Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1995/09/27 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:03 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, September 27, 1995 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Davis, Ray, Thomas and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Salas and Tarantino STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Senior Civil Engineer Thomas, Assistant Attorney Moore MOTION TO EXCUSE MSUC (Willett/Ray) 5-0 to excuse Commissioners Salas (business trip) and Tarantino (vacation). PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tuchscher led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silence. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tuchscher reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-95-11; SPA AMENDMENT TO THE EASTLAKE GREENS SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN Senior Civil Engineer Thomas presented the staff report, using overhead projection to show the location of the project, and discussed the facilities to be included and the areas in which they would be installed. PC Minutes -2- September 27, 1995 Commissioner Willett asked if there were any issues outstanding between the City and the proponent that were not listed in the financial statement. Mr. Thomas stated that he was not aware of anything. Assistant Planning Director Lee concurred and stated that EastLake had been required to do a financial analysis for the first five years of the project to make up any shortfall. The financial analysis had been done. Park issues were yet to be resolved, subject to future discussion with the applicant in the next phase of planning. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Ray/Thomas) 5-0-2 (Commissioners Salas and Tarantino excused) to approve Resolution PCM-95-11 recommending that the City Council approve an amendment to the EastLake Greens Planning Area SPA Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan. ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-90-25M; REQUEST FOR FIVE YEAR EXTENSION TO AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN RV STORAGE YARD AT 1375 BROADWAY, WITHIN THE S-94 ZONE - Broadway Palomar RV Storage Principal Planner Griffin gave the staff report, stating that the property was 4-1/2 acres located on the east side of Broadway, south of Palomar within the SDG&E easement. The property, zoned County S-94, is designated as a Special Study Area under the Montgomery Specific Plan Area. The property has for several years contained a 350-space RV storage lot, which was approved by the City Council in 1990 for a five-year period. The request before the Planning Commission was to have the use extended for an additional five years. There had been special studies pending regarding the use of the easement areas in Montgomery for possible use as public parks. Because of the EMF issue, the special studies had been put on hold, and the property would not be needed for park purposes for at least five more years. Staff, therefore, recommended approval of the extension in accordance with the resolutions before the Commission. Commissioner Ray noted that an announcement had been made to the Supreme Court that the EMF was not a danger. He asked if that would expedite anything. Mr. Lee felt the debate would go on for years. Commissioner Ray asked what substantive study the City would rely on, and if there was a State or Federal study. Mr. Griffin said he understood that a lot of independent scientific studies had been done which had shown mixed results. There were a couple of major studies funded by Federal agencies that were currently underway that should prove it one way or the other. PC Minutes -3- September 27, 1995 Commissioner Willett asked if park in-lieu fees were being discontinued in this proposal or if it would be in another one. Mr. Griffin replied that it was part of this request, but since it was not really a land use issue and had been imposed by Council at the time they had heard the item in 1990, staff did not feel it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Thomas/Davis) 5-0-2 (Commissioners Salas and Tarantino excused) to grant the conditional use permit, PCC-90-25M. ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-96-03; APPEAL OF A DENIAL BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING OF A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT TO SELL USED CARS AT 2263 MOUNTAIN RIDGE ROAD - Troy K. Pyles Principal Planner Griffin stated that the request was for a home occupation permit and business license to establish an office from which to wholesale used cars from the residence at 2263 Mountain Ridge Road, which is in the Salt Creek I project. The application had been denied by the Planning Director, and Mr. Pyles had appealed that decision. Mr. Griffin stated the reasons for denial and recommended that the appeal be denied. He noted that the City is not responsible for enforcing CC&Rs but staff had checked the CC&Rs for the Salt Creek I development which prohibited commercial activity on any of their lots. Commissioner Thomas asked if staff could comment on the updating of the home office occupation to include auto wholesaling, and if the update would specifically use the words "auto wholesaling." Mr. Griffin stated