Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/28/2006MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Nelson led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Ron Everett, Kwang Ho Lee, Chairman Joe McManus, Vice Chairman Steve Nelson and Tony Torng. Also present. Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director; Sandra Campbell, Contract Senior Planner; David Alvarez, Planning Intern; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant; and Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney. 4. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 5. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chair/McManus announced that Agenda Item 7.3 would be continued to April 11, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 14, 2006. C/Everett moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve the minutes of March 14, 2006 as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS None None Everett, Lee, Torng, VC/Nelson, Chair/McManus None None MARCH 28, 2006 PAGE 2 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: PLANNING COMMISSION 7.1 Development Review No. 2006-08 — In accordance with Chapter 22.48, this was a request to remodel and construct an addition of approximately 780 square feet of habitable space, deck, covered patio and an additional one - car garage to an existing single-family residence of approximately 2,730 square feet with an existing two -car garage. PROJECT ADDRESS: 409 El Encino Drive (Tract 27532, Lot 4) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: Albert Luong, 409 El Encino Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 1CDD/Fong presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2006-08, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Albert Luong thanked staff for their assistance in preparing for the remodel and asked for Commission approval. C/Everett asked if Mr. Luong understood the condition regarding the driveway and whether it was cause heeto him and Mr. Luong intended to enlarge the driveway. that it would be no problem C/Torng said he liked the plan and thanked the applicant for submitting his proposal. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus declared the public hearing closed. C/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded to approve Development Review No, 2006-08, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. MARCH 28, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Torng, Lee, Everett, VC/Nelson, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.2 Develo ment Review 2006-07 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-03 — In accordance with Chapter 22.48 this was a request for approval of plans to construct a first and second story addition of approximately 829 square feet to an existing one-story single family residence of 1,280 square feet. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2605 Rising Star Drive (Lot 9, Tract 25990) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Steven and Luzmaria Babbitt 2605 Rising Star Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Landmarks Design Charles Krausman 515 W. Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 211 Fullerton, CA 92832 PI/Alvarez presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review 2006-07 and Minor Conditional Use Permit 2006-03, Findings of Fact, and conditions of. approval as listed within the resolution. PI/Alvarez responded to C/Everett that the applicant would remain in the dwelling and would install the proper safety fencing during the construction period. PI/Alvarez confirmed to VC/Nelson that the existing and proposed side yard setbacks were five and seven feet; that he believed the house was built in the 1950's and that the public hearing was properly noticed with no responses from the neighbors including the neighbor immediately adjacent to the property. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. MARCH 28, 2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. VC/Nelson said he agreed that it would be good to accommodate a family that wished to remain in Diamond the neighbor was in this nonce concerned stance his aboutgest the concern would have been whether setback variance. rove ment Review VC/Nelson moved, CILee seconded Use Permpt 2006-03, Findings of Fact, 2006-07 and Minor Conditional and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nelson, el Everett, Torng, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None the 7.3 Tentative Parcel Map No. 0617min accordance thenapplicant hrequest dpter 21 f the City of Diamond Bar Developertit following approval: Tentative Parcel Map No. 061702 to subdivide one lot into three parcels. The project is consistent with an implementation of the Diamond Bar Village Specific Plan. PROJECT ADDRESS: West of Grand Avenue and South of Golden Springs Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Target Corporation 1000 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55403 APPLICANT: Pfeiler & Associates Engineers, Inc. 660 N. Diamond Bar Blvd Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ICDDIFong reported that the applicant requested a continuance to April 11, 2006. Staff recommended that the Pue Tentative ve Parcel Map No. 061702lanning Commission open the 1to hearing, receive testimony and contra April 11, 2006. