Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />WHEREAS, at the October 12, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, the <br />Commission adopted Resolution No. R-10-04 certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the I <br />Project and adopted Resolution No. R-11-04 approving the Project; and <br />WHEREAS, timely appeals of the approval of the Applications were received by <br />the City Clerk ("2004 Appeals"); and <br />WHEREAS, on November 16, 2004, the City Council of the City of Colton ("City I <br />Council") conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the 2004 Appeals of the Applications, at <br />which time all persons wishing to testify in connection with the proposed 2004 Appeals and the <br />Applications were heard, and the 2004 Appeals and Applications were comprehensively <br />reviewed and considered; and <br />WHEREAS, at the November 16, 2004 City Council meeting, the City Council <br />adopted City Council Resolution No. R-12-04 denying the 2004 Appeals and upholding the <br />Planning Commission's approval of the Applications; and <br />WHEREAS, the City Council's decision regarding the 2004 Appeals was based on <br />all of the evidence presented during the 2004 Planning Commission public hearings, the 2004 <br />Planning Commission and City Council staff reports, Planning Commission Resolution No. R-10- <br />04, the November 16, 2004 City Council public hearing on the 2004 Appeals, and the findings <br />set forth in City Council Resolution No. R-129-04, and all other written and oral evidence <br />presented (the "2004 Record"). <br />WHEREAS, following the City Council's decision, Hugo Neu-Proler Company dba <br />Colton Iron and Metal ("CIM") filed a Writ of Mandate with the Superior Court of the State of <br />California for the County of San Bernardino (the "Court") alleging that the EIR did not comply <br />with the requirements of CEQA; and <br />WHEREAS, the Court upheld the EIR in all respects except as to the analysis of <br />traffic, air quality and hazardous materials, and directed the City to rescind the approval of the <br />&a <br />