SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-5- Surrounding property owners were notified on April 7,2011 and September 28, 2012.No letters of opposition were received. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and circulated for forty-five(45)days starting on September 28, 2012,and ending on November 13,2012. With the recommended conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring program, all potentially significant impacts, except for two traffic impacts, were reduced to a level of less than significant. The Planning Commission adopted Findings of Significant Environmental Impacts and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the two traffic impacts that could not be reduced below a level of significance. As noted earlier, staff has updated that Statement of Overriding Considerations to include economic and fiscal calculations supplied by the EPS economics firm. Appeal Statement No.3 The Planning Commission also contradicted its long-standing practice of granting each side to a contested land use matter at least one continuance,prejudicing Appellant's ability to present its case. Response To Appeal Statement No.3 The Planning Commission addresses each request for a continuance on an individual basis. Pursuant to Development Title Section 9-220, all decisions and recommendations of the Planning Commission shall be carried by the affirmative votes of not less than a majority of its total voting members. The decision to not grant a continuance was approved unanimously, 5-0.Notably,nothing in the law required the granting of a continuance, and Pilot has cited no law of any kind that the Commission purportedly violated. A legal ad for the public hearing was published in The Record on February 1,2013. Public hearing notices were mailed on January 30,2013.