Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/23/2009MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR WORKSHOP OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 23, 2009 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Torng called the workshop to order at 6:12 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Room CC -8, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathy Nolan, Jack Shah, and Chairman Tony Torng. Absent: Vice Chairman Steve Nelson Also present: Greg Gubman, Acting Community Development Director, Brad Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney, David Alvarez, Assistant Planner; Natalie Tobon, Planning Technician; and, Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. REVIEWING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS: ACCD/Gubman stated that CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) was enacted into law by the state legislature in 1970 shortly after congress passed the NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act). CEQA is modeled after the federal legislation. The basic intent. of CEQA is to compel cities and any public agencies to inform the public and decision -makers about potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities and to be used as a tool to find ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage to a level that is less than significant or to the extent feasible. Once impacts are identified and a way to avoid those impacts are identified CEQA provides cities with the opportunity to prevent damage to the environment by requiring changes to the project that would reduce those impacts. This is a tool that allows cities to look at a project in an objective manner and find solutions to environmental problems by studying impacts one by one and finding ways to modify the project to modify those impacts, if possible. Sometimes there will be environmental impacts that cannot be avoided and sometimes cities must decide whether it wants to accept those unavoidable significant impacts. If the city determines that the project benefits do not outweigh those impacts the project would need to be denied. If the benefits of the project are so compelling that they outweigh some of those unavoidable significant impacts the Commission can JUNE 23, 2009 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP approve the project but it would need to disclose to the public why it had made those findings. The purpose of CEQA is not to generate paperwork. Even a hospital which has a lot of noble, good and compelling reasons to be built in an area the city is still required, as with any other project, to find out what the hospital will do to the community and the environment in terms of noise, traffic, light and glare. The bottom line is that CEQA is an objective process to disclose and minimize environmental damage and provide full disclosure to the public in a transparent manner. ACDD/Gubman explained that the purpose of the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) is to reflect the purpose of CEQA which is to inform governmental agencies and the public in general of the environmental impacts of the proposed project. EIRs are not required for all projects. For example, the Commission considers projects at nearly every meeting that are "categorically exempt" such as a room addition or home which, according to CEQA law, are not subject to the regulations under CEQA. Some projects require a Mitigated Negative Declaration, the most recent of which considered by the Planning Commission was the Institute of Knowledge. ACDD/Gubman responded to C/Shah that in the CEQA document it is clear that there are several projects that are exempt from CEQA. There are some projects that are not explicitly listed. However, there are criteria that allow local agencies to make that decision. ACAM/ohlenberg said that exemptions are narrowly construed. The project must clearly fit within the exemption in order to use the exemption. ACDD/Gubman stated that when reviewing an EIR, CEQA states that technical perfection is not a requirement, rather, it is the adequacy, completeness and best good faith effort at full disclosure that is required. If an EIR is challenged, the courts are not going to argue whether the environmental conclusions are correct. The court wants to see that the document is sufficient in terms of providing information to the public. As long as the traffic analysis is sound and is using generally accepted practices, the conclusion that the decision -makers make will not be challenged under CEQA. CEQA says the Draft EIR should normally be less than 150 pages and for proposals of unusual scope or complexity, the document should normally be less than 300 pages. The Site D EIR is already in excess of 500 pages and there are EIR's that run into thousands of pages. Ultimately, the EIR is a document that is attempting to make it impervious to challenge or at the least, hold up to a challenge. Unfortunately, this does not prevent lawsuits and sometimes the length of the legal process of the EIR can kill a project. JUNE 23, 2009 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ACA/Wohlenberg said that CEQA has greater degrees of scrutiny depending on the impacts of the project. There is a list of projects that either the legislature or the state bureaucracies have decided to drive. The EIR indicate there are impacts but those impacts can be addressed and even though the impacts will remain significant the benefits of the project outweigh the impacts. This becomes a judgment call and that is where all of the legal challenges come into play and people are really just challenging the judgment of