that staff was contemplating the change because of monitoring and controlling of that kind of activity. Staff would be proposing that it be specifically listed as a prohibited use, so there would be no question. Several requests to wholesale cars are submitted each month to the Planning Department. In most cases, the applicants claim they never have access to the vehicle; it is all by paper and custom orders and transfers made without ever having the vehicle. Mr. Pyles admitted that on occasion he would have a vehicle in his possession but would not be storing it in the neighborhood. Staff had, in a few instances, applications that had been approved or intended to be approved for a commercial office location to wholesale cars, but had asked the applicant to provide a lease, with the City as a party, indicating that they had reserved storage space at an approved location such as a storage lot, for three or four vehicles or a reasonable number that the applicant may have in his possession at any one time. Commissioner Willett had checked with EastLake regarding their CC&Rs and had verified that there were no commercial activities allowed. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. PC Minutes -4- September 27, 1995 Troy Pyles, 2263 Mountain Ridge Road, Chula Vista, asked to have 10 minutes to speak. He gave a brief description of his background, including the fact that he is an avid hobbyist in antique automobiles. He had an interest in getting involved in his hobby as a business, combining his hobby activity and contacts around the country. His concept of the business would be to purchase antique cars at auction or through private party sales and ship them out of state; however, he may dispose of some of them to dealerships in San Diego County that specialize in selling antique cars. There may be an occasion where he would have to store a vehicle; he had researched that and there were many alternatives for storing vehicles which he enumerated. Regarding the objection that the Code stated the usage as not being customary, his research had indicated that there was no activity that had been approved in the line of home occupation that could be defined as customary. He noted some of the activities which had been approved that did not fall within the definition that was attempted to be used as "temporary" and did not fall within the example of "typical" occupations that were listed in the Code. He pointed out that the occupation he proposed was no different than many of the occupations routinely approved. The attempt to use the word "customary" or "usual" to prevent him from pursuing this particular commerce would be a discriminatory use. Mr. Pyles stated that the objection regarding storing vehicles was based on past experience with other people. The fear was based on the lack of belief in what he intended to do. Mr. Pyles commented that, according to the zoning ordinance, only factual and objective measurements could be used in judging a potential nuisance. The storage of vehicles was only a speculative nuisance; there was no evidence to indicate that a nuisance would be present. He stated that the procedures for enforcing permits indicated that evidence had to be acquired of substantial likelihood to occur, and there was no evidence in this case--only speculation. Regarding the inability to monitor, Mr. Pyles said there was probably equal inability to monitor the vast majority of the home occupation permits already existing. The way to monitor whether the vehicles were for sale could be determined by the vehicle plates. If they were for sale, they would have dealer plates. The registration could be requested; and the neighbors would know which vehicles Mr. Pyles normally drove. The vehicles he would purchase would be antique vehicles and were very distinctive, and were already restored to the highest quality. Mr. Pyles, regarding the issue of the CC&Rs, had not researched that since he had not known about that. He pointed out that there were already approved colnmercial businesses in his neighborhood. He was asking for the same kind of treatment his neighbors had received. He asked that the appeal be sustained on the basis that current law in Chula Vista allows the activity. Commissioner Davis stated the proposal sounded like a hobby instead of a business venture. She asked why he felt he needed to apply for a business license. PC Minutes -5- September 27, 1995 Mr. Pyles said the DMV had told him that if he sold one vehicle with the intent of making a profit, he had to have a vehicle dealer's license. In order to acquire a vehicle dealer's license, he had to have a home occupation permit. As a person who followed the laws, he was trying to do it the right way. He pointed out that them was at least one other auto wholesaler already approved for a home occupation permit. Commissioner Thomas asked why the need to have UPS and Federal Express deliveries if the vehicles were already restored and he was not purchasing anything. Mr. Pyles replied that the UPS would be for documents related to the sale, not for parts. It was not his intent to restore vehicles as a business. He may be ordering parts for his own vehicles at times. Commissioner Ray asked if he could see the name of the person who actually had the wholesale license, and asked