Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Minutes 1-12-10_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES: of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, January 12, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: Paul Foster, Chairman Gary Miller, Vice Chairman Carol Dyer, Commissioner Conrad Guzkowski, Commissioner Jan Hudson, Commissioner John James, Commissioner Eric Shamp, Commissioner ADVISORY STAFF Michael Reiter, Assistant City Attorney PRESENT: Oscar Orci, Community Development Director Robert Dalquest, Assistant Community Development Director Manuel Baeza, Principal Planner Sergio Madera, Associate Planner Chris Boatman, Assistant Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 3 MINUTES Chairman Foster welcomed Commissioner Guzkowski and Commissioner Hudson to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Dyer stated she has known Commissioner Guzkowski for twenty five years and was looking forward to working with him on the Planning Commission. Chairman Foster called the meeting to order, and opened up the Public Comment period. There were no comments forthcoming and the Public Comment period was closed. All members were present. A. Election of Planning Commission Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Commissioner James nominated Paul Foster as the Planning Commission Chairman. Commissioner Dyer nominated Gary Miller as the Planning Commission Vice Chairman. Chairman Foster requested a vote from all that was in favor of the nominated leadership, and the Planning Commission carried on a 7-0 vote to approve the new Chairman and Vice Chairman. II. CONSENT ITEMS A. 7 ELEVEN INC., APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: ROBERT DALQUEST, AICP) Review of application for the person to person transfer of an Off-Sale Beer and Wine license for the 7 Eleven Store located at 1601 W. Redlands Boulevard. Planning Commission Minutes of January 12,2010 Page 1 B. WALMART STORES INC., APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: ROBERT DALQUEST, AICP) Review of application for the person to person transfer of an Off-Sale General Alcohol Beverage license for the Walmart Store located at 2050 W. Redlands Boulevard. It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve the Consent Calendar. III. OLD BUSINESS A. NONE IV. NEW BUSINESS A. CHARLES F. PETERS, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: CHRIS BOATMAN) 1. Consideration of a recommendation to the City Council on a Notice of Exemption pursuant to Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. 2. Consideration of a recommendation to the City Council on issuance of a building permit for fencing within the common open space areas of Specific Plan No. 60 which is an approved twelve (12) unit residential subdivision on 5.69 acres located on the northwest corner of Los Altos Drive and Wabash Avenue. Commissioner Guzkowski recused himself, he stated his residence is within five hundred feet of the proposed project and had a conflict of interest. Assistant Planner Chris Boatman gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Dyer requested clarification if the open space is maintained by the Home Owners Association (H.O.A.). Assistant Planner Boatman stated the maintenance crews have access to the yards in order to maintain the area. Vice Chairman Miller inquired if there were any trees removed as part of the installation of the landscaping. Assistant Planner Boatman confirmed there were no trees removed. Vice Chairman Miller stated the development of the Specific Plan was for active seniors and empty nesters and requested clarification if that was the established criteria and how would it be enforced and if in violation. Assistant Planner Boatman stated the Specific Plan had intended the development's use was for empty nesters and retirees but never had any conditions or language in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.R.'s) that limited occupancy to seniors. Director Oscar Orci stated there are overriding goals in the Specific Plan that indicate the desire to establish a development for seniors and empty nesters with common open space, however, there is also a provision that requires interior fencing be approved by the H.O.A. and the City of Redlands. Planning Commission Minutes of January 12,2010 Page 2 Chairman Foster opened up the hearing. Mr. Peters stated he was under the impression the fencing was part of the proposed project. Chairman Foster closed the hearing. Commissioner Dyer stated the fencing and landscaping is aesthetically pleasing, and is in support of the proposed project. Commissioner James concurred. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Dyer, and carried on a 6-0 vote (Commission Guzkowski recused) that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that this request for a building permit for fencing within Specific Plan No 60 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines pursuant to Section 15303. It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Dyer, and carried on a 6-0 vote (Commission Guzkowski recused) that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the fencing within the common open space areas in accordance with the provisions of the Specific Plan No. 60. B. JAMES CHRISTOPHER CHAGOLLA, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) 1. Consideration of a recommendation to the City Council on a Notice of Exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. 