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. MARCH 28, 2006 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION With no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/McManus continued the public hearing to April 11, 2006. C/Torng said he wanted more information about the project and ICDD/Fong responded that the development standards were established through the Specific Plan. She said staff would provide information about the percentage of landscaping being provided and further stated that the applicant met and exceeded the parking requirements. The City is doing the traffic mitigation and it would not be appropriate to revisit these issues at this time. With respect to "art," it was an item that the applicant had an issue — requiring an art object after the fact. In addition, when the applicant is available for the April 11 public hearing C/Torng would have an opportunity to ask the applicant his questions. ICDD/Fong said she would make an artists rendering of the new store available to C/Torng for his information. VC/Nelson said he was concerned about the parking on each of the individual lots and whether or not those were standalone. He wanted to avoid any possibility of these lots being separated at a future date with the parcels being separated, the reciprocal agreement becoming non-existent and ending up with uses that would not provide for adequate parking as in the case of the bank building location at the corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue. Additionally, he wanted to understand why Target maintains a corridor out to Golden Springs and why the subdivision was not set up to grant one parcel for Target with parking in front of the store and the other two parcels set up to share the remaining parking between the two parcels. 7.4 Conditional Use Permit 2004-01 Development Review 2004-19 and Variance 2004-02 — In accordance with Chapter 22 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested the following approval: a modification to the conditions of approval of City Council Resolution No. 2006-60 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-01, Development Review No. 2004-19 and Variance No. 2004-02. PROJECT ADDRESS: Diamond Bar Blvd. between Northwest corner of Cold Springs Ln. and southwest corner of Fountain Springs Rd. (Country Hills Towne Center) MARCH 28, 2006 PROPERTY OWNERI APPLICANT: PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MCC Realty Management 9595 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 214 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 CSP/Campbell presented staffs recort and ommending City Council of Planning Commission adoption of a resoluta the modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-01, Development Review No. 2004-19 and Variance N ClLee said that this was a complicateWould issue to observe the ontent of the , that there were too many items to consider this evening and that modification. He asked CSP/Campbell to explain in greater detail what the applicant wanted to do. licanfs CSP/Campbell provided the Commission as seeking a hpange for tanlylane ICDDIFong explained that the applicantroyal would remain. app CSP/Campbell said that the condition and the rest of the antconditions not be able to pull the permits for the three-story building until the market was occupied and in operation. The applicant is projecting three to four years. ClTorng said he received the letter today adschedu a she asked Mr. McCarthy to ndered if the schedule was muddled. ICDDIFong said this produce for the Commission to demonstrate �his r�g nal condition of approval mmitment to completing the project. The consideration at th was that the applicant did not have a market tenant so staff placed a condition guaranteeing that the applicant would be able to build the three- story building once he had aarket tenant in as been achiece. At this point the ved. The applicant has a market tenant and that milestone h applicant is saying that now t he h�er to complete the renovation for the s the market he needs a little more flexibility to move tenants around entire building. As a compromise requestinghe is ircurrent ocdcupiedtarelasw tenants to move into while he is refurbishing the C/Everett wondered if item 4 on page 7 should be Item 5. ICDDIFong responded that Section 4 is Section f 4oftoetresolution. sspa ag�aphhshould be condition is 5.A.(3). ncil C/Everett asked partsresoned included within staff's recommendation motion and ICDDIFongovaiofahe that the action was for the Commission to recommend tat Con appy 3 would be proposed revision to Council Condition 5.A.(3) stricken. ICDDIFong stated that the motion would be to recommend approval MARCH 28, 2008 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION of the modifications of the condition to the Conditional Use Permit No. 5.A.(3) as recommended in the attached resolution. ACA/Kovacevich clarified that the motion would be to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve a modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-01 amending condition 5.A.(3) of the resolution in a manner set forth in the resolution provided by staff on page 7, Section 4.A.(3) of the resolution. Mike McCarthy gave a slide presentation of the proposed project. He explained that in order to keep the construction on a tight schedule it inconvenienced the current tenants who had to be relocated until their current space was refurbished or until new space was constructed to accommodate them. He further explained that his intent for requesting a modification to the Conditional Use Permit was to keep the project roiling while attempting to mitigate the apprehensions of the current tenants. C/Lee said he was concerned about the safety of shoppers during construction. Mr. McCarthy agreed and said there would be a lot of new covered pathways and signage during construction. Mr. McCarthy agreed with Chair/McManus that the area would be as safe as possible and that the idea was to move forward as quickly as possible so that for example, the framer would work continuously until his job was finished so that he would not have to return to the job site again and again as if it were being done piecemeal. The objective was to keep the subs on the jobsite until theyfinished so that the next subs could come in and finish theirportion. C/Lee asked if Mr. McCarthy had a specific plan and whether the plan was ready now. Mr. McCarthy responded no but that it would be part of pulling a building permit and working with