially
used. He further noted the view an:;le of the proposed Hotel an:l stated that inherently a pool area is piblic space. 'Ibe p1-opooed design utilizes
t.l."eeS on the site to effect :n:!ClSOrlable control of privacy impacts. 'Ihe rema:inin:J issue is spillover parkin:;J; he sug..Jested that Marriott Hotel will not have this problem. While the residents have genuine concerns, these concerns may not originate from the Hotel. 'Ihis is a reasonable use
of the land.
PLANNING a::M1ISSION MINUTES
Regular Adjourned Meeting of December 11, 1986
PAG':: 4
fC -508
ITEM 4 (cont'd)
ccan. Adams concurred wi.th cam.nents m::i.de by can. Claudy. He noted his concem regarding parki.rr~p lvuever, Coroitions of Approval pi"OVide a covenant on the site. 1he property oone.rs mve been put on notice that
they will have tq re$0lve any parkin:;r problems shC\lld they arise. While he appreciated parking problems on Linnet Lane and other concerns raised, this .AJ::plicatian will not resolve the above concerns. Mr. Grigg stated that Li.nnet Lane is located entirely within SUnnyvale's City IJ.mits.
Cam. Sorensen concurred with the above; she favored a Con:iition prohibitirq entertainment at the Hotel I.o..trxje. She expressed appreciation to Staff for tbs Tree Protection eoro.ition of lq':lpl:Oval.
can. Mackenzie stated that he lookl9d at:
l. Height of the ~dil'g: Ha felt that visual intrusion into residential areas could be mitigated by larrlscape screen.irq on the
western bourrlzu:y. Ha asked that AS.AC review this larrlsca:pe screeni..'1g to insure that t.he project will not be overly intrusive on the
adjacent residential area in sunnyvale. He noted. the resi~.tial features of the project design.
2. rarkinq: Mr. Mocnik, Marriott Hotel, stated that the 20 employees a:re not on site durin:J peak park.i.r¥;1 deman::i; only 2 employees will be on staff after 11:00 P.M. 'Ille restaurant arrl lo.m;re close at 10:30 P.M.
weekda:YS an:i 11:00 P.M. week.enchH there is no entertainment. While it is the intent of the Hotel that this restaurant arrl. la.m;e area will
be prilllarily for guests, the Hotel cannot legally refuse service to
non-guesto. 'I.be restaurant an.::1 lourqe will not be advertised to the general :public nor will there be a public sign. Ms. COcker confirmed that as a aan::tition of their ABC: license, the Hotel would not be
all~ to exclude the p.lblic. can. Mru""..kanzie suggested the foll~'1'ing
c.han:.Je in 1-kxiel Resolution, corrlition 12, Property Use Constraints, umer Hours of Operation aoo clooing of the lOUn:Je/restaurant at 11:00
P.M.
air. Szabo concurred with the abov~ arrl noted. the distance an::-1 angle of the proposed Hotel arrl suggested that potential intrusion rray not be a.c,; great as anticipated.
MJI'ION: cam. Claudy IrOVed to grant a Negative Decl8.l.o.tion.
SECX>ND: Com. Adams
VOI'E: Passed 5-0
Mr. Piasecki called attA..ntion to c.h.an:Jes in the Model Resolution dated December 11, 1986.
I l
., '
PI.ANNING WflISSION MINCJl'ES Regular Adjoume:i MeetirY;J of December 11, 1986
PAGE 5
PC -508
IT.EM 4 (Cont'd)
IDI'ION: can. Claudy IWV'ed to recanmenrl approval of Applicati.on 33-U-86 subject to the fi.rdi.n;Ja a.rd subcorclusions of tl"leSe Heari.n;s and
the Staff Report, subject to CO:rxlltions of Approval 1-11; Condition 12, secon:i paragraph to read, ''Hours of operation are
not limited for the Hotel." 'lhird paragrai;:ti, add a final
~' to read, "No ent.e:rtairnne:nt shall be permitted in the
l~ area. 'Ihe closirq hours for the restaurant an::l 10\.U:"qe
shall be 10:30 P.M. SUrrlay tlu.'algh 'lbursday and 11:30 P.M. Friday
and sat:w:tlay."; cordi.tions 13-23.
SECOND: can., Adams
VOI'E: Passed 5-0
Break: 9:15 -9:25 P.M.
