Agenda Packet_2026-02-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3 E The introduction of a dual-use field/parking area adjacent to the Trust residence intensifles the property's exposure to noise, vehicle traffic, lighting, and increased activity beyond traditional school-day use. These impacts were not raised or considered during the hearing, leaving decision-makers without critical information relevant to residential quality-of-life im pacts. 1.10 Failure to Include Enrollment Growth Enforcement Measures Although the project was described as enabling only a modest enrollment increase from 180 to 195 students, no enforceable conditions of approval were included to ensure adherence to the stated limit. The lack of enforceable constraints raises reasonable concern that enrollment could expand beyond the stated cap, increasing intensity without corresponding mitigation. 1.11 Failure to Disclose Commercial Event Use Within the Corridor The applicant and staff did not disclose that portions of the institutional corridor include regular commercial event activity, including ticketed events, public performances, and monetized parking. This omission presented an incomplete picture of existing land use conditions and masked the cumulative operational intensity affecting adjacent residential property. 1.12 Limited Public Participation at the Hearing The Trust was the only member of the public who submitted opposition and appeared at the hearing (via Zoom) to provide comment. It was not evident whether any other residents were present in chambers. The limited participation may reasonably be linked to Notice irregularities and confusion, which contributed to a diminished public record. 1.13 Imbalanced Hearing Structure and Limited Opposition Time, The structure of the hearing provided 15 minutes for the applicant's presentation, only 3 minutes for public comment per speaker, and 5 minutes for the applicant to respond to any opposition. This imbalance constrained the ability of affected residents to present a full and informed response, particularly given the complexity of the project and inadequacy of the 72- hour review window. 1.14 Reasonable Perception of Predetermined Outcome The Public Hearing Notice stated that a CEQA Class 14 Categorical Exemption "will be filed" for the project, creating a reasonable perception that the exemption—and thus the approval— was predetermined prior to public input. During the hearing, Commissioners' questions appeared to support the applicant's narrative rather than explore or weigh concerns raised by the Trust. Collectively, these factors contributed to a reasonable perception that the outcome may have been pre-decided, limiting the fairness and integrity of the process. Taken together, the procedural deficiencies described above materially impaired the fairness and integrity of the public review process. The manner in which notice was provided, information was disclosed, participation was facilitated, and the record was formed resulted in decision-makers relying on an incomplete and imbalanced set of facts. These deficiencies, on their own, justify vacating and remanding the approval to restore due process. In addition 5 City Council 18 — 21 2/3/2026