2. PUBLIC HEARING to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Amendment 39 to Specific Plan No. 40 amending Section EV3.0910(6) of the EV/IC (Commercial Industrial) District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan by allowing as a permitted land use Beauty Salons and ancillary services including Medical Massage Therapy. Principal Planner Manuel Baeza gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Shamp inquired if there were other commercial zones in the city that prohibit Beauty Salons and Medical Massage Therapy. Principal Planner Baeza stated if the use is not listed as a permitted use, it is not allowed. Director Orci confirmed there are other areas in the city that do regulate the proposed use. Commissioner Shamp requested clarification why the proposed use is treated differently than a retail use. Director Orci stated Beauty Salons are a service oriented retail use not the standard retail commercial use, and thought is that they should not take up the limited valuable retail commercial space. Chairman Foster opened up the Public Hearing. Planning Commission Minutes of January 12,2010 Page 3 Mr. James Chagolla, business owner, stated he has been in business for twenty-five years and would like relocate and invest in the proposed site. Mr. Chagolla requested the Planning Commission allow the amendment. Commissioner Guzkowski inquired if the applicant had reviewed and is agreement with the conditions of approval. Mr. Chagolla concurred. Chairman Foster closed the Public Hearing. MOTION It was moved by Vice Chairman Miller, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission determine that Amendment No. 39 to Specific Plan No. 40 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines pursuant to Section 15601 b(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. It was moved by Vice Chairman Miller, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 1201 and recommend the City Council approve Amendment No.39 to Specific Plan No. 40. C. JOHN WANNEMACHER, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: SERGIO MADERA) 1. Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 3. PUBLIC HEARING to consider MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 331 (Tentative Parcel Map 17548) to subdivide approximately 11.86 acres into three (3) residential lots and one (1) lettered lot for open space purposes on property located at the southeast corner of Edgemont Drive and E. Sunset Drive in the R-R (Rural Residential) District. Associate Planner Sergio Madera gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Associate Planner Madera stated there is an error in the staff report and requested revising page four (4) under "Lot Width Parcel 3: 300 feet" to "Lot Width Parcel 3: 205 feet". Associate Planner Madera stated one of the Commissioner's had expressed concern on the preservation of a tree and requested staff include a condition of approval stating such. Staff had prepared a condition of approval in case Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department (M.U.E.D.) could allow the preservation of the tree with the proposed street improvements. Chairman Foster inquired if M.U.E.D. was able to address the concerns. Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Rosemary Hoerning stated she was made aware of the concerns a few minutes ago; the tree was not plotted on the map when they reviewed the plans. Director Hoerning stated they will revisit and agreed to preserve the mature oak if there is an opportunity to do so. Planning Commission Minutes of January 12,2010 Page 4 Commissioner Guzkowski stated the parcel being dedicated to the City has a substantial amount of conservation easement area, and requested clarification if it was essential to have the easements in place so they can contribute to density transfers. Associate Planner Madera stated the density transfers are a requirement to allow for the three parcels. Commissioner Guzkowski inquired if the grading along Edgemont Drive will be restored to a 2-1 slope when complete. Associate Planner Madera concurred and stated the applicant has proposed a retaining wall and will re-grade the slope and install landscaping to stabilize. Commissioner Dyer stated there is a substantial amount of grading on Parcel 1 with an elevation change of six (6) feet. The retaining wall is a two (2) foot high wall and requested clarification from the engineer, as well as the configuration history on the property. Associate Planner Madera stated over the years it had been subdivided and confirmed the property was annexed into the City in 1990. Associate Planner Madera stated the applicant is proposing to grade approximately four-hundred and four (404) yards of cut and fill, for over excavation. Chairman Foster opened the Public Hearing. Mr. John Wannemacher, property owner, gave a brief history of the property. Mr. Wannemacher stated he had worked with the City and completed Lot Line Adjustments to make the lots cleaner. Commissioner Guzkowski requested clarification on the grading history. Mr. Wannemacher stated there were two (2) developers prior that started to develop the land and terminated the project. There was discussion regarding the parcels. Vice Chairman Miller inquired if the applicant proposed to abandon the driveway of Parcel 1. Mr. Wannemacher concurred and stated fifty (50) to sixty (60)feet coming in is serving the pad of Parcel 1, and the remainder is vacated. Vice Chairman Miller requested revising the grading plan. There is a three (3) percent grade from the street up to the driveway that leads to the pad. The short driveway would not be a twelve (12) percent grade but at a fifty (50) percent grade and recommended additional conditions of approval. Mr. Wannemacher concurred. Commissioner Dyer requested to speak with the engineer. Mr. Hector Moreno, engineer, stated he is available for any questions. Commissioner Dyer requested clarification on the six (6) foot high slope and a two (2) foot high retaining wall on Parcel 1. Mr. Moreno stated there is an existing condition of the slope of 2-1. They will provide an asphalt curb and retaining wall. Mr. Wannemacher addressed Commissioner Dyer's concerns. Mr. Wannemacher stated he met with M.U.E.D today and the plans have changed. The plans will be revised to show a six (6) foot high retaining wall then come off of the four (4) feet face with a pedestrian easement, then an asphalt curb. Commissioner Dyer recommended additional conditions of approval. Associate Planner Madera concurred. Director Hoerning concurred the wall will be more than two (2) feet and less than six (6) feet. Planning Commission Minutes of January 12,2010 Page 5 Vice Chairman Miller expressed concern the access point of the path will remain a path and the City does not need to have access to the property with a vehicle, because the grade is at fourteen (14) percent. Director Hoerning stated there is an easement for path access and agreed the grade is steep and confirmed it will remain a trail. Mr. Wannemacher stated there are conditions of approval from the Fire Department to have an access easement across Parcel 3 and is existing. Commissioner Dyer inquired if the style of the retaining wall will have the rock aesthetics. Mr. Wannemacher stated it has not been determined if they will use a rock fagade and confirmed he wanted to preserve the look. Chairman Foster closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Guzkowski stated he is in support of the proposed project. Vice Chairman Miller recommended an added condition of approval to add rock veneer to the retaining wall. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Guzkowski, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Minor Subdivision No. 331 and direct staff to file and post a "Notice of Determination" in accordance with City Guidelines. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Guzkowski, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Minor Subdivision No. 331 as it has been determined that this project will not create unmitigable physical blight or overburden public services in the community, and no additional information or evaluation is needed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Guzkowski, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Minor Subdivision No. 331, subject to the conditions of approval, and based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code. The project site meets the density requirements of the General Plan and has been designed to minimize grading and meets all applicable standards of the R-R (Rural Residential) District and the HD (Hillside Development) District; 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The project site meets the requirements of the Municipal Code for site area, dimensions and the provisions of the HD (Hillside Development) District; 3. The site is physically suitable for the density of development. The General Plan Land Use Designation is Resource Preservation and the proposed density complies with the requirements of this designation; Planning Commission Minutes of January 12,2010 Page 6 4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The biological report prepared for the project concluded that no impact to sensitive species or their habitats will result from the implementation of the projecti 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause risk to the public health, as the proposed project is a small residential subdivision meeting all city standards. 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; 7. That pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.4, of the Subdivision Map Act the land is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The subject property is not in an agricultural preserve or under a Williamson Act Contract." This will include the addition of Condition of Approval No. 22, 23 and 24 as follows: 22. The mature oak tree at the northwest corner of Parcel 3 should be preserved in place if the improvements along Sunset Drive allow for its preservation. 23. The final grading plan shall depict a maximum driveway slope for Parcel 1; it must comply with Section 18.212.050 (Residential Driveway Gradients) of the Municipal Code. 24. Any retaining wall constructed along Sunset Drive or Edgemont Drive shall not exceed 6 feet in height and shall be finished with a natural rock stone veneer matching the character of the walls in the immediate vicinity. D. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: SERGIO MADERA) 1. Consideration of a Notice of Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. 2. PUBLIC HEARING to consider REVISION NO. 1 to CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 737 to modify the conditions of approval to allow the southern row of parking lot lights to be turned-off at 1:00 a.m. instead of 10:30 p.m. within the grounds of the LDS Temple located at 1761 E. 5th Avenue in the R-E (Residential Estate) District. Commissioner Dyer confirmed she is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and stated she will need to recuse herself. Vice Chairman Miller confirmed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a source of income, and stated he will need to recuse himself. Planning Commission Minutes of January 12,2010 Page 7 Associate Planner Sergio Madera gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Chairman Foster opened up the Public Hearing. Mr. Pat Meyer, representative, stated the church has become a landmark in the City. When the Conditional Use Permit was processed seven (7) years ago they had agreed the lights would be turned off by 10:30 p.m. and operations would conclude. The church has segregated the lighting of the parking lot. Often times church staff is leaving well past 11:30 p.m. and the parking lot is very dark. Mr. Meyer stated the applicant is requesting to keep four (4) standard parking lot lights in the southern parking area on until 1:00 a.m. for safety concerns. Mr. Meyer stated they conducted lighting tests on site with staff and some of the Commission and have submitted the results as an appendix item. The lighting standards at the property line were met. Mr. Meyer concurred with the Conditions of Approval and stated he was available for any questions. Chairman Foster invited Mr. Bradley Dirks forward to address the Commission. Mr. Dirks, resident, expressed concern regarding the lighting. Mr. Dirks stated the church has not complied to the existing conditions to shut the lights off at 10:30 p.m. Mr. Dirks confirmed the church lighting illuminates all three bedrooms of their home. Mr. Dirks has called the church and spoke to their staff many times regarding their lights. Mr. Dirks requested clarification on the request for seventy-two (72) hour lighting and if the church meant to keep all of the lights of the temple on for seventy-two (72) hours. Mr. Dirks requested the City to deny the revision to the Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.). Chairman Foster inquired if Mr. Dirks had any concern for the four parking lights at the rear of the property to stay on until 1:00 a.m. Mr. Dirks confirmed he is opposed to the revision. Chairman Foster inquired if there has been a problem with the church lighting that Mr. Dirks mentioned. Mr. Pat Meyer stated the church has been subject to vandalism and security issues, and during those times the church had left the lights on. The internal lighting and the spire are not regulated by the C.U.P., only the external lighting. Chairman Foster invited Mr. Curt Ganther forward to address the Commission. Mr. Ganther, resident, stated he is on the southern line of the parking lot and confirmed the parking lot lights do not shut off by 10:30 p.m. Mr. Ganther stated the church planted trees which helped screen the church from his view but does not mitigate the orange lighting in the parking lot from shining in his yard. Mr. Ganther inquired who will give the approval if the church needed to keep the lighting on for 72 hours, staff or the Community Development Director. Director Orci stated the Community Development Directors staff or the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes of January 12,2010 Page 8 Commissioner Guzkowski inquired if there is a grade differential between the church property and Mr. Ganther's. Mr. Ganther stated his property is at a lower grade than the church property by four (4) to five (5) feet. Commissioner Guzkowski requested clarification on the height of the light standards. Associate Planner Madera stated the standards are fourteen (14) feet. Mr. Ganther recommended the church hire a security guard if they are concerned with security. Chairman Foster invited Ms. Cher Sadler forward to address the Commission. Ms. Cher Sadler, resident, stated she does not have fencing or landscaping to guard her privacy from the vehicle headlights which shine right into her bedroom and bathroom. Ms. Sadler stated the church sparsely planted trees for screening and they have not grown enough to screen the church site. Chairman Foster inquired if Ms. Sadler had any concern for the four parking lights at the rear of the property to stay on until 1:00 a.m. Ms. Sadler confirmed her opposition and stated the lights would shine in her bedroom and bathroom. Chairman Foster closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Guzkowski requested clarification on the style of lighting in the parking lot. Assistant Director Robert Dalquest stated the light standards required a bell shape and the direction of the light beam is positioned straight down with some spill over. Commissioner Guzkowski inquired if there was something available to modify the lighting to clearly direct the light away from the adjoining properties. Chairman Foster re-opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Meyer encouraged the Commissioner's to give their opinion of what they witnessed during the light testing at the site. Mr. Meyer stated the lighting is a shoebox bell shaped lighting with a low watt, low sodium bulb. Mr. Meyer stated the slope difference is approximately eight (8) to ten (10) feet. Mr. Meyer stated Ms. Sadler may have a legitimate complaint and the church is willing to add landscaping to address her screening situation. Commission Guzkowski requested clarification if there was spill over from the four lights proposed during testing. Associate Planner Madera stated in staff's opinion the parking lot was quite dark ten (10) feet from the property line with all of the parking lighting on. When all the parking lights were off except for the four proposed, it was very dark in the parking lot. Chairman Foster closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner James stated they had walked the parking lot, and did not witness any spill over into the properties. Commissioner James recommended more vegetation along the drive isle. Commissioner Shamp stated when he stood at the property line with his light meter it was too dark to read. He was unable to cast a shadow on the block wall and his light meter read .07. Commissioner Shamp concurred more landscaping was needed in some areas but for the most part there was no light spill over. Commissioner Guzkowski inquired if the lighting for the facility was on separate automatic timers. Associate Planner Madera concurred. Planning Commission Minutes of January 12,2010 Page 9 Chairman Foster inquired if the applicant would be in agreement with the additional landscaping. Chairman Foster re-opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Meyer agreed to the additional landscaping. Commissioner Guzkowski recommended the added conditions be met prior to granting permission for the extended hours on the lighting. Chairman Foster stated the landscaping and extended hours on the lighting can be done concurrently. Mr. Meyer concurred. Commissioner Shamp requested clarification on the seventy-two (72) hour emergency lighting stipulation, and inquired if there would be time for an approval process from the City or would it required immediate attention. Mr. Meyer stated there is no way to anticipate when the seventy-two (72) hour lighting will be needed, but when it is needed it will be addressed immediately. Commissioner Shamp requested clarification what lights would stay on. Mr. Meyer stated all of the parking lot lights, and potentially the building. Mr. Darren Christianson, facilities manager, stated all of the lights on the temple are on a separate timer, and confirmed the southerly parking lot lighting would meet their needs in a seventy-two (72) hour emergency situation. Mr. Clark Lyons stated he performed security lock up for one year at the Stake Center and often times there were people loitering in the parking lot. Mr. Lyons stated there are other members of the community using the facility other than the church. Mr. Lyons stated the area is a designated neighborhood watch, and if the church neighbors hear disruption to call the Police Department and report it. Chairman Foster recommended Director Orci advise the Police Department that there are security concerns for the area and in the past there have been calls made and had no response. Director Orci concurred. Mr. Ganther concurred with the comments regarding noise and disruption be reported to the Police Department. Mr. Ganther invited the Commission to his home to witness the lighting that comes into his home. Mr. Ganther requested an additional tree planted on his property to help mitigate the light spillover. Commissioner Shamp stated he is not comfortable approving the proposed project prior to witnessing the lighting from the residents side of the property line. Chairman Foster inquired what the other Commissioner's felt was appropriate. Commissioner Guzkowski stated the factual point is if the lighting in question is going to have an affect on the neighbors, beyond what is already an ambient situation. Commissioner Guzkowski believed it will not impact the neighbors and in addition would encourage larger planting in the missing gaps with added conditions. Planning Commission Minutes of January 12,2010 Page 10 Commissioner James concurred with Commissioner Guzkowski's comments. Commissioner Hudson stated she is sensitive to the issues the neighbors had brought up and stated they need to be addressed. Commissioner Hudson declared the application is based on the four (4) lights solely and said they are not an issue of spillover. Chairman Foster concurred. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Hudson, and carried on a 5-1 vote (Commissioner Dyer, Vice Chairman Miller recused, and Commissioner Shamp opposed) that the Planning Commission determine that Revision No. 1 to Conditional Use Permit No. 737 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines pursuant to Section 15301. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Hudson, and carried on a 5-1 vote (Commissioner Dyer, Vice Chairman Miller recused, and Commissioner Shamp opposed) that the Planning Commission approve Revision No. 1 to Conditional Use Permit No. 737 based on the following findings, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. The proposed revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 737 will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City as the existing religious place of worship is permitted in the Residential Estate District, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit, and the revision only concerns extending an operation standard relative to lighting in the parking lot; 2. The revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 737 will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because the request to modify the Condition of Approval to allow a row of parking lot lights to remain lit to a later hour continues to comply with the illumination standards utilized by the City and the development continues to comply with the applicable development standards of the zone; 3. The revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 737 complies with the regulations of the City's General Plan, the applicable zoning district and the City's development standards as evidence has been provided that the request to allow a row of parking lot lights to remain lit to a later hour will have no impact on the ability of the project to continue to comply with the illumination standards utilized by the City; 4. The revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 737 is appropriate at the proposed location in that it only involves an operational condition relative to lighting in the existing parking lot and all other ongoing conditions of approval applied to the project will be met." With modification to Condition No. 28 and added Condition of Approval No. 32 as follows: Planning Commission Minutes of January 12,2010 Page 11 28. All lighting within the parking lot and on the building and tower shall be turned-off no later than 10:00 p.m. on Sunday and Monday, and 10:30 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday with the exception of the following: • The southerly row of parking lot light standards adjacent to the Temple may remain on until 1:00 a.m. 7 days a week; • Upon written request by the applicant, the Community Development Director may administratively permit the southerly row parking lot lights to remain on all night for a period not to exceed 72 consecutive hours. This condition does not apply to security lighting. 32. A 15 gallon Aleppo Pine shall be added to the landscape buffer at the southwesterly corner of the parking lot with in 30 days of Planning Commission approval of the revision to the conditional use permit. V. ADDENDA A. Discussion and recommendation on the Draft Climate Action Plan. Chairman Foster requested clarification what actions are needed from the Commission. Director Orci stated the Commission has been requested to review the document and provide comments and feedback to the Committee and staff. Commissioner Hudson stated they will receive an updated version of the document this week and would like the Commission to provide comments from the updated document. B. Appointment of two Commissioners on the Minor Exception Permit Committee. Director Orci stated the Community Development Department needs to have two Commission members volunteer to be a part of the Minor Exception Permit Committee since one of the Commissioner's has left the Commission. Commissioner James stated he would like to continue to be a part of the Minor Exception Permit Committee. Chairman Foster requested another volunteer to be a part of the Committee. Assistant Director Dalquest stated the Committee does meet during the day usually in the morning once a month for approximately an hour, on an ad hoc basis. Commissioner Hudson inquired if there is some flexibility on the time of the meeting. Assistant Planner Boatman confirmed they do have flexibility on meeting times. Commissioner Hudson volunteered to be a part of the Committee. MOTION Planning Commission Minutes of January 12,2010 Page 12 It was moved by Chairman Foster, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission appoint Commissioner James and Commissioner Hudson to the Minor Exception Permit Committee VI. MINUTES A. December 8, 2009 It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Miller and carried on a 5-0 vote (Commissioner Guzkowski and Commissioner Hudson abstained) to approve the minutes of December 8, 2009. VII. LAND USE AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OF DECEMBER 15, 2009 Chairman Foster inquired if there were any City Council actions to report for December 15, 2009. Director Orci stated there are no reportable Land Use Actions. VIII. ADJOURN TO JANUARY 26, 2010 Chairman Foster adjourned the meeting at 4:00 to the January 26, 2010 meeting. Linda McCasland Oscar Orci Senior Administrative Technician Community Development Director Planning Commission Minutes of January 12,2010 Page 13