IT.EM 5
Application No(s) Applicant:
Property owner: I.ocation:
Pan::el Area (Acres)
36-U-86 and 36-EA-86
18 Am;a Ern..,rt~=-.-------~·---same
South side of st.evens creek Booleyard,
~!212_roxirnately 400 ft, east of 'l9r.r:e Ave.nuA.
.L.:L
Use · Penn.it to construct a 3-ato:cy, senior citizen housing complex oonsistin':J of a,wrox:i:mately 169 units, a 100 + unit aparbrent builclirg in:l.uding 51 senior citizen units, arx1 a parking garage. .
FlRST HEARING
ENVIRONMENTAL IlEJ'.'ERIDNATICN: Ne;;ra,ti ve Declaration
TENTATIVE CITY CXXJNCIL HEARIN'"'.· LWI'E: December 15, 1986
~tiQ!ll Mr. Cc:Mal1 stated that thio AppliCdtion is a reque:::.""t for an mreOOment and reviewed. the requested charges. Staff noted concern
regardirq the reduced nurnbl?..r of market rate apartments; he rci:ed that the Applicant was close to loosin:3' his federally-sronsored financing, an::1
urged that the can:mission an:·ive at a decision regarding at least the residential units. Exffi..'_,its were presented shewing the previously
approved awlication and the proposal urrle.r consideration •
. Mr. Jahn Vidovich, AJ;:plicant, reviewed the histo:cy of tl'!.is project an:i negotiations with the City. 'Ihe reason for change..c; in the Awlication is that financin;J cannot be obtained through HUD for 220 units; HUD will allcw construction of 169 tmits only. As far as the number of residential units is concerned, the deficit of elderly units must be made up. Urder
the new proposal, the City is gettirq m:::>re housin;. Although it is not
the same type of housing for the elderly, it is still hcusing for seniors. Mr. Vidovich stated that he felt.: the Staff Report was misleadin;J
in the implication that housing is bedng lost.
Pr.ANNING C 'ISSION MINUI'ES Regular M., _u.rned Maetirq of December ll, 1986
PAGE 6 K: -508
I'I.Ili 5 (Cont Id)
Mr. Vidovich discussed the de.sign of the project, mtio of·seniors tc:> non-sen.tors an::l aslced th.at the age restriction be lowered to 50 ·years cf
age. He discuss"'ld a simUar Loa Altos project, which has an age requirement Of 55 years.
In the staff Report, page 4, J.,oE!s ot ~, lo., the Applicant
remin'je::l the Cc:mnission that the former abjection to the oc:n-p:egate care facility was the uocerta.inty of need for tllis type of care~ I'lCM Staff
c:bjects to the J.ack of corgregate care in favor of othe.r types of senior
housi.ng. 'Ih.g Applicant felt that all types of senior hrusin;J are needed am viewed the proposed project as better in soma aspects because it is pl."OViding apartments for senior citizens. · ·
Rega.rdin;J Con:lition 2., he suggested the Cormnission record a restriction against the prq;e....-ty lf they have the sarre conoems as expressed in this item. He noted however, that if Corxiltions are too restrictive, he will
be unable to get f:l..nelncin:J for the project.
Urrler Options, 3., he asked the canmission to awrc-ne the 169 units at this time.
cam. Adams suggested that hous:in1 be oonstructed \Vhere office use is in the proposal; the Applicant stated that he was given office use in 9 exc.11.anJe for an:l as an i.nQ . .ntive for building the ha.lsi.ng for the elderly.
Mr. Vidovich offered to answer any question :rega.rd.irx;J the design and the architecture pr<:> . .sented in the proposal. He E:.1:ated that the revise:t Conditions of Approval which were given to him at the hearing, to the extent that they were consistent with the prior conditions, are acceptable. Staff reviewed cbarxJes to the c.o.rx:lltion..q of Approval.
cam. Adams noted a reluctance to see office use, preferring additional residential use for this project. he noted the altered mix bf office an:i :residential use. in the proposal p:r:esent.ed. Mr. Cowan suggested the addition of efficiency units which would increase the number of units withc:ut necessarily changirq the :builc:lin.;J envelq:ie. 'Ibe Applicant sugge.sted that the parking ratio be adjust.Gd allowing acklitional units without increasirrJ parkirq, noting that seniors have ferv.Jer vehicles •
• Q l
'Ihe Public Heari.ng Y."aS then opened..
Mr. .Toseph Jackson, President of the Board of Directors/ CUpertino Waterfall Project, noted the letter. sent to the camnission wni'ch stated that the Board of Directors support the proposed project at a three-story height rather then a four-story height.
MUrION: Coin. Mackenzie m::ived to close the Public Hear.irq.