staff to comment on it. Principal Planner Griffin recalled that this had been tried in the past and some problems had occurred; he did not know if it was with the current holder of the home occupation permit. It was difficult to tell if there was a problem from the outside appearance. The significant difference in this case was that a family could own as many cars as they wished for their own use, but the request is to have the City endorse that with the issuance of a business license and a home occupation permit. Regarding the current home occupation permit, Mr. Griffin could not recall the cimumstances in issuing the permit or when it was issued. Commissioner Ray asked the City Attorney if when the City already had one permit approved, was there anything to fall back on if the Planning Commission wanted to deny or follow the staff recommendation. Assistant City Attorney Moore stated that each decision is based on a particular factual situation. If there is an existing use, it would be assumed that based on that particular factual situation there was a decision made to allow that particular home occupation at that site. It was up to the discretion of the Planning Commissioners to make a determination based upon the evidence presented. Commissioner Ray asked if the issuance of the permit could be approved with a condition that there would be no storage of vehicles. Attorney Moore answered affirmatively, and stated the Commissioners could also require proof of a lease to allow storage on another site. Mr. Pyles stated that was his request--to have a permit approved with conditions. He had seen a permit which had been issued with a handwritten note stating that the applicant would not park his track at his home. Mr. Pyles stated he had written something similar that he would not park his vehicles at home, but his permit was being denied. He was asking for the same type of treatment routinely being given to other applicants. Commissioner Thomas stated that R.A. Auto Sales, the home occupation permit to which Mr. Pyles referred, moved between 10 to 15 cars per year, which was higher than Mr. Pyles was PC Minutes -6- September 27, 1995 requesting. It was a first-class operation. Mr. Pyles' request was for the same type of operation. He had no problem with the proposal. He thought a conditional use permit could be granted for one year and, if there was a problem, it could be revoked. There could be some contingencies upon it. R.A. Auto Sales did not store any vehicles; they did not have an off lot; it was a quick buy and sell. Commissioner Ray asked if the City received sales tax on the resale of the vehicles if a permit were granted. Mr. Pyles replied that he did not believe there was a wholesale tax; there was a tax at the retail level. As a wholesaler he would not pay the tax, but he was not sure if he wholesaled the car to another dealer, if the dealer would have to pay the tax. Commissioner Ray clarified that the vehicle Mr. Pyles sold would go to another dealer as opposed to an individual. Mr. Pyles concurred, and said that was the only thing the wholesaler license would allow him to do. He would need a retail vehicle dealer's license in order to sell to an individual. Chair Tuchscher thought it would be typical to buy a vehicle and try to add some value to it, by washing, painting, customizing, repairing or replacing a torn seat, etc. He asked if Mr. Pyles wanted to do that, how would he do it. Mr. Pyles stated it was not his intent; however, the retailer who dealt with a customer would more likely need to do that. There were detail shops where he could have it done. He explained that repairing a scratch or buffing it out would not change the value of the sale at a wholesale level. However, if it was an issue in the minds of the Planning Commissioners, he would agree not to do that at home. Even if he brought the vehicle home, he asked if that meant the vehicle being there would be a nuisance. Chair Tuchscher said that even though Mr. Pyles' intentions were to deal with an elite, custom type of car that would be attractive to the neighbors, what the Commissioners had to deal with was the macro perspective, dealing with those who might follow who might have a business plan which was not as focused as Mr. Pyles'. Chair Tuchscher asked if Mr. Pyles envisioned the potential to expand the business, dealing with a more common caliber of car or higher volume. Mr. Pyles said he really did not have the time to deal with a high volume of cars; he would be lucky to do four cars a year; he holds a full-time job and would have to take time off to go to an auction. The possibility of more cars was out of the question. His interest and knowledge was based on certain collector cars. He did not intend to deal even with a wide spectrum of collector cars. Answering Chair Tuchscher, Mr. Pyles said he specialized in Corvettes, '55 to '57 Chevrolets, and '55 to '57 T-Birds. Commissioner Ray asked if they could classify the business as pertaining to strictly antique vehicles. Mr. Pyles answered affirmatively. Commissioner Ray questioned whether there would PC Minutes -7- September 27, 1995 be a problem with a condition limiting the vehicles to antique or classic. Mr. Pyles answered negatively. Commissioner Thomas added that he would like to add to that condition that the automobile be completely restored versus restoration. Mr. Pyles stated that the language "completely restored" might be a little restrictive because that would limit him to a vehicle that was absolutely perfect as opposed to one that was very beautiful in appearance but may not be completely restored. He would argue for some other definition. