Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the meeting of the Manila Park Planning Commission on August 10, 2026. I am Chair Ketty Buruzi and I would like to say thank you for joining us tonight. Based on the law of the state, our city planning commission consists of seven Manila Park residents who have been appointed for four years by the City Council. Komisi perencanaan kami bukanlah badan penetap kebijakan, itu adalah tugas jawan kota. Kami adalah badan pelaksana kebijakan. Kami meninjau proposal pengembangan di lahan publik dan pribadi untuk memastikan kepatuhan terhadap rencana umum dan peraturan juransi kota kami, yang keduanya dapat ditemukan di situs web kota. Komisi meninjau semua proposal pengembangan yang memerlukan izin penggunaan, kendali arsitektural, varian, subdivisi kecil, serta tinjauan lingkungan yang terkait dengan proyek-proyek tersebut. Komisi adalah badan pengambil keputusan akhir untuk aplikasi-aplikasi ini, kecuali jika diajukan banding kedawan kota. The Commission also serves as the body that provides recommendations to the City Council for major subdivisions, zoning changes, conditions for development, zoning regulations amendments, general planning amendments, environmental guidelines, and housing agreements with prices below the market or BMR related to these projects. Kami bekerja sama dengan staff di divisi perencanaan kota kami yang bertanggung jawab untuk memproses aplikasi pengembangan, serta untuk mengimplementasikan dan mengamendemai rencana umum peraturan zonasi dan kebijakan terkait guna memajukan tujuan kota. Kami mendorong partisipasi aktif Anda, baik sebagai pemohon maupun anggota masyarakat yang tertarik, dan akan ada kesempatan untuk berbicara di depan umum pada setiap agenda, serta untuk komentar umum masyarakat. Baik, dengan demikian saya akan melanjutkan untuk memanggil Laftar Hadid. Komisioner Ferik.

I'm here.

Commissioner Headley. I'm here. Commissioner Sindler. I'm here. Commissioner Silin.

I'm here.

And I'm the chairperson of the board, I'm also here. So we have five commissioners in the same room, which means the quorum is full. Commissioner Erik and Chairman Silverstein are out of the way. Right now, I will move on to point C, reports and announcements. Nona Semimeyer, are there any reports or announcements from the staff tonight?

Good evening, Chair of the Board of Directors and Commissioners. Tomorrow, the City Council will consider the budget map and concession requested for Project 335 Pierce Road, which was approved by the Commission. Planned on July 13. That's my update, but I'm ready to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any commissioners who have questions about the report or their own report? Thank you, Chairperson. I don't have a comment about the report, but I myself do have a brief report to convey. I just watched a video meeting of the City Council on July 15, where the council considered the comparison of the 305 heads, namely the use permit and 6 variants that were requested, which previously were us and the Planning Commission. I deliberately watched and thought about Agenda itu untuk Dewan Kota karena Dewan Kota memilih untuk membatalkan izin penggunaan dan variansi yang kita diskusikan dan setujui di sini. Jadi catatan saya cukup lugas. Dewan Kota gave a voice of 4 out of 4 with 1 member of Dewan Absen. So, in a roundabout way, it supports the comparison and rejects the previous agreement that was given by the Planning Commission. Um, and a summary of my feedback, which is quite consistent from the 4 members of the Dewan, is that the number of variants, especially 6, has never really happened before. No one can remember the number of variants as requested or given in the past. And I feel the expression, why are there rules if we are not going to enforce them, especially at this size, said by several members of the council. Another additional theme that emerged from several members of the council is that the impact of the variant is too big for the neighbors, that it is not the cumulative effect. All the members of the council are talking. I feel that at least three, if not four out of four, are talking about supporting the development of the land, but not with the project as suggested. As an addition, the deputy mayor of Wais and the members of the council are both asking the staff about how they have reached the point of recommending support for the project as suggested and showing concern that a conclusion like that has been achieved. So that's my summary of the feedback and discussion that took place at the committee on essentially reversing the decisions made here. Thank you. Are there any other reports or announcements? With that, I will move on to public comment. In public comment, the public can speak to the Commission on any subject that is not included in the agenda. So if you are here to talk about one of the points later, we will give you another chance to talk. However, during the public comment, every speaker can talk to the Commission once, with a time limit of 3 minutes. You don't have to give the name of the district or city where you live, but that will help. The Commission cannot act on things that are not in the agenda, and therefore the Commission cannot address problems outside the agenda that are conveyed in the public comment, except to provide general information. I hope you are aware that if you are here tonight to comment on one of our agendas, you will have a chance later. I have mentioned how to participate. I will go to the auditorium tonight, Nona Roy, and then start the public comment period.

