Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-23-2015 PC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes Wednesday, September 23, 2015 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Larson. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler, Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Deputy Community Development Director Kim Murry, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, Planner Kyle Bell, Community Development Director Michael Codron, Natural resources manager Bob Hill, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, Civil Engineer Hal Hannula, and Recording Secretary Sarah Reinhart ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: On motion by Commissioner Draze, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 26, 2015 were approved as presented. AYES: Commissioners Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Malak, Multari, Riggs, and Larson NOES: None ABSTAINED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 7:0 vote. Planning Commission Minutes 09-23-2015 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: Derek Johnson expressed gratitude to the Planning Commission and Community Development Department staff for the opportunity to work together; expressed enjoyment for his time and involvement working as Community Development Director; announced his new position as Assistant City Manager and Interim Information Technology and Finance Director. Community Development Director Codron expressed enthusiasm with his new position; shared that he gained a diverse range of experience working as the Assistant City Manager; expressed enthusiasm to work in the Community Development Department, noting that staff is well educated and enthusiastic to improve the community. Paul Rys, San Luis Obispo, addressed the importance of community involvement; encouraged the commission to improve communications with the public; voiced concerns about the name of the Avila Ranch project; opined that the name should include “Avila Ranch, San Luis Obispo” to avoid public confusion regarding the location. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1. 159 Broad Street. AP-PC 32-14: An appeal of the Community Development Director's decision approving a minor subdivision of a 13.89-acre parcel into 4 parcels and a 13.27-acre remainder parcel, including a variance allowing minor relaxation of “other yard” setback requirements and adoption of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; R-1 and C/OS-20 zones; Andre, Morris, & Buttery, applicant; Cheryl McLean and Andrew Christie, Sierra Club, appellants. Assistant Planner Oetzell presented the staff report, recommending staff to adopt the draft resolution denying the appeal, adopting a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and approving the minor subdivision based on findings: subject to conditions as described in the resolution. In response to Commissioner Fowler’s inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Murry clarified that the appellant would like to see an open space designation easement with this application; noted that the general plan designation for the property would continue to exist; explained that no changes were proposed to the designation in regards to conservation of open space; explained the difference between an open space designation and an open space easement; pointed out that easements are typically offered to the city. In response to Chair Larson, Deputy Community Development Director Murray stated that a certificate of compliance would be required if the title changed on the remainder parcel. In response to Comm. Fowlers inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere pointed out that a certificate of compliance is a ministerial duty. Planning Commission Minutes 09-23-2015 Page 3 In response to Comm. Riggs inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Murray stated that no open space easement currently exist for the parcel. In response to Commr. Riggs’ inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere indicated that under open space designation, there are additional uses that are allowed and noted that with a conservation easement, there would be no future development. In an attempt to further address Commr. Riggs’ questions, Natural Resources Manager Hill affirmed that the open space designation is a General Plan designation; stated that General Plan designations could be changed over time; Mr. Hill explained that an open space easement is a contract between the property owner and the easement holder, and in this case, the city is recorded on the title and governed by State Public Resources code in the Open Space Easement Act; presented an overview of open space easement policy; concluded that it was not clear in the findings that the Subdivision Map Act allows for the exaction of an open space easement. Chair Larson, affirmed that there were two designations at issue in regards to the General Plan’s Land Use designations, first the Open Space Designation (C/OS-20), and secondly the Low-density Residential (R-1), noting that each has its own zoning regulations. In response to Chair Larson’s inquiry as to why the zoning and land use lines don’t coincide, Assistant Planner Oetzell stated that the general plan designation is general in nature and zoning is specific to boundaries. Deputy Community Development Director Murry added that differences in map scales were the reason for the map discrepancy. In response to Chair Larson’s inquiry, Assistant Planner Oetzell responded that the distance between the edge of the existing houses and the land use designation boundary in the parcel map is approximately 300-400ft. In response to Commr. Malak’s inquiry, Assistant Planner Oetzell responded that the “20” in in C/OS-20 sets the minimum parcel size, noting that the minimum lot area in that zone would be 20 acres; added that the zoning allows one dwelling per 20 acres; noting that only one dwelling could be built on it. Chair Larson stated that if the parcel was designated to open space, there would still be an allowance for a single residential structure. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere, pointed out that assuming it was all open space, it would be unclear if a certificate of compliance could be issued for the lot; noted that no analysis has been provided. In response to Chair Larson’s inquiry, Assistant Planner Oetzell responded that R-1 zoning allows for seven dwellings per net acre and for the remainder 13-acre parcel, the zoning would be less than four acres. Planning Commission Minutes 09-23-2015 Page 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chair Larson noted that public correspondence was received. Commr. Fowler, noted that he had a short conversation with the applicant prior to the hearing. Commr. Draze, stated that he had visited the site prior to the hearing; acknowledged having a brief conversation with a resident of the project and encouraged her to attend the hearing; affirmed no commitment regarding the resident. Andrew Christie, Appellant Representative, Director of the San Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club, questioned why the wording of the public hearing notices for the April 15th hearing were changed; stated that the applicant would like to see the wording restored and expanded to encompass the remainder parcel, and across the Blue Line Creek on the adjacent R-1 zone land to encompass the wildlife corridor, then extend down to Broad Street. Stated that open-space zoning, nor its present non-consideration for development in the current General Plan Update would protect the land from development in perpetuity; advised against adopting a philosophy of never acquiring easements; stressed concerns with the plan of an open space easement to protect the property from development. Mr. Christie shared concerns for future owners of the property potentially engaging development strategies that would legally bypass analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act; recommended that the city enact a deed-restriction for the remainder parcel and the wildlife corridor as a condition of approval, of the subdivision as another means to protect against future development. Jean Wright, San Luis Obispo, did not wish to speak. Jim Andersen, San Luis Obispo, stated that he resides in a contiguous property to the parcel, expressed no objection to the project; noted that if there is future development, he would prefer that the homes are individually owned lots, so homeowners and not renters can occupy the homes. Richard Schmidt, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of upholding the appeal; indicated that the staff report does not include a Conservation Open Space Easement of the wildlife corridor that comes down the mountain onto Broad Street; noted that the land to which the Conservation Open Space zoning applies to is undevelopable land, due to the steepness and poor soil of the area; expressed concerns that the open space easement may disappear and subdivisions will be developed in the area; urged that the commission uphold the appeal and request a clear plan, regarding the protection of the wildlife corridor. Linda White, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns regarding the proximity of the lots, sizes of the homes potentially being large enough to be mansions; expressed concerns with the size of the access ways not being large enough to accommodate the residents; Planning Commission Minutes 09-23-2015 Page 5 commented that not enough people attend Planning Commission meetings because the public isn’t successfully notified. Geoffrey Land, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of upholding the appeal; conveyed support for the need to address long-term implications of this decision, including: long- term open space protection and protection of wildlife corridors; noted concerns with potential drainage issues, water flow, and traffic. Chris Carr, San Luis Obispo, expressed support for the appeal; noting that he regularly hikes in the wildlife corridor; explained that wild animals live in low density residential areas; voiced concerns with potential water drainage issues. Michael Morris, Applicant Representative, provided a history of the property; stated that in the past 12 years since acquiring the property nothing was built, yet over half a million dollars were paid in property taxes; noted that the only intent for the property, is to divide the parcels so the existing homes can be sold off in order to pay debts acquired to pay the property taxes. Mr. Morris affirmed that there are no plans for further development; explained that if the property is sold and bought by a developer in the future, then they would have to go through the approval process with the city and the process will require an environmental impact report and traffic and drainage issues will be addressed. Ian Mckay, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the appeal and his lifelong residence at Bressi Place; stated that he would like the subdivision to remain the same. Sandra Lee, San Luis Obispo, stated that she is a contiguous resident to the open space area; expressed support in upholding the appeal; expressed concerns to narrow or develop the area; explained that development will disrupt the natural habit of animals and change the ecosystem; urged the commission to approve an open space easement and protect the area. Loree Ramus, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the appeal; pointed out the importance of preserving San Luis Obispo the way it currently stands, including protecting the wildlife; shared concerns regarding overpopulation and water drainage issues. There were no further comments made from the public. Planning Commission Minutes 09-23-2015 Page 6 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Draze explained that if the remainder parcel was to be sold, the next owner would have to undergo a full discretionary review of any future land division under the Map Act; noted that animals would not be affected by this subdivision; expressed support to open space easements because they usually go in perpetuity but rejected the need for one in this case due to legal constraints; expressed concerns with the possible lack of affordability of the potential homes for the families currently residing within the subdivision; stated that it is highly speculative and unlikely for the parcel to be subdivided into 28 lots; affirmed that if the owners want to do any development within the property, they will have to go through a rigorous process of approvals with the City and the community; expressed confidence in success of an open space easement when it becomes legally feasible to do so. In response to Commr. Dandekar, Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere stated that he foresees no impact on the open space area as a result of the subdivision; noted that the four houses that have already built will impact the area the equally; stated that meeting rough proportionality requirement is not probable; affirmed that the staff recommendation for this project is based on the legal recommendations. In response to Commr. Draze’s inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Murry clarified that the urban reserve line supports the lack of building opportunity in the upper slopes because those are the limits to where city services are available. Commr. Malak expressed a desire to ensure that safeguards are in place to prevent future development from occurring. Commr. Draze noted that the open space zoning, urban reserve line and the open space designation are subject to review by the community, the Planning Commission and three votes by the City Council, pending environmental review; stated that legally it could change, however it is very unlikely. Commr. Malak voiced concerns over the prospect of the wildlife corridor being available for future generations. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere advised Commr. Malak that in his judicatory role, he did not have the power to legislate; stating that the Planning Commissions’ job is to take the policies, rules, and zoning prescribed by the City Council to apply rules to current projects. Commr. Malak stated that the Planning Commission’s responsibility is to plan for the present and for the future. Planning Commission Minutes 09-23-2015 Page 7 Vice-Chair Multari noted that the sentiment of the commission is universal, as everyone would like to see the open space and the wildlife corridor preserved; stated in regards to the Subdivision Map Act, the remaining parcel could not be further subdivided without going through another Map Act and environmental review; inquired to staff, if development could take place under R1 zoning without requiring a discretionary review. Deputy Community Development Director Murry stated that any further development of the remainder parcel would cause Subdivision Map Act requirements. Assistant City Manager Codron asserted that all city standards would apply when requesting to build on the remaining parcel, including storm water requirements, design requirements for hillside development and a full multitude of regulations would need to be applied when requesting a construction proposal; noted that development proposals would cause a design review. Vice-Chair Multari stated that no development should occur on the remainder parcel; He wanted to be sure that future review would allow the Commission the discretion to require the open space easement at that time. In response to Vice-Chair Multari’s inquiry, Assistant Planner Oetzell noted that the language in the condition is a “variance”; indicating that the findings for the variance could be found in the resolution. In response to Vice-Chair Multari’s inquiry, Civil Engineer Hannula confirmed that the proposed parking access, water, sewer, drainage and utility easement on the map benefits the four existing homes in the area and not the remainder parcel. Vice-Chair Multari voiced concerns discarding the opportunity to ensure public access, including emergency, pedestrian and bicycle access; expressed concerns for the future development on the R1 portion of the remainder parcel. Commr. Fowler expressed support of the comments made by Commr. Draze; expressed uncertainties with future development on the remainder parcel without undergoing a long rigorous process, including a full environmental review; stated that the remainder parcel will not be sold without the easements being recorded; stressed that the Commission’s responsibility is not suppose to legislate, but to look at the general planning; expressed support with staff’s recommendations. Commr. Dandekar expressed concerns with the decisions due to judicatory constraints; voiced support for a condition that would allow for public access in the future, to keep drainage systems intact, and to allow wildlife to roam naturally. Vice-Chair Multari, inquired if it would be possible for development to take place on the remainder parcel, without the Commission having an opportunity to require an open space easement. Planning Commission Minutes 09-23-2015 Page 8 Deputy Community Development Director Murry clarified that future development would cause a certificate of compliance; explained a straight or a conditional certificate depending on future analysis would recognize the legal parcel and then development would be subject to all the rules, regulations and policies that are in placed at the time. In response to Chair Larson’s inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere confirmed that a certificate of compliance is considered a ministerial decision. Vice-Chair Multari recommended that if the appeal was to be denied and the subdivision upheld, he would seek a condition that an easement is offered to the remainder of the property, for pedestrian, bicycle and emergency access. In response for Commr. Malak’s inquiry regarding possible ways to protect the wildlife corridor on the R-1 Zone; Community Development Director Codron stated that city’s ordinances regarding the creek are currently in place as part of zoning ordinances that would apply, and irrespective of zoning or urban reserve line or any other designation; noted that the City has a minimum 20 ft. setback, from the top of any creek bank or the edge of riparian vegetation and whichever is greater; explained that setbacks are an effective tool when reviewing new development to ensure wildlife corridors remain protected. Vice-Chair Multari noted difficulties with voting in favor of an open space easement without the analysis required for setting boundaries; expressed support for protection of the open space, wildlife corridor and the creek. Chair. Larson, summarized open space concerns; stated that upholding the appeal on the basis of the wildlife corridor going through the R-1 zone as indicative of a policy statement indicates many interpretations to future development proposals; expressed uncertainties that more houses will be developed in the R1 portion of the remainder parcel, without having any subsequent review; voiced confidence that staff would find a ways to ensure discretionary review in the future; stated that most of the issues could be addressed at the time when property owner proposes to develop; clarified that the areas relative to open space are not within the four parcels; explained that it is problematic to impose additional conditions