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Davis, regarding the CC&Rs, noted that neither Salt Creek nor EastLake allowed commercial in the residential zone. The other home occupation permit discussed had been in EastLake. She asked if there was any liability to the City as far as allowing the conditional use permit, based on the fact that the CC&Rs would be in conflict. Attorney Moore replied that the City was not responsible for enfoming private CC&Rs. It would be left up to the homeowners association or the people living in that particular neighborhood. She did not see any liability with respect to the City if the home occupation permit were approved. Some CC&Rs did allow home occupations. Without reviewing the CC&Rs, she could not say conclusively that this would not be allowed. Chair Tuchscher noted some of the home occupation permits noted on a list provided by Mr. Pyles. There were several which, if the permit were violated, would be very evident. It would be difficult to know if someone was storing a car in the neighborhood for a couple of days, and if that increased the traffic, lessened the parking, or changed the character of the neighborhood. Chair Tuchscher was afraid the Commission would be setting a precedent. He understood Mr. Pyles' intent, but that may change. There was no policing action. Commissioner Thomas suggested that conditions be put upon the permit. He felt that if a condition was included that after one year, if the business changed, the permit would be denied. Commissioner Ray suggested the following conditions be put on the home occupation permit: That the permit be granted not to exceed one year. At the end of one year, if Mr. Pyles reapplied, the neighbors would be renoticed and would respond as to whether there had been a problem. Principal Planner Griffin stated it was not a normal procedure to notice the neighbors for a home occupation permit. This one was noticed because it was an appeal and a public hearing. If the Commission wanted the neighbors noticed at the end of one year, that would have to be an additional condition placed on the permit, either at the City's expense or the applicant's expense. He would suggest it be at the applicant's expense. PC Minutes -8- September 27, 1995 Chair Tuchscher noted that should be limited to a reasonable radius, probably 300 feet. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that at the end of the year, any concerns could come directly back to staff, and if there am no issues at that time, the Commission could leave it to staff to authorize a further extension rather than coming back to the Commission. · The applicant would provide proof of an off-site lease that would store up to four vehicles. · The applicant shall not park on Mountain Ridge Road or adjacent streets any of the vehicles that are used in his business. · There will be no repairs on the business vehicles to be done at his residence. · It would be restricted to restored antique/classic vehicles. · The applicant would bear the cost of the neighborhood notice at a 500 foot radius. Commissioner Thomas said that was his intent on the restoration versus restored, of not doing auto repairs at his house to make a vehicle restored but to purchase restored vehicles for resale. Commissioner Davis asked for clarification regarding the noticing, assuming that after a year if the Zoning Administrator approved it again, it would not be going to public hearing and noticing. It would only be if the Zoning Administrator wanted to deny it, that it would have to be noticed for hearing. Mr. Lee stated that as far as an actual hearing, it would be noticed to the residents that it was being considered for an extension and it would go before the Zoning Administrator. If there were complaints, it would then have to be a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Otherwise, it would not be back before the Planning Commission. Attorney Moore asked if she could add a condition dealing with the CC&R, that "the applicant shall be required to comply with all existing rules, regulations and CC&Rs. "Chair Tuchscher questioned the normal enforcement mechanism for CC&Rs. Attorney Moore said usually the homeowners association would bring an action against the property owner for violation of the CC&Rs or, depending on the situation, it could be an adjacent property owner. Chair Tuchscher asked Mr. Pyles to comment on the conditions. Mr. Pyles said he had a concern about the lease. He wouldn't actually need a lease unless he had a vehicle to store. He understood he would need to lease for a facility that could store four cars, even if he didn't have any cars that needed to be stored. Mr. Pyles said he had two cars as part of his hobby that belonged to him personally as opposed to those that would belong to his company currently at his home. One of his personal cars was PC Minutes -9- September 27, 1995 currently being restored. He was concerned that there