Thank you, Chair Barusi, members of the Planning Commission, and members of the community. At this time, if there are members of the community in the courtroom who want to give a public comment on item D, please give me a card. Comment from the back desk. If you join via Zoom, please press the hand up icon, or if you are on the phone, press the star 9 on your keyboard and we will be informed about your desire to talk. It is hoped that this will be the last call for public comment on item D. And I don't see any comment at this time. So because there is no hand raised or a comment card, Chairperson Ferusi, you can continue the meeting.

Okay, I will close the public comment and move on to Item E, our agreement calendar. Agreement calendar? We only have one item in the evening agreement calendar. Item E1, agreement on the miscommunication of the Planning Commission on July 27, 2026. Is there any reason for anyone in this Commission to withdraw this item for discussion? Okay, good. If so, I will open it for public comment. Ms. Ruy, can you help us with that?

Thank you again, Chairperson Ferozi. Once again, at this time, we are opening the public comment period for Item E. One, if you are in the courtroom and want to talk, please give me a comment card from the back table. From the back table? And if you join via Zoom, please click the raise hand button. And if you call, press star 9 on your button and we will be informed about your desire to talk. Um, note that this will be the last call for public comment on item E1. Because there is no hand raised and comment card, uh, Chairwoman Feruzzi, you can continue the meeting now. Okay. Uh, I will ask the mayor to agree to the meeting.

I agree. I agree. So I have received a motion from Commissioner Varek and support from Commissioner Schindler. You can raise your hand if you agree. And that's a round of five commissioners. Has it been recorded? Okay, good. Okay, right now we close the agreement agenda and turn to F. We have two points below F. Two points with public opinion. We start with point F1 regarding the revision of the permission for use for 470 Santa Rita Avenue. According to this public opinion, the Commission can consider and adopt a resolution that approves the revision of the use permit for the addition of one family to one floor that exists at this time and is not in accordance with the R1S zoning district. The initial use permit was approved in 2010. The use permit revision was approved in 2013. And in 2014, the Commission approved the revision of the second use permit and the variant. Therefore, it is requested to determine that this action in a categorical way is excluded based on SGA regulations. Article 15301 Excluding Class 1 for existing facilities. So, the representative of tonight's staff is Nona Senmer, who helped Matthew Ball, who is the planner for this point. And we also have an architect in this room, I think. Wow, Nona Samir, do you have any updates for staff reports to share?

There is no update, but I am happy to answer any questions.

I think maybe if no one has any questions, we will invite Mr. Nona Sabala, the architect.

Hi, Dona Sabala. I'm very sorry. Can you make sure you talk very close to the microphone to watch if anyone wants to listen?

Okay. Awesome. Thank you very much.

So, my name is Eva Sabawa. I represent the owner of Rasha Mela and his wife, Rohini Ndadi. So, we are adding a simple addition of about 249 square feet, one floor for the existing house. an additional room to expand the existing bedroom, and we added a bathroom and changing room. So we worked with the city and the planning, and also answered all the technical comments, and we did the environmental prevention that was requested without any effort. So I'm here to answer any questions. So if you have...

Thank you very much. Before we open for public comment, allow me to see if there is a question, a brief clarification from anyone here for the petitioner or for the staff. I don't see a lot of activity here. So in that case, I leave it to the writer. Nona Roy, can you open it for public comment on this point?

Thank you again, Chairperson Rosi. At this time, if there are members of the public in the meeting room who want to give a public comment on the F1 flag, please take a comment card from the table behind. If you join via Zoom, please press the hand up icon. And if you join via telephone, please press the 9 star on your button and we will be informed that you want to talk. It is hoped that this is the last call for public comment on the F1 flag. Saya tidak melihat adanya komentar saat ini. Karena tidak ada kartu komentar atau tangan yang terangkat. Wakil Ketua Feruzi, jika Anda mau, Anda dapat melanjutkan rapatnya.

