Laserfiche WebLink
f <br /> ..3 <br /> i <br /> Appeal Statement No.2 <br /> The Appellant states, "An Environmental Impact Report should have been prepared to <br /> properly quantify and mitigate significant and potentially significant impacts. CEQXs <br /> procedural requirements were ignored." <br /> I Response to Appeal Statement No.2 <br /> Pursuant to CEQA guidelines, the following actions were performed regarding the project <br /> application. Property owners who resided within 1,400 feet of the project were notified <br /> on March 31, 2011. Referrals were also sent to state and local agencies. An Initial Study <br /> analyzing environmental impacts was prepared and posted at the State Clearing House for <br /> thirty days starting on April 18, 2011. All potentially significant impacts were reduced to <br />" a level of less than significant with the recommended conditions of approval. The Use <br />,I <br /> Permit was processed consistent with all relevant CEQA provisions. <br /> Appeal Statement No.3 <br />' The appellant states, "The Planning Commission also contradicted its long-standing <br />' practice of granting each side to a contested land use matter at least one continuance, <br /> prejudicing Appellant's ability to present its case." ' <br /> Response to Appeal Statement No.3 <br /> The Planning Commission may grant or deny requests for continuances at their <br /> discretion. <br /> A legal ad for the public hearing was published in The Record on July 1, 2011. Public <br /> hearing notices were mailed on June 29, 2011. <br /> i <br /> i <br /> i <br /> I <br /> I <br />