the city which sometimes leads to lengthy lawsuits if cities have to defend themselves. ACDD/Gubman said that the EIR document should be written in plain language and use graphics so that the decision -makers and the public can understand the document. Technical reports will be separately bound that require technical expertise but the EIR should simplify the complexities of the technical studies for presentation to the public in an understandable and truthful manner. The Site D EIR is plainly written but has technical complexities that will have to be addressed. ACDD/Gubman continued stating CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced. Court decisions have interpreted CEQA to include statements that EIR's cannot be converted into an "instrument for the oppression and delay of social, economic or recreational development for advancement." In short, the court is saying that CEQA should not be misused as a weapon to kill a project. When reviewing a project that has an EIR two separate decisions are required: 1) Does the EIR do its job, and 2) whether to approve the project based on the EIR and other factors such as, whether the project has over widened benefits to make those significant impacts that cannot be mitigated sufficiently palatable or that the project does not merit approval because the benefits gained do not outweigh one or more of the significant impacts that cannot be avoided. C/Lee asked if all states have this type of act. California is one of the worst for business involvement for corporations and developers. As a result, a lot of people are moving to other states. A very strict act is helpful to California but California is losing so much money in spite of its potential. People can use CEQA as an instrument to delay or litigate and documents are growing larger and larger. As a developer he goes through many stages to build a house and his experience tells him that every year there are more and more rescissions and this discourages people from investing money into their communities so the community is getting worse. In short, is CEQA good for California? There are so many laws and regulations that people cannot comply with they tend to move away. JUNE 23, 2009 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ACA/Wohlenberg responded to C/Lee that as with any policy there are benefits and negatives. To him, this is what the legislature has adopted so the City needs to work with it. He was not sure that every state had their own version of CEQA but every state that he has investigated has some version of the law like CEQA that was led from the federal level with states adopting their own versions. Folks in other states seem to be going through almost the same process even though they may have different names for it. ACDD/Gubman said that some states have similar regulations to California and there are states like Utah where businesses are fleeing to because it is much less onerous. C/Lee asked if he understood that CEQA dictates the process for the mitigation of the environmental impact, not just a specific statute for the law. Every project has different variables and all rules cannot be written down so CEQA is a kind of process and guideline of the mitigation. ACA/Wohlenberg reiterated that CEQA says cities need to weigh the benefits of the project versus the unmitigated impacts which is a factual determination. ACDD/Gubman said it is also good to keep in mind that CEQA is the process for disclosing information but California has county and state agencies that impose and enforce the regulations that may lead to some competitive disadvantages to other states. ACA/Wohlenberg stated that those agencies often give cities what the "threshold of significance" is and other agencies are responsible for enforcing these things that tell cities if they are producing a certain amount of pollutants per liter it is significant and cities must mitigate that. Often times cities hands are tied with making the determination of significance. ACDD/Gubman stated an EIR consists of several components that collectively make up the document. Every EIR needs to have an introduction and/or executive summary which give the Commissioners an overview of the project and provide a short synopsis that the EIR will eventually discuss. The introduction sets forth the impacts and what the end result is after those impacts are mitigated. He encouraged Commissioners to read the Executive Summary as a guide to other parts of the document. Another important part of the EIR is the project description. It needs to lay out what the project is, the size, the scope, the square footage, the number of housing units and all of the specifications that are measurable thatwould enable the Commission to move forward to begin to analyzing the potential environmental impacts. Project objectives also need to be stated in the EIR. The objectives outline what the project proponent intends to gain or achieve from the project. The project objectives would be to create a Home Depot, for example, with x square feet of floor space for each section of the store to serve the home JUNE 23, 2009 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP improvement needs of the sub -region in which it is located. The EIR is broken into chapters covering all of the mandated environmental pockets that have to be looked at such as transportation, traffic impacts, biological impacts, air quality, geological, cultural resources, etc., all of which need to be studied in order to determine whether or not those impacts are going to be significant and the EIR needs to say that the "threshold" is — what is the trigger that would be pulled if the