Kalau begitu, saya akan menutup komentar publik dan menyerahkannya kepada diskusi komisi serta pengambilan keputusan mengenai revisi izin penggunaan. Komisioner Schindler. Terima kasih, Wakil Tua. I think this project, the approach of this project looks moderate and very logical, as well as complies with the city's requirements. So I don't think I have any concerns or obstacles to support it. I have a small question for the staff. There is a reference about garden plants in the triangle, which is higher than certain. So my question is, apart from the owner who came to ask for permission from the city, is there a regular process to monitor and comply with these three conditions? Yes, it will be a matter of compliance with the rules. But that's mainly based on a proposal.

In this case, we want to add the recommended agreement conditions.

Thank you. I see that and it still reminds me and makes me ask the following question. So, it seems that we tend to deal with it in a reactive way almost entirely as a matter of enforcing the current rules. Thank you. I feel comfortable supporting this project, but I will let other commissioners speak before making a motion. I have, okay, please, Commissioner Selen.

I don't have a question. I just want to quickly said that I had corresponded with the staff regarding the sidewalk on Middle Avenue because as far as I can see now, it's just a land line, the land of the location shows a narrow path. And the staff clarified that on page A101, image number A101 of the planner, The local government issued note 7, which states that the Public Works Office must have a sidewalk on the side of the road. I am concerned that right now there is a sidewalk, then a sidewalk, then a forest, while on the other side of the road there is a forest, then a sidewalk, then a forest, then a sidewalk, which is a more general configuration. Um, but the staff told me that because this is on the public road, this is not under the planning commission to be handled. Um, and I'm not sure if I want to do it, but I just want to tell others about the discussion. Oh, I don't have any other concerns about this project, and I would be happy to agree, but I want to hear other opinions. Thank you.

And I will also ask the staff about the Trotoar issue. And thank you for doing the work. Will Trotoar Middle Avenue enter Complete Streets in the future? Or will there be a discussion at Complete Streets about Trotoar in this Middle? For the stakeholders who realize that this is not the place.

I'm not sure about that. I mean, it will not be related to the permission of use, but yes, we can check it if you want. Okay.

Okay. Does anyone have any comments, concerns, or other questions? Or do we have to continue with the motion? Anyone wants to submit a motion? I am happy to submit a motion to support the revision of the permission of use on Jalan Santaita. Sorry, I'm not on the right address to mention the address. 470 santeta.

According to the staff report.

Report.

I am happy to support that. For 470 santeta. All right. If so, I will continue with the commissioners. Commissioner Ferry. Edith Lee. Sindler. Selin. And I, Commissioner Brussi, also agree. So it must be agreed with. Round voice, 5-7, no abstentions, and 2 absents. Well, with that, I will close this point. Congratulations and thank you very much for coming. We now continue to item F2 regarding the use permit and variants in 9-FAT, 9-LEAD-DRIVE. So, according to this public opinion, the Commission can consider and adopt a resolution to approve the permission of the user to dismantle a single floor house and build a new two-floor house as well as a separate garage on the land below the standard related to the minimum land depth in the Zonasi District Area . The applicant requested a variation of the zoning regulation to reduce the back limit to 10 feet, where it should be 20 feet. The applicant also requested a variation of the subdivision regulation to reduce the front line from about 25.3 feet to about 23.9 feet. This will be reviewed and continued by the City Council in the future. We will also be asked to state that this action is categorically excluded based on the SDGs of Article 15.3.3.3 for new construction or conversion of small buildings. I think the staff responsible for this is, I think, Brian Toy.

Not me.

Maaf, saya dapat ya Pak Turner. Maaf, ini Chris Turner. Pak Turner, apakah Anda punya pembaruan untuk laporan staff?

Saya tidak memiliki pembaruan untuk laporan staff tersebut. Saya terbuka untuk pertanyaan dan kami memiliki pemohon di sini untuk memberikan pengantar singkat, gambaran umum proyek, dan kemudian kita bisa membuka sesi tanya jawab.

Bagus. Baiklah, mari kita undang pemohon ke mimbar atau apapun sebutannya. This is the one with the microphone.

Good evening. My name is Margaret Wommer. I am an architect designer for this project and I am here representing the owners of Roy. As you said, we are trying to create a single-family house that is suitable for land below the standard. The land is also irregular and located at the end of Jalan Buntu. So there are many challenges to reach a two-storey house that is suitable and the garage is separated in this property. So what we are looking for is the lightness of the back 20-foot line. As you said, we ask for a 10-foot line. As well as a front line, where you usually have to have a 20-foot line in the R1 zone. Oh, there is a special subdivision line. And I think we took the middle way, because we didn't ask to reduce it to 20 feet in the front. But 25 feet 3 inches really limits the use of a large potential floor. We can make it to have a good floor with a smooth interior and we can almost get 2,800 square feet allowed in the area. We are not too worried about the back border, because the property behind our property is sealed with multi-family and no one really lives there. I mean, there is a house there, but they use the area behind this property as an entrance and parking road. So we feel that the impact will be very minimal on the property behind us. We will plant some pruning trees and the kind to help soften it and make the atmosphere feel like a natural park, not a two-storey structure that sticks. The design of the house is like a Spanish colonial. I think it will look very interesting in that location. It does not reach the maximum height limit. We have also lowered it, which in my opinion is a response to the surrounding environment so that it does not stick out too much. We have a fairly tight light field on the side that is quite challenging to fill, but we have fulfilled it. We actually have moved the side of the house where there is a 6-foot-6-inch free space. We moved it a little more so as not to disturb the light. And once again, we will only soften it with a beautiful landscape and hope that the house shown here is interesting and in accordance with the surrounding character. And I'm here to answer any questions if you have any.

Oh, let me check if there is a clarification question from the committee for the staff or, okay, Commissioner Sidley, is this for the staff or the applicant? It can be for both. Okay, maybe the applicant is the best choice. I can see from the picture that the stove will use gas energy, and I wonder if you can confirm how the HVAC and water heater system without a tank will be given power. According to the code, even though we use gas equipment, we must provide a 2.8 volt electric stop-contact there as well. So they have a choice if the gas is no longer available for some reason. For the stove, they can of course make it fully electric. For the water heater, I think right now we are using gas, We do have a gas meter, which is included in this project, but once again, we have to provide electricity stop contact as well, to be careful if the gas is no longer available.

So we have met the requirements of the previous code. Thank you.

Is there anyone else? If so, I would like to ask Donna Roy to open a public comment session for this item.

Thank you, Chairperson Ferusi. Once again, if there are members of the public in the meeting room who want to give a public comment on Point F2, please take the comment card from the table at the back. If you join via Zoom, please click the raise icon, or if you are on the phone, press the star 9 on your button and we will be informed of your desire to talk. It is hoped that this will be the last call for public comment on Point F2. Saya tidak melihat adanya komentar saat ini. Jadi karena tidak ada lagi yang mengangkat tangan atau kartu komentar, Wakil Ketua, Anda dapat melanjutkan rapat ini.

Baik, saya akan membawanya kembali ke meja untuk didiskusikan. Dan jika tidak ada lagi yang ingin berbicara, saya punya sesuatu yang ingin saya sampaikan. Tetapi saya akan melihat apakah Pak Selin ingin berbicara terlebih dahulu.

Saya rasa ini pertanyaan untuk staff. I just want to make sure that the house that will be demolished at this time, the distance of the back of the building looks like 13 feet, except for something that looks like a smoke bomb or something. Is that true? And I think the next question is, whatever the number, the correct number, is there a note about the variance given for it when it was built?

So, the distance of the building that you are 13 feet away from the property line, there is no previous permission history for this property. The possibility of this property being developed before to be annexed to the city, even though I can inspect it again. Or maybe it's already there before there is a zoning. So there is no official permit or variance for the smaller building distance.

Okay, thank you. Remembering what Commissioner Sindler said before, and I also watched the comparison video where we just gave some variance asking for other variants, trying to investigate it a little further, remembering what the court said. I think in this case, there are six variants, here there are two. The Commission only considers one of the two variants, and that's for a 10-foot distance, while the property has a 13-foot distance. So the difference is three feet. And also see the surrounding properties. Maybe I should clarify it with the staff as well.

Let me look for the picture here.

So, looking at the A1D3 image, which shows all the other properties around Buntu, there are 940 lift drives that I want to make sure based on the image, it seems to have a backward distance of less than 10 feet from the fence or the same back line of the property. Is that true?

Correct. The property received a variance in 2018, I think 2018 or 2019, or 2019. So it also has a 10-foot backward distance. Oh, okay.

So, remembering that and the fact that the property is currently quite close to that limit, I feel comfortable with this variance, especially realizing that this is not a traditional long-angle plot. Apart from that consideration, I have no concerns about this project.

Yes, Commissioner Ridseli. Yes, I also have no concerns about the backward distance at the back. However, I have concerns about the installation of gas-powered equipment related to two topics, namely climate change and health. And I assume everyone knows, but Manuel Park has a climate action plan, short for CAP. And our first CAP strategy is to electrify 95% of buildings in Manuel Park by 2030. So that's only four years from now. And when we install new gas equipment that will not reach the end of its use in that period of time, it makes it more difficult for us to achieve our goals. And I think we've all seen news reports about great heat, extreme heat, and intense forest fires. That is an important reminder that we need to continue to take action against climate change, even though we cannot force it. Through codes or conditions of agreement. The second concern I have is more specifically related to gas stoves, because there is more and more evidence that burning gas in the house is very problematic for asthma sufferers. So I actually have concerns about finding out that there will be no health impact from construction as planned. So I really want to see gas stoves replaced with electric stoves, ideally induction stoves. So my request may be more directed to the applicant to consider, especially the electric stove, and consider replacing the gas equipment with electricity, because there is a technological answer. And we still have to install an electric contact stop. Maybe it will be easier, faster, and cheaper to remove all the gas. So that's it. My hope is that both for the health of the people who live in this place and for the long-term prosperity of this planet. Commissioner Farerik. Thank you. I will only note a few things. First, I happen to be the Chairman of the Planning Commission when the request for this location was submitted to you. What year was it in 2012? That house on the side, right on the side. Oh, that one on the side. Thank you. The same area. And it was very intense. I'm happy that in this case, the surrounding environment has clearly realized that a rational house, and designed well on the ground of its configuration, is not usually successful. So I'm happy that there aren't many entrances. It became a big concern for the people around. The design is very good and the communication is definitely very positive because we are here and there is no room full of angry people like what happened at the neighbor's house years ago. And even at that time, I was able to find a finding for the variant because of the unusual shape of the land. And as noted by the applicant, as noted by the architect, the back limit is not limited to entry and exit for multi-family apartment buildings. The height of the apartment building is two floors and the distance is about 10 to 15 feet from their property line. So, you know, in some cases, all variants and user permissions need to be considered uniquely, and in this situation, it really doesn't have a bad impact on the surrounding area. So, for all those reasons, I am happy to see that this is a reasonable development. I also appreciate the attention to its height. I'm sure this will be the house that is loved on this road in a short time. Hopefully. So I will support it. I am happy to present my thoughts to you. Commissioner Sindler. Thank you, Deputy Chairman. I mean, I will comment on my support for this project, but in general I will support it. I have one question for my own interests to the staff. You're discussing the history of this property, and I'm curious about how this subdivision, the front-line requirement, can be 25 feet, not 20 feet like the standard in almost all R1 areas that I know of. I don't remember ever seeing a seal where there is a requirement of 25 feet. So can you give any historical context that you have to give me information for consideration in the future?

So it's actually based on subdivision rules, not zoning rules. There is a section that discusses the front free distance when the property is on the outside of the bend with a radius of less than 100 feet. There are many technical things in it. Basically, this is like a standard road. This happens for any property along the bend. However, this sets a different front free distance from the zonation rules, namely the standard 20 feet. often the result is large enough. I have seen conditions, the front free distance of 40 to 60 feet, depending on how wide or narrow the land is. In my opinion, the reason for this is rarely seen is because the subdivision regulations do not provide the Commission with a plan for this matter. We do see a variation in the free-range according to these subdivision regulations. From time to time, we have handled some in the last few years. However, the decision-making authority is only the City Council, so this does not even need to go through the Planning Commission to get recommendations. Just go straight to the City Council. So that's where it comes from.

