Agenda Packet_2026-02-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

This information Is provided solely to ensure full transparency within the public record and to 1 preserve the integrity of fair process considerations. 1.4 Complexity of Materials and Burden Shift to the Public i The project documents required a sophisticated level of industry-specific knowledge to I interpret key implications, including occupancy tables embedded within reports, architectural notes contradicting statements made during the public hearing, and site-plan provisions not evident without technical analysis. Critical information necessary to understand project impact was not clearly presented at the hearing and instead required residents to decipher technical documentation independently. This shifted the burden of disclosure from the governing agency to the public, contrary to fair process expectations. f f 1..5 Mischaracterization of the Trust Property's Proximity and Impact The Trust residence was not accurately characterized during the hearing, creating an incomplete understanding of direct impacts. The property is immediately adjacent to the applicant's playground and athletic field, sharing a full property boundary, and is directly affected by operational activity from multiple institutional properties. Failure to accurately represent this proximity minimized the perceived impact on the most affected residence. 1.6 Omission of Multi-Institutional Corridor Context The hearing did not acknowledge that the applicant's property is part of a contiguous institutional corridor including 5305, 5311, 5315, and 5321 W. McFadden Avenue. These properties collectively share pathways, emergency access, parking usage, and event activity that directly affect the Trust residence. The omission of this multi-institutional context prevented decision-makers from understanding the full scale of environmental and operational Impacts. 1.7 Lack of Existing..Classroom and Enrollment Baseline Data No evidence was provided regarding the number of existing classrooms, current enrollment verification, instructional capacity, or projected growth to justify the need for expansion. The applicant's stated enrollment of 180 students, with a cap of 195, was neither substantiated nor conditioned, and no analysis was provided to demonstrate that existing facilities were insufficient for current operations. Without baseline data, the project's necessity and scale could not be properly evaluated. 1.8 Inadequate Consideration of Land-Use Changes The project involves converting a portion of the existing sports field into multi-use parking to meet parking requirements. This land-use change was not meaningfully discussed during the hearing and was not presented as an environmental or operational impact for consideration. The change affects the Trust residence due to its immediate proximity to the field and introduces increased vehicle activity and associated impacts that were not disclosed or examined. 1.9 Omission of Dual-Use Impacts on Adjacent Residential Property 4 City Council 18 — 20 2/3/2026