project was implemented that would result in significant impacts. With that foundation in place, the document would then go through the impact analysis covering all of those topical areas. C/Nolan asked if the thresholds were pre -determined as an umbrella for all projects or for each individual project and ACDD/Gubman responded that thresholds can vary from city to city but some thresholds are determined by the agencies he previously mentioned. Ultimately, the city or lead agency determines what those thresholds are and that is important because as other projects come forward that require an EIR the Commission wants to make sure it is using the same threshold for current and future projects. Within Diamond Bar the decision -makers need to be consistent with what it has decided its thresholds will be. ACDD/Gubman continued stating that after the impact analysis is complete the Commission move forward to decide which impact has exceeded those thresholds, if significant and to formulate mitigation measures to reduce those impacts, hopefully to a point that they are less than significant which leads to the conclusion or finding of what the ultimate impact is after mitigation. And then, the cumulative impact needs to be looked at so that the Commission is not just looking at the project itself but looking at what future projects are in the pipeline or are likely to occur and look at similar impacts all of those projects will cumulative create. For example, a project is going to add more traffic to an intersection. The project by itself may cause delay of seconds at that intersection but as more projects come online the impacts become more noticeable and finally become a problem. The cumulative process is the methodology to foresee what the cumulative impact is and what needs to be done with the impacted intersection such as widening the intersection, etc. The last major component called the "no project impact" must be considered. In other words, what is the impact of doing nothing, which is really the baseline to measure the true project impacts? In addition, the Commission has to evaluate "feasible" alternatives that can be done with the property that will have a lesser impact than what is being proposed. Those alternatives give a better point of reference to measure how much of an impact the project under consideration is going to have. JUNE 23, 2009 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ACA/Wohlenberg stated that theoretically, there are an infinite number of alternatives but the Commission only has to consider alternatives that would reduce one of the significant impacts more than the proposed project. ACA/Wohlenberg responded to C/Shah that a determination is made that an EIR is necessary if there are project impacts that cannot be mitigated below a means of significant levels. When a Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared it is saying that this project will have significant impacts but if we apply these mitigation measures all of those impacts will be reduced below the level of significance. When CEQA was first written Mitigated Negative Declarations did not exist, they were invented along the way and eventually incorporated into the statute by the legislature. So with a Negative Declaration cities are saying that they have reviewed the impacts and are declaring to the universe that there are no significant impacts in this project. Mitigated Negative Declarations are stating that there are significant impacts but with the right mitigation measures those decrease below the level of significance. An EIR says there are significant impacts but it is believed that the benefits of the project outweigh the burden of those impacts. ACDD/Gubman concluded that in the EIR process the Commissioners are the decision -makers but are considered lay persons and Commissioners are not assumed to be expected to be environmental experts. Therefore, Commissioners should feel that they have confidence in the expertise of staff and the consultants that have prepared the EIR and Commissioners use their common sense to see if questions raised have been sensibly answered. The EIR consultant is in the business of writing EI R's and has no agenda. The consultant does not work for the developer. His job is to protect the city by writing an EIR that withstand legal challenge. Staff would like for the Commissioners to feel comfortable that they can put their trust in their staff to deal with the technical issues, answer questions and explain the facts. ACDD/Gubman concluded with a table -top exercise by going through the EIR review process using the Site D EIR as an example. He encouraged the Commission to immediately begin their formal review of the Site D EIR. The Commission concurred to a follow up workshop on the Site D EIR prior to the next regular meeting. JUNE 23, 2009 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 7:07 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 28th day of July, 2009. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Acting Community Development Director To orng, ChairmSr MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 23, 2009 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:13 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OFALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Lee led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathy Nolan, Jack Shah, and Chairman Tony Torng. Absent: Vice Chairman Steve Nelson was excused. Also present: Greg Gubman, Acting Community Development Director; Brad Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; Katherine Laufenburger, Senior Planner; David Alvarez, Assistant Planner; Natalie Tobon, Planning Technician; and, Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4 CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1.1 Study Session Minutes of May 26, 2009 C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve the Minutes of May 26, 2009, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None Lee, Nolan, Chair/Torng None Shah VC/Nelson JUNE 23, 2009 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 _Development Review No. 2007-13 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-08 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant requested approval to construct a 5,035 square foot four level addition to an existing 4,035 square foot two- story single family residence on an 85,983 square foot (1.97 acre) Rural Residential (RR) zoned parcel of land with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation. A Minor Conditional Use Permit was requested to allow the expansion of an existing non -conforming structure, PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 22909 Lazy Trail (Tract 30091, Lot 153 APN 8713-029-009) Diamond bar, CA 91765 Ankur H. Shah 22909 Lazy Trail Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 B&D Construction 1472 Avenida Loma Vista San Dimas, CA 91773 SP/Laufenberger presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2007-13 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-08, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. There were no ex parte disclosures. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. Dr. Shah, property owner, said he was present to respond to questions. Chair/Torng closed the Public Hearing. C/Lee moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2007-13 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-08, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: JUNE 23, 2009 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Shah, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nelson 7.2 Development Review No. 2008-20 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested approval to construct an 851 first floor addition and 1,087 square foot second floor addition to the front of the existing multi -story 8,936 square foot single family residence on a 43,797 square foot Rural Residential (RR) zoned parcel of land with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: 2677 Wagon Train Lane (Tract 30578, Lot 55 APN 8713-012-18) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Marie and Jorge Navarro 2677 Wagon Train Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Total Engineering Solutions 24000 Alicia Pkwy, Suite 17 #284 Newport Beach, CA 92660 SP/Laufenberger presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2008-20, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. There were no ex parte disclosures. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. Yasser Salem, Total Engineer Solutions, said he concurred with staff's recommendations. Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. JUNE 23, 2009 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Shah moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2008-20, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Shah, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nelson 7.3 Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-02 —Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.58, Ina Dance submitted a request to establish a dance studio providing instruction for all age groups. The subject property is zoned C-2 (Community Commercial) with an underlying General Plan designation of General Commercial. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required to establish educational uses in a C-2 zone. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Bar Village Shopping Ctr (APN 8717-008-185) 367 Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond BarVillage Associates, Ltd 10877 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1105 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Applicant: 1 na Dance 2707 South Diamond Bar Blvd #205 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PT/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-02, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. PT/Tobon responded to C/Lee that students are as young as two years of age. Chair/Torng questioned the hours of operation. PT/Tobon responded that the hours of the lessons may vary from year to year so staff built flexibility into the resolution. There were no ex parte disclosures. JUNE 23, 2009 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. Sherry Liebe, 1 n Dance, said the business has existed for 20 years. She lost her lease and is forced to move to a new location. C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-02, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion approved by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Shah, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nelson 7.4 Temporary Use Permit No. 2009-01 — Under the authority of Development Code Section 22.50, the applicant requested approval to hold a four-day family festival that would accommodate carnival rides, booths, live entertainment, a food court and a beer garden at the Diamond Bar Pony Baseball Fields. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: 22601 Sunset Crossing Road (APN 8718-005-005) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar Pony Baseball 22601 Sunset Crossing Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Diamond Bar Pony Baseball P.O. Box 4113 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AP/Alvarez presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Temporary Use Permit No. 2009-01, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. During his presentation, AP/Alvarez explained in detail each of the conditions of approval recommended by staff, including hours of operation, a requirement to contract for on -duty sheriffs deputies to be present, parking JUNE 23, 2009 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION management, payment of a refundable deposit to guarantee post -event cleanup, and the implementation of various security measures. There were no ex parte disclosures. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. John Long, President, Diamond Bar Pony Baseball, said this event will be held by two organizations, Diamond Bar Pony Baseball and Diamond Bar Pop Warner Football, to help raise money for the organizations and support Diamond Bar youth. He explained that Thursday was proposed to be a kickoff day for the event with affordable rides. He asked that Friday and Saturday hours be extended to 11:00 p.m. to close off the sales for tickets at 10:00 p.m. and allow for use of the tickets during the additional hour. C/Lee felt the festival would be successful but he was concerned about security. Staff's report refers to sheriff's officers and volunteers. He asked the applicant for the number and hours. Mr. Long said that the plan is to hire two off-duty deputies to be onsite during the last four hours of operation. In addition, the organizations will assign its own personnel to act as security. Many of the members are in law enforcement and will assist the officers. There will be an individual posted at the beer garden entrance and an individual to check IDs. C/Nolan asked if the beer garden would be enclosed and Mr. Long responded that it was actually in the gated field but not enclosed. C/Nolan said she would recommend that the beer garden be roped off with attendants. C/Nolan said that the hour to sell beer should be moved back a full two -hours if the time extension is granted. Mr. Long responded thatthere is only one entrance into the field. C/Nolan said she understood what Mr. Long was saying but Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) would require the serving area to be roped off with an attendant at the entrance to the beer garden. Mr. Long agreed to comply with C/Nolan's request. C/Nolan said that she would favor closing the beer garden at 9:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday and would require that the area be roped off, and that there is an attendant available to check ID's and make certain no minors are allowed in the roped area. Mr. Long concurred. C/Nolan said she was trying to save the applicant difficulties with ABC. Mr. Long said he went to ABC today and they had no problem with the setup and with minors being in the area. Mr. Long stated that there is one gate and an attendant will be JUNE 23, 2009 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION checking IDs and providing wristbands and security. Once inside the gate even minors can enter the gate and the canopy but patrons with alcohol cannot leave the area. He stated that ABC was fine with the set up. Children will be allowed to enter and sit with their parents. C/Nolan said she stood by her recommendation. C/Nolan asked how many attendants ABC required in the entertainment area where alcohol is being served. Mr. Long responded that ABC did not give him a specific number. He indicated there would be one attendant at the gate along with roaming deputies and roaming security personnel. Mr. Long stated that only those with wrist bands could purchase alcohol. C/Nolan asked if Mr. Long applied for approval or received approval and Mr. Long responded that he applied and was given verbal approval based on receipt of a copy of the 501(c)(3). Chair/Torng reiterated C/Nolan's recommendation that alcohol be served until two hours prior close instead of 90 minutes. Chair/Torng asked Mr. Long if they could comply. Mr. Long responded yes. Chair/Torng asked staff their view on the requested closing time of 11:00 p.m. C/Nolan stated that her recommendation to change the hours were for Friday and Saturday and for beer sale only. ACDD/Gubman stated that staff reached its comfort level at 10:00 p.m. due to the character of the surroundings. If there are no objections from the public the public hearing notice advertised the applicant's request to be open until 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday and it is the Commission's pleasure to allow 11:00 p.m. to be closing time on those nights. In summary, the times raised for discussion and consideration are hours of operation for Friday and Saturday; a closing time for the beer garden at 9:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday; and, whether or not to rope off the beer garden area under the canopy. ABC will be at least as restrictive as the Commission. The Commission should also take into account Mr. Long's remarks about meeting with ABC and the particular configuration of the beer garden area with the wristband program and with the gated enclosure in which the beer garden would be located. Mr. Long responded to C/Nolan that there will be a minimum of one security person at the main gate and a minimum of two deputies and two volunteer security personnel dressed in securityjackets in the carnival area. C/Nolan asked if Mr. Long could provide three roaming volunteers for a total of five identified security personnel. ACDD/Gubman advised Chair/Torng to receive public testimony before continuing to negotiate conditions, JUNE 23, 2009 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Torng asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Greg McKnight, President, Diamond Bar