the Planning Department in devising a mutually acceptable pian. Chair/McManus said that at that point it was up to staff to monitor the applicant. ICDD/Fong agreed and said that as part of the plan check process staff would ask the applicant for a phasing construction plan that would provide a diagram of where construction would take place and how the parking and traffic flow would safely operate. In addition, the fire department and the building department would study the diagram to ensure safety during construction. C/Lee said he learned one thing from the Planners Institute. They said that Planning Commissioners have a right to ask questions about safety issues MARCH 28, 2006 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION and he believed the Commissionerandneeded Building Department. felt too in addition to the Planning Department there would be a danger during construction and if e cannot see the s that the appliplan how can he decide how to vote? So, his suggestion ant should submit a complete made land thel plan overlap of ther the ty of the constructi�o nand the pers so that he can then logically u difficult for him to understand. businesses. Otherwise, it is very Chair/McManus said that if therethose concerns oe concerns uring the construction staff 1CDDlFong said phase the Commission could direct s it was staffs job to review the const'rp ht alsohasing . He said he learned that that at the same time it was the Commissioners g explained that the Planning from the Planners Institute. ICDD1Fong ex p Commission gives direction to staff and staff implements ismmicro-managing he Commission starts reviewing all plans then construction and overriding staffs function. fhnIv°duals visiting the center Cmmission's role is to tell staff that it is concerned about the safety require that during construction and for the Commission tadiritde°te applicant submit a phasing construction plan details providing { adequate safety measures during construction. VC/Nelson asked Mr. McCarthy what kind of leases the existing tenantscurrhad or did not have that rth uresplthat tenants have a ther long-term or ase space they aroccupying. Mr. McCarthy onded short-term/month-to-month leases. If the tenant has a short ` nm r month- to-month Mr. McCarthy can eeenteehprojectir Sting space. H --Mart, Rite-Aid, Radio Shack ere are four long-term leases for and Baskin-Robbins. VC/Nelson found Qdifficult he tenanbelieve want d to stay at the Mr. McCarthy did not know that most ft center when it was improved. Mr, settledMcCarthy into planningtand scheduling he it was more of an oversight because shortly after he tenants, their wanting to was stuck with a couple of conundrums of existing stay and what to do with them and how it should McCarthy was okay with ws aff s is here today. VC/Nelson asked proposed modifications and Mr. McCarthy responded that he was. ClTomg asked if the original project wasproposed that ` prooposeedto Quitake completed three about four one or two years. He said he was concerned years. Mr. McCarthy said he could noeremember te cother mpleeon of the project had a particular schedule but the way the conditions r Y was pretty much out of his hands because pthe e d of 2007. lTomg opened for business. It could be the end of 2006 or MARCH 28, 2006 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION found confusion in the presentation that the market commencement date of March when later Mr. McCarthy said May. ICDD/Fong responded that the March date was for plan check and assuming plan check goes quickly Mr. McCarthy may get a permit in April and may commence construction in May. C/Torng said the document should indicate May. ClTorng asked if the schedule was based on approval of the revised Conditional Use Permit and Mr. McCarthy responded that it was. C/Torng asked if the tenants received a notice of this hearing and ICDD/Fong responded that they did not. C/Torng wondered if it was fair for the tenants not to be notified and ICDD/Fong responded that there was a sign posted at the site regarding the hearing. C/Torng said that he was hoping that with a motion to approve everything that Mr. McCarthy was working to help the existing tenants. Mr. McCarthy said that some of the tenants were not happy with the lease rate he was seeking and in a couple of instances the tenants planned to move. Some of the other tenants were okay with the lease rate because they liked the new development and they liked having a large Asian grocery store as their anchor. On the other hand, there are many proposals from people who wish to come into the center and provide the same uses as the existing tenants and in some cases within the same space. As a developer he is trying to work through all of those scenarios. At this point, there are no signed leases except for the four existing leases in the center. If a tenant wants to stay and have a good business he would like to have them stay. C/Torng said he hoped Mr. McCarthy could keep the existing tenants at the existing rate because he was told the new rates were twice the old rate. Chair/McManus said the Commission was wandering into an area that was outside of its venue because, however Mr. McCarthy wanted to run his business was his business. C/Torng asked if the theater area was going to be an arcade and Mr. McCarthy explained that "arcade" was an architectural term that related to the colonnade area, overhang and shop space. C/Everett asked for clarification of site areas. C/Everett said it would be helpful to him if Mr. McCarthy showed the date of proposed completion along with the change versus the original proposed completion dates. Currently, the completion was projected to be 2008-09. Mr. McCarthy said that he has little control over the dates because the old condition was based on the tenant opening for business and he does not have control of that situation and the hurdle for him is that MCC is unable to get an