HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-29 - Denying Request for Rehearing of Development Review and Zoning ApplicationRESOLUTION NO. 00-29
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE REQUEST
FOR REHEARING OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DR -99-22
AND ZONING APPLICATION ZA-99-47.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, applications were filed by Jim Theusch, authorized agent for
Dayton Hudson Corporation, with respect to the real property located at 3030
Harbor Boulevard, requesting approval of Development Review DR -99-22 for a
proposed commercial development, and Zoning Action ZA-99-47 for a minor
conditional use permit for an outdoor garden center; and
WHEREAS, Planning staff adopted the negative declaration and approved
Development Review DR -99-22 on January 31, 2000; and
WHEREAS, an appeal was filed by Al Morelli, who owns property adjacent
to the project site; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator forwarded Zoning Action ZA-99-47 to
the Planning Commission for consideration in conjunction with the appeal of
Development Review DR -99-22; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning
Commission on March 13, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimously upheld the staff approval
of Development Review DR -99-22 and approved Zoning Action ZA-99-47 at a duly
noticed public hearing on March 13, 2000; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval was filed by Al
Morelli; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on
April 3, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the City Council unanimously upheld the Planning Commission's
approval of Development Review DR -99-22 and Zoning Action ZA-99-47 at a duly
notice public hearing on April 3, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the applicant, Dayton Hudson Corporation, and the appellant, Al
Morelli, filed requests for rehearing pursuant to Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section
2-304; and
WHEREAS, the two applications for rehearing were consolidated and heard
together for the administrative convenience of all parties and to expedite the
process; and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2000, the City Council held a hearing to determine
whether the applicant or appellant have met the burden of justifying the rehearing,
in accordance with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 2-304;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the evidence in the
record and the findings contained in Exhibit "A", the ,Costa Mesa City Council
hereby denies the requests for rehearing of Development Review DR -99-22 and
Zoning Action ZA-99-47 with respect to the property described above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of April, 2000.
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk of the Qof Costa Mesa
Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa
APPROVED AS TO FORM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ���J4
=4-,L
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY ATTORNEY
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. 00-29 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City
Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of April, 2000.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
the City of Costa Mesa this 18th day of April, 2000.
t Vk
f ' Deputy City Clerk an
the City Council of the
Wicio Clerk of
of Costa Mesa
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS
A. Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 2-304(1) provides that any
affected person may, within the time limits set forth in Section 2-
305, file an application for rehearing. This section further, provides
that "the application shall contain sufficient information to
identify... the reasons for requesting a rehearing."
B. Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 2-304(3) provides that, "[t]o
justify obtaining a reFiearing, the applicant must show in the
application that there is new, relevant evidence which, in the
exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced, or
which was improperly excluded, at the earlier hearing, or that the
person or body failed to comply with the law, which contention
was not asserted at the earlier hearing."
C. Based upon the information and analysis contained in the City
Council Agenda Report dated April 12, 2000, there has been no
showing that new, relevant evidence exists which, in the exercise
of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced, or which
was improperly excluded, at the public hearing on April 3, 2000;
and there has been no showing that the City Council failed to
comply with the law, which contention was not asserted at the
public hearing on April 3, 2000.
D. The provision in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 2-304(2) that
provides an application for rehearing shall be heard at the next
regular meeting of the City Council that follows the filing of the
application by ten days is for the administrative convenience of the
City staff and Council and the Council may provide an applicant a
more speedy ruling on its application by an earlier consideration if
able to be prepared to do so at an earlier meeting.
E. The two applications for rehearing filed regarding this matter were
consolidated and heard at the same Council meeting for the
convenience of the City and the City did not need to avail itself of
the full 10 days allowed for it to prepare for consideration of both
applications.