Laserfiche WebLink
the revised recommendations today are still not "consistent with" and still <br /> contradict the Planning Commission's original findings that were NOT <br /> VACATED or challenged on appeal and that continue to have full force and effect. <br /> Specifically, the former planning director's statements in her revised <br /> recommendations regarding (1) the affect on surrounding properties, including <br /> traffic, (2) the sufficiency of potable water and (3) the change in the character of <br /> the land are NOT supported by the Planning Commission's original findings that <br /> were NOT VACATED or challenged on appeal. <br /> In this respect, the former planning director's revised recommend- <br /> dations cannot be "rehabilitated" simply by voting to adopt the same on remand. <br /> At the very least, the Planning Commission must explain why those revised <br /> recommendations remain valid today and how those recommendations are <br /> supported by the record, including the findings that were NOT VACATED or <br /> challenged on appeal. <br /> C. <br /> Deviation of Proposed Findings and Conclusions <br /> from Intermediate Court of Appeals' Mandate <br /> In its proposed (draft) findings and conclusions, the Planning <br /> Commission changed the numbering of its original findings and conclusions, but <br /> the text can be "tracked." The following proposed (draft) findings and <br /> 6 <br />