occupancy permit until H -Mart opens for business. He can build but cannot pull an occupancy permit. C/Everett said it appeared that there were no changes to the use as approved except for two and then only a change in timing. The important condition was (e) on page 3 in that granting this modification would improve MARCH 28, 2446 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION the operation of the existing business oallow and granting the conditional use relocate into the new two-story building for incubationpurposes ety and would not be detrimental to the �icant change is "t ming" andublic interest, health, f as noted convenience or welfare. The only sign in Condition (k) "will allow continued oeetl and to ing on-shim a w in - with less disruption from the proposed construction" situation and the goodness that the applicant was seeking thatwouid provide a benefit to the community. Hebelieved in his assumptions and lCDDIFong and at everything else remained the same. He asked if he was Cor tions. Mr. McCarthy confirmed C/Everett's assume ule was Mr. McCarthy responded to ethat ponded tohe uction CILee thatdthe plan tentative and flexible. Mr. McCarthy contemplates about 5,000 square feet a f e°Q�It the three tacourt area if three five owners. CILee said if the marks g p owners should get a permit to movens is that the market constructgjets itsrpermi# f test explained that usually what happ and starts their build -out and prepares opfood °n ng t,;e market the food user And then perhaps 60 to 90 day would probably pull the perm t to build foohis d courtsmaller owners cwithin uIdthe not larger ea interior premises. CILee said that the Certificate of Occupancy becauseshouted Y r their permit. food-related nsaidthe t that to five food court owners getthat Mr. McCarthy said that the permit process takes four weks ad he ese to fn e foodlcourt four weeks was an extremely short period of time for th owners. CILee said that Mr. McCarthy's timeline was not logical to him and it caused him to doubt Mr. McCarthy's credibility. He wanted a copy of Mr. McCarthy's application letter. Chair/McManus asked if it was comlme ns Seel fritishing lhissp rtiPuoardarea. basic tenant improvements with Mr. McCarthy responded that each case is different. However, in h electrical and utilities st stubbed in is case he is delivering a "warm shell to the tenant with but not distributed. The tenant taken allowance package for tenas possession of the warm lnts to draw builds it out with the applicant providing at he was not certain upon. Mr. McCarthy responded to Cha,or whether the tenant would whether the subtenant would do the Tl handle the TI for the smaller tenants.. e meschedule erlmajoa lessnd ll of ee) and does not ons are based on the market tenant apply to the smaller subtenants so the because it was nlot # ed t es that C/Lee the applicant's were not shown on the timeline MARCH 28, 2006 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION schedule. ICDD/Fong said that even the City has no control over the tenant's timeline. If the project is under construction and the applicant continues to seek inspection the permit is valid. The schedule is flexible because there are a lot of unknown variables. In this case the applicant is making every best effort to move forward in a timely manner to get his shopping center renovated and to have the tenants occupy all of the spaces thereby assuring a viable and thriving shopping center for the residents of Diamond Bar. C/Lee said he understood the timeline was flexible and tentative but it should be logical. If there are multiple tenants they should go through the Conditional Use Permit process. TCDD/Fong responded that the tenant does not need to go through a Conditional Use Permit process. The applicant has an approved Conditional Use Permit to operate as a shopping center and that the market including the food court was already approved. CILee asked if based on staff's experience four weeks would be reasonable and ICDDIFong responded that the first plan check turnaround time is about three weeks. The tenant improvement plan that the market submits is for interior improvements and not exterior improvements; the plan check process for interior improvements was much less involved that plan check for exterior improvements. CILee felt that the applicant was presenting a best - case scenario and staff wanted the Commission to decide based on the best -case scenario but the Commission would like to see something a little more flexible and realistic so the Commission can make a logical decision. Mr. McCarthy said the estimate of four weeks was the time estimated for provide the warm shell. The time for completing tenants improvements has no bearing on this application because Mr. McCarthy has no control overthat process even though he is concerned about the process. This request is for tearing down the existing space and rebuilding the 45000 square foot warm shell and it involves about three to four weeks of initial plan check. The entire process may take six to eight weeks. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. VC/Nelson asked how many of the tenants would be generating sales tax revenue to the City and Mr. McCarthy responded that the only exclusion to sales tax was food sales and services from the market; the rest of the retail would generate tax revenue. The market could generate $6-8 million dollars of taxable sales. Rite-Aid produces about $5 million in taxable sales and the MARCH 28, 2006 0 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION majority of the other uses would generate taxable sales (45-50,000 square feet) at $300 per foot. VC/Nelson asked how that would compare with the Target project and CDD/Fong responded that a typical Target store generates about $500,000 in annual sales tax dollars and the Country Hills Towne Center project would generate somewhat less than the Target project. VC/Nelson said his point was that it was in the City's best interest to do everything possible to get this project on-line and get tenants in the center because it was not just good for the applicant and for the tenants that wished to stay in the center, it was also good for the City. ICDDlFong agreed that the faster the center was occupied the faster the sales tax would come back to the City. ICDDlFong responded to VC/Nelson that indeed the City was losing Diamond Bar Honda and was seeking ways to replace the lost sales tax revenue. VC/Nelson moved, C/Everett seconded to approve the cationo Condition 5.A.