HomeMy WebLinkAbout93-31 - Denying Planning Action PA-89-07A246
RESOLUTION NO. 93-31
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING PLANNING
ACTION PA -89-07A2.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Kevin McConnell, authorized agent for Martha
Benvenuti, with respect to real property located at 468 and 474 East 17th Street requesting an
amendment to the Planned Signing Program in the Cl zone; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 5,
1993;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and
the findings contained in Exhibit "A", the City Council hereby denies Planning Action PA -89-
07A2, with respect to the property described above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of April, 1993.
1 ,
Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa
ATTEST:
Deputy Ci Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF COSTA MESA
I, MARY T. ELLIOTT, Deputy City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of
the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 93-31 was
duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof,
held on the 19th day of April, 1993.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City
of Costa Mesa this 20th day of April, 1993.
!,
Deputy City 9lerk and ex -officio Clerk of
the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa
qb-1 �
APPL. PA -89-07A2
EXHIBIT "All
PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS
A. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA
Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures, and
has been found to be exempt from CEQA because the
project has no possibility of causing a significant
effect on the environment.
B. The information presented does not substantially comply
with the conditions set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal
Code Section 5-122 in that approval of the proposed
ground sign is not consistent with the intent of the
Sign Code in that the deficient separation could cause
the site to have a cluttered appearance and as approval
would allow the overall site to have substantially
greater visibility.
RESOLUTION 93-31