SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-4- Finding 5 can be made because with the Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan the proposed use will not interfere with or alter the current agricultural or commercial uses on adjacent properties. There are existing agricultural uses to the north and east. The adjacent commercial uses include another truck stop, a truck wash, a truck maintenance facility, and a fast food restaurant. There are no residences in the vicinity. In addition,the Planning Commission adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The overriding considerations state the project will: 1)utilize an undeveloped area of the County,consistent with current land use policies;2)create new employment opportunities for local residences; 3)generate sales and property taxes for the County;4)provide needed additional overnight parking for truck drivers in a safe environment; and 5)provide regional travelers on Interstate 5 and State Route 12 with clean,diverse amenities to serve their travel needs. Although County staff believes that the original Statement of Overriding Considerations approved by Planning Commission was legally sufficient,staff has nevertheless prepared an updated version of that document for submission to the Board. This new version reflects expert evidence submitted to the County via counsel for the applicant. This expert evidence comes from the firm of Economics Planning Systems(EPS), which has calculated certain specific economic and fiscal benefits attributable to the Project. Appeal Statement No.2 In the absence of the appropriate analysis and mitigation measures and conditions of approval for the Project's traffic and air quality impacts,the Planning Commission erred in making required Findings 2,4, and 5 in the affirmative. Appropriate environmental review should be conducted to determine whether the required findings can be made,and if so,to provide substantial evidence to support the findings. Response To Appeal Statement No.2 The Planning Commission did not err in making required Findings 2, 4, and 5. Appropriate environmental review(an EIR) was conducted and the Planning Commission did make the required findings. CEQA's procedural requirements were followed. As noted above, staff has considered the contentions made by Pilot regarding the purported inadequacies of certain analyses,and has concluded that those analyses are entirely proper and supported by substantial evidence.