SECOND: Ccm. Sorensen
VOTE: Passerl 5-0
PI.ANNING cx:t1M:S.SIOO' MINUI'ES Regular Adjuurned ~ting of December 11, 1966
P.AGE 7
PC -508
ITDt 5 (~t'r.i)
Chu. Mackenzie stated that adding senior housin:J does mt hslp the j cbs/hoosing i.mbalarice in the City. In reviEMing· the A,wlication b.e n:Jted the c.harqe fran 136 condaninium units to be b.lilt in 1983 to 49 market rate units in this AH;:>lic.c-.tion-a loo.a of 87 housi.ng units available to
job holders; this is of oonti.nuin9' oonoe.rn. In add.it.ion, he questioned the wo~ of a.m:lition 3., askirq t;.:.:it the 80% rule oo clearly stated in the Corxiltions of Approval.
Cam. Adams restated his interest in sooing oore residc.>.ntial units. He debated reword:i.rg Corrl:l.tions of Af:pl:\:M!'l ~ obtain ad:ilticmal housing7 however, he did rx:it wish to see the pt"Oj ect delaye::l or so enC'-Ultlbe:red with requirements that it. 'Y.Ulld not be b.lilt. HG suggested a Cbrrlition stating that office 'WOU.ld n:Jt be l:;uilt at this time; that acklitiorial residential. units added to the proposai, and that tlle 1 three sites be tied together in a i;tia.sea plan. 'Ihe a:mnlssiooer noted ~ions made ai'Xi office space
allowed in o:ttler for th9 City to get residential units; ncM the residential units are beirq reduoed an:l the office space re.mains. He' ::eiterated his question of Wilci.in:J resi.Clential instead of office; office space ca.U.d also be reduced in favor of residential use.
Com. Sorensen stated she wantErl senior housing am residential use to be ret.ained in full; in addi tia-i9 she e>q:>ressed coricern reg-drelin;J · the reduction of tl1fl age limit to 50 years old. Chr. Szabo noted that CUpertino currently has a vacancy rate in apartment rental space which mitigated sare of his concerns.
cam. Claudy noted the previous deci :iion made an congregate care an:l ha.
concurred with a:mi. Macke.JlZie's statement. 'Ihe Camnissian also made a canunibN:mt. to provide ha.1Sin;J for a ran;;ie of citizan needs; :tiowaver, HUD
has set con:;traints on this project. He woo.l.d accept a .. ·.eduction in
ccngregate care units and the 51 senior aparbnents. He questioned whe:ther
there a dif f e.rE:Ix:e between the 51 senior apa.rt:me.nts am the market rate apartments. He favored irx:xeasi..""Y;J the number of market rate aparboonts in
some mar.ner; an irx:rease in height of the project was not consi~ viable. Options considered were: decreasing unit size, :l.nc:roasin:J t1ie .number of units within the b.lildin:J envelope or increas.irg the size (.)f
the building envelope -probably at the expense of office space. Considerin;J the City Cour.cil's approval of office use, the first option
seeired more viable.
Cam. Claudy suggested approval of only the con:JrEgate care facilities at this ti.mo, allC1.!.d.n;J the .Awlicant to proceed with the project ru'Xi prr:r<:id.in;J the :rrost flexibility for fu-l"1re proposals. 'l11e camnissioner favored a:pproval o:r the con:Jregate care EaciHty, requirirq additional units on site, arrl prior to construction of office space, that construction of the 51 senior-oriented units will be initiated.
PI..ANN!NG cx::J-1MISSION MINUI'FS
Regular Adjourned ~tin:] of Dece:mber 11, 1986
PAGE 8
PC -508
rI'EM 5 (cont'd)
...... ,.., ..
,1 ,; \_. j_
Discussion followe::l regard..in:;J an increase in apartment units within the Wildin:;; emrel.ope as sug:;est..ed at the Hearin:] with redUction of park.llig spaces requi.?:00, 21·.1 ::ige reguirement o.E 55 years for one of the residents of an apartment arrl consideration of charqing the ~ desigh of the project so that 10-15 units could be adde::i. 'Ihe applicant was favorable to such a Coniltion if h9 were oot required to add park.ii~ space. Ue
stated that he ......all.d be better off econanically; however, he felt that the project wcW.d be less attractive aesthetically.