(3) of City Council Resolution 2005-60, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-01, Development Review 2004-19 and Variance No. 2004-01, per Condition 4.A(3) of the Draft Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nelson, Everett, Lee, Torng, Chair/McManus None None PLANNING COMMSSIONER COMMENTSIINFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C1Lee reported that last week he attended the Planners hiHeInstitute e encouraged otfie had a good time and the seminar very helpful s thanks to Marquez Commissioners to attend next year He and hote{dacicommodation� d he said he for her assistance in arranging the rental ca appreciated ICDD/Fong's scheduling of dteer know minars and dge and wisdom. ef foods. He thanked C/Everett for imparting his to g C/Torng said he visited Scribbles last Sunday (March 19) and the facility was closed. ICDDlFong said as far as she knew the club was stillfee the City to have and may have been closed only for the evening. C/Torng said he was happy the Country Hills Towne Center and Target projects ut he hoped the center would nfair that he p operty owner had take care of its existing tenants. He fel t it raised the rents and he was surprised that no tenants had come before the MARCH 28, 2006 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION Commission tonight to complain. Perhaps the Chamber of Commerce could assist in the negotiations between the tenants and the landlord. C/Everett said he has had a great month with the Planning Commission. He was privileged to attend the Planners institute in Monterey last week and it was a "fire hose" of education for him on some very interesting concepts, terms and Commissioners' responsibilities and roles. He learned about NIMBY and YIMBY and talked about the 20 most asked questions. Over 900 individuals attended the seminar and he believed the majority of the cities were represented. As a result, there was a very diverse set of issues and he was most interested in the subject of 'Walk able cities." Monterey is a fine example of such a city. He also learned about the laws and more specifically AB 1234 and he was surprised that he qualified for his certificate in Ethics and Formal Responsibility in conjunction with the Law. He encouraged the rest of the Commissioners to be sensitive to AB 1234 and perhaps staff could report about additional requirements. He applauded the Commission for their 5-0 vote at the February 14 meeting because Form Based codes is the talk of the state and its future. He also heard about "Art in Public Places" that also has great value even to the point of generating tax revenues. He said if asked he would vote strongly in favor of both concepts based upon what he learned at the conference. The final seminar speech would have been an interesting topic to all of the Commissioners because it dealt with "Making Change Happen Fast." He asked staff to help him and the other Commissioners locate the website that contained the conference information. He thanked his colleagues and asked that the Commission keep the action moving forward and he thanked Mr. McCarthy and the residential applicants for their interest in investing in Diamond Bar. ICDD/Fong responded to Chair/McManus that the conference material would be made available on-line this year rather than on CD and that staff would prepare copies of the material from the website for all of the Commissioners. VC/Nelson said he was pleased the Commission took favorable action on the Country Hills Towne Center item. He said he was empathetic to individual and small businesses and he believed that this Commission owed an obligation to the community and to the City as a whole and the Commission could not forget the sake of the whole for the sake of one. He also felt that the Commission needed to be careful as it deliberated on matters like this in the future to make certain that the Commission was not trying to step in and act as a referee in business that the Commission had no business being involved in - arrangements between lessors and lessees is not within the Commissions purview. If it involves a particular use or change in use, then it is within the Commissions purview. The Commission mast be very careful and as Commissioners express their concerns to staff they should trust MARCH 28, 2006 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION staff to follow through. When he was previously atPh d 'ng not changed!oOne ofner the Cthe ity had a fabulous staff and he was certain that important keys to success was toga s{fie Commto �sshonerseir b on issues of should not voice their example. He was not implying concerns and let staff know where it wanted staff to focus but the Commissioners had to be careful to keep its business s Chair/McManus congratulated C/Everett on his achievement and tonight's report about his attendance at the conference. In practices andblic speakers have he has been forced torked t p on heated discussions about business p them because the applicant has rights that go with the project. He said that it was good to have a fully engaged Commission. 9. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. 10, SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT. With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, N ncy Fong Interim Comm ity Dev pment Director