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 />P13 <br />RESOLUTION NO. R-16-14 <br />A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLTON <br />DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING <br />COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION REVOKING OF <br />CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (FILE INDEX NO. DCV -77-01) THAT <br />ALLOWED A PALLET MANUFACTURING AND LUMBER STORAGE YARD <br />ON A 7.6 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 240 E. CONGRESS STREET IN THE M- <br />1/SDA (LIGHT INDUSTIAL ZONE AND SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT AREA <br />OVERLAY ZONE) (FILE INDEX NO.: DAP - 001-137) <br />WHEREAS, an application (File Index No. DAP -001-119) was initiated by the City of <br />Colton, California for the revocation of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a pallet <br />manufacturing and storage yard located at 240 East Congress Street ("Subject Site") and zoned <br />M-1/SDA - Light Industrial Zone and Sensitive Development Area Overlay Zone; and <br />WHEREAS, on December 10, 2013 and January 14, 2014, the City of Colton Planning <br />Commission ("Planning Commission") conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the <br />Application and all persons wishing to testify in connection with the proposed Application <br />were heard, and the Application was comprehensively reviewed; and <br />WHEREAS, pursuant to the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act <br />("CEQA"), the denial of a proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California <br />Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15321, Enforcement <br />Actions by Regulatory Agencies, which exempts enforcement actions taken by a permitting <br />agency, including revoking a use permit due to violations of the operational conditions of said <br />permit by an applicant; and <br />WHEREAS, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's denial was received by the <br />City Clerk ("Appeal"); and <br />WHEREAS, on March 4, 2014, the City Council of the City ("City Council") <br />conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Appeal at which time all persons wishing to <br />testify in connection with the Appeal were heard, and the Appeal was comprehensively <br />reviewed and considered; and <br />