was potential for confusion about the restriction about not restoring cars at his home. As long as he restored those which belonged to him personally, that could be construed by a neighbor to be a violation of this permit, not being aware of what car it is and whether he was doing it as a business or personally. He intended to continue in his hobby as a person, as well as try to do the business. He was not concerned about letting the neighbors do the enforcement, but felt he was being burdened. He did not disagree with the conditions individually, but the list of conditions was far different from the rest of the people in the City. It seemed onerous to have so many restrictions when he had seen some unusual business like trucking companies where the applicant had just signed a statement saying he would not park there. Chair Tuchscher stated that part of the challenge was that there was a gray area when someone had a hobby and also was trying to conduct a business. By virtue of conducting a business, which was also his hobby, out of his home, the applicant was subjecting himself to special scrutiny. The gray area made it very difficult to regulate. He felt the trucking company and some of the others had off-site storage. Chair Tuchscher was in favor of the 300 foot radius for noticing for this type of home occupation permit. Commissioner Ray commented that if Mr. Pyles talked to someone who had the storage facilities and let them know it would only be used periodically, sign a lease, and only pay for the period it would be used, it would probably satisfy the City Attorney. MS (Ray/Willett) to grant the home occupation permit PCM-96-03, subject to the following conditions: · That it be in effect for a period of one year, renewable to the discretion of the Zoning Administrator; · If a homeowners association exists, the applicant shall comply with the existing CC&Rs; · The applicant provide proof of a lease of an off-site facility for the storage of no less than four vehicles; · The applicant shall not park on Mountain Ridge Road or any adjacent streets any vehicle related to the business or the home occupation permit; · No repairs are to be done on vehicles that would fall under the home occupation permit at his residents; · The activities be restricted to restored antique/classic vehicles; PC Minutes -10- September 27, 1995 · At the end of the year, or at the time the applicant is to reapply for the home occupation permit, that the applicant bear the cost of the notification to the neighborhood which would be required to be sent to a radius of 300 feet. Chair Tuchscher confirmed that Mr. Pyles was to provide a lease for storage of no less than four vehicles. Commissioner Ray concurred. Chair Tuchscher was uncomfortable with the gray area of restoration and the differentiation between private and business. Commissioner Ray noted that on any complaint that would come to the City, staff would notify Mr. Pyles. A car that had been purchased under the wholesale license could not be put in Mr. Pyles' name. If he could show proof that it was his personal vehicle, it would not be considered a complaint. Commissioner Davis clarified that Mr. Pyles would not have to pay for four spaces every month if he did not need it. Mr. Ray said that was up to Mr. Pyles, but he wanted a lease to be provided. It could stipulate in the lease that it was valid for a period of one year, but that he only had to pay for the time he was using it. Commissioner Thomas felt that the integrity of the applicant, the business plan for their proposal, and the willingness to take a chance would cause him to lean from the gray area. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated there was no homeowners association; the CC&Rs were simply covenants and restrictions placed on the property enforceable through the individual homeowners. The City Attorney was simply asking that the applicant was in compliance with the CC&Rs. The applicant should be aware of those; they prohibited the commercial use; the business he was conducting could be challenged in court. Chair Tuchscher thought that was the intent of the maker of the motion and the second. Both concurred. Chair Tuchscher said he would like to see some storage off-site, paid for. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated it did not sound like the applicant at any one time would have more than one or two vehicles. He questioned the number of spaces. With the concurrence of Chair Tuchscher, Mr. Pyles felt it was an onerous requirement to pay for something that may not be used, because there was no vehicle to store. The vehicles run from $30,000 to $45,000. He could not afford to have four at one time. Chair Tuchscher felt something could be worked out with a dealership to use some of their parking spaces. The reason Mr. Pyles was being looked at differently was because this was a very different use in a single-family detached residential neighborhood. PC Minutes -11- September 27, 1995 Commissioner Davis said she looked at this as a hobby; he needed the business license and the home occupation permit to get that license. She felt the lease space was onerous; she did not think it was necessary in this case; it would be revisited in a year; she thought having him show he had the ability to put them off-site