SU0007124 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f -2- REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission heard this matter at its regular meeting on December 18, 2008. Seven people spoke in favor of the project and four people spoke in opposition. After consideration of all oral and written testimony,the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to approve the Negative Declaration and approve the Use Permit along with the following changes in the conditions of approval: 1. f. 3 No overnight truck parking shall be allowed on the site. 1. k. SIGNS: Sign details shall be consistent with Chapter 9-1710 of the Development Title and be included on the Site Plan. All portions of any sign shall be set back a minimum of five (5)feet from any future right-of-way line, including any corner cut-off (snipe) (Development Title Section 9- 1710.2[g])• The W.�a pmPosed signs as shev�%en the Site Plan dated My 11,2008 exe iie4 pemiftted pufsiia��to Develepment Title Table 9 605.2 . The pr-opesed signs shall be eentained on site 2_p. Proposed improvements shall not impede natural historic storm_drainage_flow through this pro aJect. Provide hydraulic analysis and too hical data for review and a roval b the Public Works to verify that the proposed improvements are in compliance, prior to issuance of building permit. On December 23, 2008,the Morada Area Association appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the Negative Declaration to the Board of Supervisors. APPEAL STATEMENT NO. 1 "This center would induce growth." RESPONSE TO APPEAL STATEMENT NO. 1 The subject property has a General Plan designation of CIG (General Commercial) and a zoning designation of C-G (General Commercial). The subject property is surrounded by commercial uses to the north, residential uses to the east and south, and State Route 99 East Frontage Road abuts the property to the west. The religious assembly use may be conditionally permitted in the C-G zone with an approved Use Permit application. The religious assembly will not set a significant land use precedent in the area and will not generate a need for additional housing. Therefore,this project is not a growth-inducing action. APPEAL STATEMENT NO. 2 "That it conflicts with existing uses in the area."