based on the open space issues on only the remainder parcel. Vice-Chair Multari concurred with the statements made by Chair Larson, noting that it would be unlikely for development, without discretionary approval and input from the community to require a dedication to the open space. On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Draze, to deny appeal to approve a subdivision with the following added language and conditions: that will include reference to the staff analysis in the staff report and in the oral presentation as part of the initial statements in the findings. Include a condition for irrevocable offer of dedication as recorder on the property for the benefit of the public for bicycles and pedestrians on Bressi Place and emergency access and an offer of dedication to the City. Include Standard indemnification language, and add minor edits on Finding 9. Planning Commission Minutes 09-23-2015 Page 9 A. SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, including the analysis provided staff in the staff report and in the oral presentation the commission makes the following findings. B. Finding 9. A variance allowing a minor relaxation of yard depth standards will not adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity. Buildings on the site are existing and subject to building and fire safety standards and codes related to fire resistant construction and emergency egress. C. Condition1. Irrevocable offer of dedication for the public access easement D. Condition 2. Include city standard indemnification language There were no further comments made from the Commission. AYES: Commrs. Draze, Fowler, Riggs, Multari, Larson NOES: Commrs. Dandekar, Malak RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 5:2 vote. On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Riggs, to request consideration of assigning an “S” overlay designation for this property in the next zoning ordinance updates. AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Riggs, Malak, Multari, Larson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 7:0 vote. RECESS: The Commission recessed at 7:02 p.m. and reconvened at 7:08 p.m. 2. 2390 Loomis Street and 48 Buena Vista Avenue. USE-1520-2015: Review of a new single-family residence with an attached Secondary Dwelling Unit on a non- conforming lot in the S-overlay zone that includes a height exception and a setback exception, with a categorical exemption from CEQA (Section 15303 – New Construction); Lee J. Kraft, ETUX, applicant. Deputy Community Development Director Murray informed the Commission that the plans for review were slightly different than the plans used by staff when preparing the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes 09-23-2015 Page 10 Planner Kyle Bell, presented the staff report, recommending to adopt the draft Resolution to allow development of a single-family residence with the exceptions to property development standards: subject to findings and conditions of approval that were outlined. In response to inquiries from Commrs. Riggs and Multari, Community Development Director Codron clarified that the commission was not asked to allow the secondary dwelling unit, but was asked to review the floor plan, which includes the secondary unit. Planner Bell, addressed questions regarding parking and lot location. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jeff Kraft, Applicant, provided an overview of the project; indicated that the geological report found the land suitable for residential use; stated that the property does not block the view from Buena Vista; requested a height exemption to accommodate a garage;; noted the house will be situated behind tress and it will not look intrusive from the 101 freeway; noted that the lower level was added due to hillside requirements. Requested a height exemption due to design constraints; requested a condition that would allow for the lower level to satisfy staff’s requirements; noted that he would agree to staff’s conditions, if given the opportunity to go through the standard process of adding the additional uses to the lower level first. Commr. Riggs asked staff to have a continuance of this item for further analysis to be presented once the lower level is finalized. Chair Larson inquired if the conversion to the lower level from unconditioned space to conditioned space is an issue that would be problematic. Planner Bell responded that staff did not have the opportunity to review and evaluate the changes to the lower level. Community Development Director Codron noted that more analysis and additional requirements take place before allowing changes to the first floor; stated that if the Commission did not see a problem with the use of the additional space they could dismiss the conditions. Chair Larson, noted having no problem continuing the item until the lower level issue is resolved. Shirley Ready, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to the proposed project; noted concerns with projected views of the structure from 101 freeway, Loomis Street and Buena Vista; recommended discussing alternative development of the site with property entrance from Loomis Street. Linda White, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to adding a secondary dwelling at this location due to the “S” designation; suggested the plans be scaled down in size to conform to city guidelines. Planning Commission Minutes 09-23-2015 Page 11 Robert Karger, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with the project being situated on a hazardous curve and a narrow driveway; spoke in opposition to allow exceptions and the secondary dwelling; opined that having a secondary dwelling doesn’t make this property a single family home. Naomi Hoffman, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns over potential traffic accidents; noted possible problems with allowing the second dwelling, including using the unit as a student rental; questioned the Planning Commission’s responsibility in maintaining the value of the city. Robin Ramus, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns for the safety of animals and children in the area due to hazardous traffic conditions because of the property’s proximity to a curve. Lori Ramos, San Luis Obispo, provided history of the neighborhood. Expressed concerns regarding the quality of the soil, narrow roads, and lack of emergency vehicle access; suggested the applicant build the house near Loomis Street. Ken Schwartz, San Luis