when he needed to on a case-by-case basis by having a lease whenever he needed to use it, he did not need to rent a space for every day of the year when he was only going to move from four to six cars and may keep them from one day to six weeks. Chair Tuchscher was concerned about the one letter of opposition; he felt that within a year there may be more and neighbors may be disrupted. Commissioner Davis felt it was a hobby and not a business. Commissioner Thomas also had a problem with a lease for historic vehicles in relation to putting out money when it was not necessary. Chair Tuchscher stated it was not the purview of the Commission to monitor the business plan or to deal with economic issues. Commissioner Thomas said he may not agree, but respected that and was willing to move ahead with the motion on the floor. Commissioner Davis asked Commissioner Ray to repeat the condition regarding the lease. Commissioner Ray said the applicant would have to show to the City that he had leased or had the ability to store, based on some contractual agreement, a minimum of four spaces off-site. He concurred with four, and the concern of the City staff was because the DMV license he Mr. Pyles would possess did not limit him to any number. This was a safety valve for the City. How Mr. Pyles negotiated that was up to him. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Salas and Tarantino excused) DIRECTOR'S REPORT ITEM 4. UPDATE ON COUNCIL ITEMS Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the City Council, on September 12, had upheld the Planning Commission's decision to restrict the hours of operation of both Unocal and Texaco from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. There had been brief discussion with the representative of Texaco, who was considering further discussion with the neighbors with the possibility of opening an hour earlier in the morning. PC Minutes -12- September 27, 1995 He noted that the next meeting would he October 4 at 5:30 p.m., a joint workshop with the Resource Conservation Commission to go over the environmental review process which had been requested. Since there were no specific items scheduled for the October 11 meeting, he asked the Commission for a motion to cancel that meeting. There was still the option of a workshop on the 18th. MSC (Thomas/Davis) 5-0-2 (Salas and Tarantino excused) to cancel the meeting of October 11. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 1. Chair Tuchscher noted that he, John Willett, and John Thomas had attended the tour of amphitheaters on Saturday, which had been really interesting. He noted the MCA amphitheater facility was to be heard before the City Council on October 3. Commissioner Willett felt what they saw was very enlightening because they were very quick to point out some of the design work that would not be used here. He did not feel the Commissioners had seen the best of everything. He had spoken with the County Assistant CEO and they had no complaints. He had participated in the sound test the previous Monday and was very surprised that there was no noise. Commissioner Willett urged the Commissioners to participate in some of the tours. Chair Tuchscher felt the Commissioners should be proud that they had pushed for the noise test. He felt it was very important. It had confirmed the EIR and that the fact that the sound contours were very conservative. MCA had built a model which would be shown at the Council meeting on October 3. 2. Chair Tuchscher asked staff to look into possibly changing the 5-minute testimony timeframe to 3 minutes. He asked that this be included on the next agenda, so it could be more in sync with the City Council. 3. Relative to noticing, Chair Tuchscher asked if Council had ever directed staff to formally look at policy on noticing. Mr. Lee said there had been no formal request by Council; however, staff would be going back to Council in the form of streamlining to talk about noticing in regard to both tenant noticing and resident noticing. Work was being done to get it automated. Much field work was being done to get information for this. The environmental review process required noticing of tenants as well as owners. As far as the distances, the State law required 300 feet. It had been expanded in years past. At a future meeting, staff would come back with a tentative date as to when that report would be going before Council. It was an ongoing effort. PC Minutes -13- September 27, 1995 Chair Tuchscher asked that the Planning Commission be apprised. He said he would lend his support to staff in trying to make it easier on both the applicants and staff from a time standpoint as well as a cost standpoint on that issue. 4. Commissioner Willett asked staff to consider including on the first page of the staff report a statement issuing the issues that are outstanding, or a statement that there are no issues outstanding. It could be in bullet form to bring attention to the issues. ADJOURNMENT at 8:57 p.m. to a Joint Workshop Meeting with Resource Conservation Committee on October 4, 1995, at 5:30 p.m.in Conference Rooms 2/3, and to the Regular Business Meeting of October 25, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Naficy Ripi4y, gec~etary/~ Planning Commission (m:\home\planning\nancy\pc95min\pc9-27.min)