A cordition would require incluclirg 10 to 15 additional market units by within the footprint of the building, with no i.ncrlP..a.se in height as
presented in this Application. 'Iha Applicant asked. that th.U7 c.h.arqe be approved on a Staff level arrl that additioflb.1. parkirq not be required. can. Claudy added that an oocupancy penuj.t shall not be grant.oo for the office use until constro.ctbn fo initiated ar.d the foundation cx:mpletE!d for tlle 169 units of ~te care. .
MJl'ION: can. Claudy m:ived to grant a Negative Declaration.
SEO:>ND: can. Macloonzie
'VOrE~ Passed 5-0
MJI'ION: c.an. Claudy m::1V'ed to reoc:mnnerrl approval of Application 36-U-86 subject to the fin:lln:,Js arxi subconclusions of this Hearir:q ar.d
the Staff Report; Public Works conditions 1-12; Corrlition l, add
"'Iha additional units shall be o:mta:lned within the existing footprint; the Applicant may increase the r.a.nnber of stories in
the Stevens Creek Blvd. SE;ct.ion of the tu~·; but, in no C<."\Se, shall the overall height of any portion of the project excee:l the
current maximum height crl.B shown on Exhibits presented."; corrlitian 2, to read, "Approval is granted for construction of a mixed US!:. project consistirq of the. followirq use: 110-115 apartments oanprised of 59-64 market rate apartments an::l 51 senior apartments, 45000 sq.ft. of office use ••• "; condition 3,
delete 11 10011 and delete "per unit who is at. least 60 years of.. age." ad.din;, "at least one of whcan is at least 55 years of age.11
Second paragraph, strike "and senior apart:merrt.s 11 ; Con:iition 4, to
read, "'lhe Applicant shall not be required to increase the parkinJ over what is shown on the current sul:mission, but at least the spaces shCMn on the current submission shall be provided."; comitions 5-10; Condition 11, delete 11 100 11 a.00 add
11 110-115 unit apartment shall be issued prior to occupancy of. office r:,-pace, the sh.axed parkll"q structure for the apartments am
office space shall be carnplete:::l.11 ; condition 12.
SECOND: corn. Mackenzie
VOI'E: Fassed 5-0
·' f ' r
PIAN?-."ING cn!MISSIOi.'f MINUl'ES Re;ular Adjourned Meeti~ of Decelnber 11, 1986
PAGE 9
PC -508
ITEM 6
Application No(s) J.IWlicant: Property owner: I.Dcation:
Parcel Area (Ac.res)
TEID'ATIVE MAP (17-'IM-86)
17::'1.h-86 Grnig A. Clark
'lb subdivide .46 acres into 2 paroels with lot sizes equallirq 7,500 sq.ft. an:1 12,000 sq.ft.
FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: categorically EKerrpt ***PI.ANNING CXM'1I&3ION ACl'IOO FlNAL UNI.E.SS AFPFAI.ED***
Staff J?resentation: Mr. Piasecki sta'bed that this Application is consistent with zoni.n] an::l the General Plan; the.re are no issues of p.lblic interest.
Ap;:!licant's Presentation: Mr. craig Clark requested a minor charge in eorxiltion 11, Denx:>lition Requi.remant; a::mnissionars noted a prci:>lem that
the lot could be sold with the shed an it an:l the AP,phc.:dnt withdrew the request.
'Iha Public Hearin3' was then opened. 'lbe.re were no speakers.
MJI'ION: Com. Mackenzie m::Ned to grant a Negative De:!~'.ii'U:'i34::~.on.
SECX:>ND: Com. Adams
VOI'E: Passed 5-0
MJI'ION: Com. Mackenzie nvrod to apprr:JVe Application 17-'IM-86 per the
fin:lings an:l suboorx::lusians of this H.earin;J and the Staff Report with Coniltions as stated.
SECDND: can. Adams
VOI'E: Passed 5-0
Mr. Kilian stated that an Executive Session wou.ld be hf'Jld to discuso questicns regardirq tbe Hearing of IJec:enbi3r 16, 1985, a."'tl to provide le9al advice to the Plannin;J Ccmnissione.rs. '1.he Cha:.u.::an adjoumed the Meetin;
to Executive Session at 10:29 P.M.
'Ihe Chairman called the Meeting to order .it 11: 13 P.M. and adjour.ned tl.ia Meetir.q at 11:15 P.M. to the Re-;Jnlar Adjourned Meet:irq· of the Plannirq cammission on December 16, ;1986, 7:30 P~M ...
ATTEST: APPRO"F.T.I:
f ~)iJ" I'm 2,L~ / :-c: ,,__ .< __ _)
Chairperson