HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 82-136RESOLUTION NO. 82-136
r
�
�
j
�
A RESOLUTION OF THE C1TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALiVt DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE
APPEALS OF MR. JOSEPH RAPKIN AS SUBMITTED BY
MR. WILLIAM C. EALY AND MR. WAYNE BARLOW ET
AL, AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1982.
CASE NO. DP 07-81 (Amendment ��1)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the city of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of September, 1982, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an
amendment to an approved development plan.
WHEREAS, the planning commission, by its Resolution No. 819, approved the
proposed development plan amendment subject to conditions.
WHEREAS, two (2) appeals were filed in response to the planning commission
decision.
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that
the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a negative
declaration has been prepared.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing held to consider the appeals, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, of all interested persons desiring to be heard,
said City Council did find the following facts to justify its actions, as described below:
1.
2.
3.
4. At the time of the planning commission hearing into the amendment request
the City Council had not expressed any desires pro or con relative to the
project.
5. The viability of the project relative to larger or smaller projects is not a
concern of the development plan process.
6. The project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and no
substantial adverse affects which could not be mitigated by the imposition
of appropriate conditions were identified.
�
�
�
� _y
7.
E�
Development of the subject property has been under study for almost three
(3) years.
No new information or questions have been presented which have not
previously been considered.
The planning commission in processing the proposed amendmeni followed
the procedures required of a development plan and reached its decision
based on good planning practices.
Conditions pcoposed in the 1981 agreement which are relevant to the
current project have been imposed and the other conditions are moot
because no supermarket is proposed in this application.
The preparation and certification of a negative declaration is appropriate
for this case.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the city of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1.
2.
3.
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the City Council in this case.
That the City Council does hereby deny the appeals on all counts.
That the City Council does hereby affirm the decision of the planning
commission in all respects.
s!
RES�LUTION NO. 82-13b
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this 14th day of October, 1982, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
AT'TEST:
McPHERSON, NEWBRANDER, PULUQI, SNYDER, WILSON
NONE
NONE
NONE
� . , �/ � _
���
SHEILA R. GILLIGA , City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
/lr
_�
�
.
-2-