Pop Warner, addressed C/Nolan directly saying that with respect to the security aspect, the last thing the organizers want are problems at this event. A number of individuals involved in this organization including the speaker are law enforcement officers and the last thing they will do is allow this event to get out -of -hand.. There are a number of individuals who are deputies at the Walnut Sheriff's station, City of Industry, LAPD, etc. There are at least 20 law enforcement officers in Pop Warner alone. Being in law enforcement for 23 years he believed he was a pretty good judge of character as to how these things can get out -of -hand based upon his experience. If the Commission feels comfortable with three, four or five security officers, he may increase the number of security officers to six or seven depending on the type of crowds that gather. He said he believed there should be flexibility on the matter and that the Commission should rest assured that it has a strong law enforcement community in the City of Diamond Bar when it comes to the "use of force" program. And his organization will definitely make certain they enforce anything that might get out -of -hand. His organization is working with the Sheriff's Department— Walnut station's captain and lieutenant and this event will be a success and the last thing that will occur is disruptive influence at this facility. Chair/Torng asked again if anyone wished to speak on the matter. With no other person requesting to speak on this matter, Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Shah said he was pleased that this event was being scheduled because he believed people would enjoy it and have a nice time. He had two concerns, one of which was the safety of the people. He used to work for the railroad and Metrolink and wanted to make sure no one could cross the tracks. The organizer assured him that there was a continuous fence. His second concern was about security and he feels comfortable that many of the organizers are from the sheriff's department. He was somewhat concerned about the later time of 11:00 p.m. Staff recommended 10:00 p.m. and wanted assurance that staff was okay with 11:00 p.m. C/Lee said this is a first time event for this organization and he encouraged and appreciated their attempt to comply with the conditions. He said he was concerned about security but had a comfort level about security after the JUNE 23, 2009 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION applicant explained the matter. He said he believes the applicant knows what he's talking about. C/Nolan said she would like to firm up the number of volunteers that would be roaming the area to make certain minors are not drinking. She would like one at the gate to check ID's and supply the bands, an additional four security personnel outside of those individuals being hired for a total of five volunteers roaming the area. Chair/Torng said he respects individuals who volunteer to do this kind of work. C/Nolan is a volunteer for the City's Birthday Party and that is the reason she is giving the applicant the benefit of her experience. He felt it was very important for the security and safety aspects and the time might be a little long but he really believed that when volunteer organizations promise to do something they usually make it. As long as that is the case he said he would go for it as well. He asked staff to restate its position on extending the hours for Friday and Saturday to 11:00 p.m. ACDD/Gubman responded to Chair/Torng that staff's recommendation is for a 10:00 p.m. closing time Thursday through Saturday and a 9:00 p.m. closing time on Sunday based on staff's review of the project and staff's expectation of what the neighborhood concerns might be. ACA/Wohlenberg asked C/Nolan if the applicant had clarified to her satisfaction of the number of volunteers. C/Nolan responded that the applicant indicated he was accepting of her recommendation for five volunteers to be available to roam the area at all times. C/Nolan said she was leaning toward staff's recommendation of 10:00 p.m. closing time for Saturday and Sunday. Since this is a first time event the 10:00 p.m. closing time would be her recommendation and in the future years it could be further evaluated. Chair/Torng said he was also concerned about the 11:00 p.m. hour and suggested 10:30 as a compromise. C/Lee said the community comes first. He said this was a public hearing and it needs to be formal and everybody needs to be heard. Everybody is talking at different times. Chair/Torng said this was the discussion period and if there is consensus a motion will follow. If the motion is approved, it is approved. If it fails, it fails and then there will be another round. This is the normal meeting process. Chair/Torng said he would entertain a motion. JUNE 23, 2009 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Shah reiterated that he agrees with staff's recommendation of 10:00 p.m. C/Nolan moved to approve Temporary Use Permit No. 2009-01, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution, to include the 10:00 p.m. closing time with the original 90 - minutes prior to closing to stop the sale of alcoholic beverages, and with concurrence from the organizers that they will have five identified security volunteers in the beer and entertainment area. C/Shah asked that the motion be amended to state a "minimum" of five identified security volunteers. C/Nolan agreed to the amendment. C/Shah seconded the motion. C/Lee asked for clarification about whether the 10:00 p.m. closing time applied to all four days. C/Nolan responded that her motion was to accept staff's recommendation for the original times stated in the staff report: 10:00 p.m.; Thursday, 10:00 p.m. Friday; 10:00 p.m. Saturday, and 9:00 p.m. Sunday. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Shah, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nelson 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Shah welcomed PT/Tobon to the Commission meeting and wished her good luck in her new position. C/Lee said he had comments regarding Agenda Item 7.4. He said this was the first event and they prepared so much time, effort and energy and a lot of volunteers are involved with this event. He fully believes they know what they are doing and that if you cut one hour it would be eight or ten percent or more cut from the event and this event can be a fundraiser or just for fun. He said he would like to respect the applicants' preparation and effort on their event. He wished them a successful event and thanked them for trying. C/Nolan also wished the organizers good luck and felt it would be a great event and a very good family event. She wished them good luck. JUNE 23, 2009 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Torng concurred with his colleagues and hoped that the organizers would have a great event. Someone from the audience spoke out relative to Item 7.4 and Chair/Torng said he closed the public hearing for that matter. ACA/Wohlenberg agreed that the public hearing was closed and the Commission voted on the matter. Again, someone from the audience spoke out related to Item 7.4 and ACDD/Gubman advised Chair/Torng that the applicant had 10 days to file an appeal. Chair/Torng stated that the applicants have 10 days to file an appeal if necessary. C/Lee said he understood that the formal procedure did not give the applicants another option or opportunity to speak but after the Commissioners finish their comments but maybe the applicants should have another opportunity to speak because the Commissioners' job is to listen to the people. The Commission does have some power or authority to do something. He thought the main job of the Commission was to listen to the applicants and that's why the Commissioners are here. So if it is not against procedure he fully believed that the Commissioners must listen to the applicants and during the procedure he wants to listen to them. But whatever procedure prevents listening to the applicants means he does not have a chance to listen. But the Commission must listen to the applicant's side first and then it can make a clear decision. That is the right way to proceed with a Planning Commission meeting. He wondered what staff thought about his statement. Chair/Torng responded to C/Lee that the public hearing process was followed in this matter. He explained that following staff's report the public hearing was opened and the applicants spoke. After testimony was received the public hearing was closed and discussion was held to reach mutual agreement which was followed by the proper motion process. The motion was approved unanimously. If the motion had not been approved, it would have been acceptable for a Commissioner to offer an alternate motion. During the public hearing the applicant and members of the public are offered an opportunity to speak and be heard. When the Chair closes the public hearing, the Commissioners offer their opinions and recommendations and consider staff's recommendations to reach consensus after which a vote is taken. ACA/Wohlenberg said he agreed with Chair/Torng. The way land use permit processes are set up under state law and municipal codes, the Commission is empowered to act on those. The Commission is required to accept public input and an opportunity is provided for that but it is generally not a debate. The public can bring information forward for the Commissioners to consider in making these decisions. JUNE 23, 2009 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee said that at the time Chair/Torng closed the public hearing he did not think there had been enough time for the speakers to respond. That is why the applicant is saying they did not have a chance to speak about their concerns. After Commissioners finish their comments he believed that the Commission must give the applicants an opportunity to express their thoughts. That is the Commission's job. C/Nolan asked if legal counsel believed the applicants should have been invited up for a rebuttal in accordance with the procedure. ACA/Wohlenberg responded that there is no public hearing requirement that the applicant be provided rebuttal time. There is a period during which public comment and information can be received. That period was agendized and there were no public comments forthcoming and the Chair closed that portion of the public hearing. C/Shah said there is a legal remedy for appeal and ACAiWohlenberg responded that after the Commission takes action in the form of a motion that action is appealable to the City Council for reconsideration. Chair/Torng welcomed PT/Tobon and commended heron a great presentation. He liked the presentation that he felt was very friendly. He commended staff for today's study session on how to read an EIR. It was a great presentation. 9. STAFF COMMENTSIIN FORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. None Offered. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. C/Lee wanted to proffer additional comments and was told that he had an opportunity to do so under Agenda Item 8. JUNE 23, 2009 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 8:20 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 14th day of July, 2009. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Acting Community Development Director T orng, Chaii