Laserfiche WebLink
CM Bennett asked City Attorney Talley about a statement that was made regarding the right for the <br />City to hear this issue again and that it was decided with the three -three vote that ended up in a no <br />vote. She asked if we are following the procedures that protect the community, the business owners <br />and the residents in the area. <br />City Attorney Talley responded that it is their opinion that this matter is properly before the Council <br />for consideration. <br />CM Bennett explained that she supports the constitution and believes in the 141h Amendment right <br />and continued to read an excerpt from the constitution regarding due process of law. She continued <br />to read information provided by a community member regarding a 1984 resolution that was passed <br />by the Council regarding statements pertaining to a general plan amendment that changed the zoning <br />for this residential area. In an effort to protect the residents in the area, the Council created a <br />Sensitive Development Area overlay. CM Bennett continued to provide information as stated in the <br />1984 resolution and staff report as well as comments that were provided by Council Member in <br />office at that time. She continued to explain information that was provided regarding the Sensitive <br />Development Area overlay matter. CM Bennett made the determination that the intent was to review <br />any future development and that the Planning Commission has the right to refuse approval for any <br />project deemed unfit for the area in question. She continued to provide an explanation of the <br />information presented to Council regarding air quality and environmental justice and the affect it has <br />on our community. <br />CM Bennett made a motion to move Resolution No. R-19-14, and uphold the Planning Commissions <br />denial of the application for a conditional use permit. <br />CM Toro explained that he would like to hear from the attorney for Largo, Inc. and asked Megan <br />Garibaldi with Rutan & Tucker to approach the podium to answer questions. <br />Mrs. Garibaldi explained that she was informed by the City that they were guaranteed that the full <br />Council with all seven members would be present to vote on this item. There was discussion <br />regarding the time frame for the hearing and the reasons it is necessary to proceed with this hearing. <br />Discussion ensued and Mrs. Garibaldi and staff answered questions from the Council. <br />City Attorney Talley commented that she wanted to make sure that the Council understood that they <br />needed to discuss the information provided for this particular public hearing which is the appeal of <br />the Conditional Use Permit and not the revocation. Council Members continued with their questions <br />and comments regarding this matter. Mrs. Garibaldi explained that they are not considering any <br />prior statements and declined to answer Council questions. City Attorney Talley stated that this is a <br />denovo hearing and the Council will consider everything that was submitted for this meeting. Mrs. <br />Talley stated that if the documents before the Council that are attached to the staff report reflect prior <br />hearings, then it is considered part of the record and do not need to be discussed again since this is a <br />new hearing. <br />Mrs. Garibaldi stated that they were unaware that this was a denovo hearing and that the only reason <br />they were here was because the Council failed to reach a decision at the last meeting. MPT Suchil <br />continued to ask questions and Mrs. Garibaldi continued to answer that this information was <br />addressed at a previous Council meeting. Discussion and comments continued regarding this item. <br />2014 MAR 4 REG CC/SARDA/CUA/CPFA/CHA MEETING - 6 - <br />