Obispo, expressed opposition to the proposed project; opined that the Planning Commission should improve their communication with the Public; noted that the Planning Commission does not have a good reputation with the public; criticized the commission for not speaking clearly; asserted that this property should not be labeled a single family residence. Pat Dellario, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the request for a height extension, noting possible obstruction of site lines; advised the commission to consider additional height that will project from the deck on top of the property; expressed concerns for the precedent and the exemptions could offer other home builders. Michael Villareal, spoke in opposition to the project; shared concerns over visibility from 101 freeways; opined that the there should not be exceptions on ADA requirements; stressed the need for further drainage reviews before approval; voiced concerns over this property possible becoming a rental, suggested the house be built lower down the hill to accommodate guest parking. Paul Rys, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns over limited visual distance issues on a curve with a hillside drive and slope issues; suggested moving the location of the entrance to a lower street in order to avoid street safety issues. There were no further comments made from the public. Planning Commission Minutes 09-23-2015 Page 12 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Community Development Director Codron explained the rationale for second family units; noted that the State of California established that anyone who has a single family home can add a secondary dwelling to an existing home for the interest of providing additional affordable housing and elder care; indicated that the City has the ability to apply standards to secondary dwellings so that they remain compatible with the character of the neighborhood; explained that one of the dwellings must be must be owner occupied. Commr. Draze voiced concerns for the curve at the residence, potential water issues, driveway visibility and the lower level, potentially being used as a residence; suggested staff review the lower level before continuing forward. In response to Commr. Draze’s concerns regarding the driveway fence, Planner Bell noted that a condition could be put in place as part of the review that would condition the driveway fences to remain open. Commr. Dandekar concerned about the height increase required in the setback; expressed concerns regarding the lower level development; spoke against allowing ADU’s. Commr. Riggs stated he would like to see the third floor issues to be further studied before commenting. Vice-Chair Multari stated that he could not make the first findings that this project would not be detrimental to the safety and welfare of the persons working and living in the vicinity; voiced concerns with the difficulties in this site including size, lack of parking for the secondary dwelling, lack of sidewalk, and lack of on-street parking. Commr. Malak noted not being in favor of roof top patios due to noise; voiced concerns with noise in that area. Chair Larson concurred with Commr. Malak, noted concerns with the lower level and the many issues with the proposal. In response Commr. Fowler’s inquiry, Planner Bell indicated the factors that contributed to the development on Buena Vista St. instead of Loomis; noted the grading to accommodate the access to the property. Commr. Fowler affirmed that he could not make health and safety findings at this time. Commr. Malak noted that he would prefer to continue the proposal; suggested to review the analysis from staff furthermore, so the project can be thoroughly vetted for consideration. Commr. Riggs voiced disagreement with comments made by Vice-Chair Multari on the issue of ADU’s; suggested to include in the motion that some level of attention should be given to the traffic implications. Planning Commission Minutes 09-23-2015 Page 13 Commr. Draze stated having no problem with the secondary dwelling; encouraged the applicant to try different approach; explained that he could not support an approach from Loomis St. Commr. Dandekar stated that given the variances requested, the accessory dwelling unit could be reconsidered; recommended that the lower level have cohesiveness with the rest of the home; noted she would like the property be built without any variances; suggested adding screened landscaping and vegetation around the property to minimize the vie from the 101 freeway; noted she would like to see a reworking of the elevations so there is contextual fit. On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Malak, to continue the item with additional consideration to the potential use of the first level as well as considering the public comments in regards to traffic implications and the tightness of the curve as well as limitations by traffic, right of way, and fire to a date uncertain. AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Larson, Malak, Multari and Riggs NOES: Fowler RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 6:1 vote. Commr. Malak, suggested staff further review the roof deck, concurs with Commr. Riggs and sees no problem with the accessory dwelling unit; voiced uncertainty about the lower level and would like to see staff do further consideration. Commr. Riggs, concurs with that further analysis of the top deck is needed and will not consider taking future development from Loomis St. Commr. Dandekar would like to see the inner workings of the lower level; suggested a proposal without variances that conforms to the governing regulations and setbacks; opposes making concessions for the size of the property. Commr Fowler, explained that based on the information provided by staff, Loomis does not seem feasible for development, urged that further analysis of the top deck is needed; expressed hesitation about allowing variances; noted no problems with the accessory dwelling unit. Chair Larson, stated he would consider variances and exemptions if convinced that they would benefit the city by creating a better product; commended the staff on their analysis and report given the exceptional nature of this property; conveyed optimism that with further analysis and revisions on the part of the applicant, they might be able to reach a well-informed decision. There were no further comments made from the Commission. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: