Laserfiche WebLink
- Chairperson Roberts noted that when the public had the opportunity to hear the staff <br />report, they would be able to direct their comments accordingly. <br />Commissioner Sullivan emphasized that it was not his purpose to criticize the Planning <br />Director, but was concerned about public accessibility to the General Plan process. <br />Commissioner Arkin suggested that PowerPoint slides be included in the General Plan <br />presentations, which would enable the public to focus on the issues. <br />Commissioner Sullivan noted that there were not enough staff reports for the entire <br />audience. <br />Jack in the Box <br />Commissioner Sullivan inquired about the conditions of approval regarding the lighting <br />of the gas station and noted that several floodlights completely illuminated the building. <br />He noted that the applicants assured the Commission that it would not be a <br />freeway-oriented business, but that the very bright lights were designed to attract <br />business from the freeway. He inquired whether the Planning Commission could change <br />the lighting. <br />Mr. Iserson advised that staff would look into that issue and added that there were <br />generally conditions regarding lighting and reducing glare. He noted that they may not <br />be complying with existing conditions. <br />Commissioner Arkin advised that there had been neighbor complaints about the lights. <br />Chairperson Roberts noted that on March 27, 2002, the staff report stated, "Absent <br />specific company names for the service station and the restaurant, the sign details <br />provided with the application are very conceptual. However, staff encourages the <br />Commission to provide general comments on signage, sign type, internal channel letters, <br />halo letters, etc., height of the monument signs and pylon signs, colors, lettering, style, <br />etc." <br />8. MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S REVIEW/ACTION <br />b. Future Planning Calendar <br />Commissioner Fox inquired whether California Splash would be heard by City Council <br />on March 16, 2004, and whether it was referendable. <br />Mr. Iserson advised that it was agendized for March 16, and that it was not referendable. <br />He noted that the application would need to be started again; it was not advertised as a <br />rezoning matter, which would be required for it to be referendable. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINiJTES February 25, 2004 Page 18 of 19 <br />