Thank you. Thank you. Although I understand that this is not a recommendation or decision for the Planning Commission, the fact that only a small part of the house really enters the area of ​​free space in the front makes me hope that the City Council will realize that this is a request that is completely true and may have to be accepted. For all the reasons that have been conveyed by other commissioners with FASI, I support the modification of the back free distance. In my opinion, it is very reasonable. This is consistent and does not affect people on the other side of the fence in the back of the property. I also want to express my appreciation to the petitioners, because they specifically included an alternative design plan that shows what is actually needed to build a house that follows a 20-foot freeway with a very small house. In my opinion, it even clarifies the impact. It helps and is quite interesting to watch. Yes, Commissioner Headley. I think I have a question for the petitioner. I want to hear their response to my comment on gas-powered equipment in the proposal, if that is allowed. If the architect wants to come back here, Nona Wommer, Thank you. I mean, of course, we will comply with all city rules. And that's what we've said. I know that all the cities in California, especially in the Bay Area, including Palo Alto, and other cities where I often work, they try to move in the same direction to eliminate gas use. There are many people who like gas stoves because they are used to it or they prefer cooking methods like that. So if there is a negative impact on the health of the house owner, I will let them know about it and they can make the choice. However, until Menlo Park City made it a rule for everyone, every applicant. I think it is unfair for you to burden that on our project, because we have to bear some consequences for this project to succeed. So I think it will only be fair if you do electricity for everyone, not just this project. I think, I know, I don't know if that answers your question. But it's a kind of personal statement that it's difficult to bear the consequences outside the scope of what we are discussing today.

Yes, thank you.

I will give a brief commentary on the history of this. One of the things that we are asked to do when we make a variant discovery is there is a clause that it does not apply to many other places. Basically, many other neighbors' properties will not be able to use this. And when I see the question, I think, huh, but there is a property right next to it that has the exact same land shape. So in theory, they can. Then I went through its history and found that actually the property next door, which had a very similar land type, had to come to the Planning Commission twice during the six-year period to get approval to renovate their house. And the first time they came, there was a lot of chaos in the surrounding environment. You know, we are a one-story house environment. We are small, we are unique, we like it like this. And the Planning Commission firmly rejected the request. They returned six years later, where several neighbors who initially protested after renovating their own house became two floors and a little more open to the idea. And this time the Planning Commission agreed. I think it's interesting to see how the environment is developing. And personally, I hope that when we think about the future of the environment, we keep looking for ways to expand the zoning capacity, to be able to build large religious communities near the city center. I'm thinking, for example, of building a duplex at some point, other than a house with a big and beautiful ceiling. But I'm happy that our city is now open to house renovation and allows citizens to do positive things with a proper team. With that short comment, I will ask for a motion. Commissioner Sindwar. I suggest that we agree on the permission of use and variations as suggested in the staff report. Is there anyone who supports?

I support. Can I comment before us?

Yes. I know there are other things that I want to convey, but let's just make a voice announcement. Let's look at Commissioner Svererik. Commissioner ZD, no. Commissioner Sindler. Commissioner Selin.

Yes.

And I, Commissioner Purwisi, also agree. So, the motion is accepted with four supports, one rejects, and two absents. Commissioner Svarenda.

No, sir. That's not a good thing.

I will say it out of respect, I sympathize with the voice of Commissioner Headley's protest. If it can be said that way. I just ran my house with electricity. I used an induction stove and pasta water to boil in a minute. It's really amazing. I also realized that we used to have rules that required new buildings to use electrical equipment. However, Because of the court case, our environmental policy is hindered. I hope that as many people feel the comfort of the AC from the heat pump and the speed of boiling water, people will start to do it with ease. And we can start to reach our climate target. Wait, I'm still the leader of this meeting. With that, I will close the public opinion part of our meeting, or more precisely, the F2 vote, and we will continue to the G vote, the informative votes. Nona Semi, does the staff have an informative vote that you want to convey?

Yes, good evening once again.

So in the next report, we have a study session scheduled for the development of the USGS location in Middlefield Road. We also have a project. Sorry, I lost my note. Kami memiliki proyek di 880 Cambridge. Itu adalah izin penggunaan untuk sebuah rumah tinggal keluarga tunggal. Lalu kami memiliki proyek di 550 Ravenswood Avenue. Itu adalah izin penggunaan untuk fasilitas rekreasi. Dan rapat berikutnya adalah tanggal 14 September. Dan kami belum menyelesaikan agenda untuk rapat itu. Demikian pembaruan informasinya. Saya siap menjawab jika ada pertanyaan.

Apakah ada yang punya pertanyaan?

Oh, Commissioner Schiller, I would like to inform you that I may be absent from the meeting on 14 September. I am still finalizing my travel plan and will inform the staff immediately. All right. If there is nothing else you would like to say in this informative bulletin session, I will close this meeting at 19.40.43. Thank you all.