Agenda Packet_2026-02-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 I SECTION 9 — FAILURE TO CONSIDER FEASIBLE OR LESS INTRUSIVE ALTERNATIVES The City approved the project without evaluating feasible, less intrusive, or lower-impact alternatives, resulting in an approval that failed to minimize impacts on the adjacent R-1 residence as required under fair land-use planning standards and basic principles of responsible decision-making. 9.1 No Alternatives Presented, Considered, or Analyzed_Prior to Approval The project was advanced and approved based solely on the applicant's preferred design, without presentation, analysis, or discussion of any alternative configurations, program options, or less intrusive pathways to meeteducational needs. The record reflects no evidence that Planning Staff or the Commission requested, evaluated, or considered alternative solutions that could have reduced or avoided impacts to the adjacent R-1 residence. Proceeding with only a single, applicant-selected option falls short of expected due diligence and deprived decision-makers of the ability to weigh options in the interest of residential protection and balanced land-use outcomes. 9.2 Reasonable Alternatives Were Readily Available but Ignored Multiple feasible alternatives existed that would have met educational objectives while reducing impacts on the adjacent residence; however, none were explored. Reasonable options included: • Relocating the proposed building or redesigned parking away from the shared R-1 boundary to reduce noise, circulation, and activity impacts; • Utilizing or reconfiguring existing interior space to add instructional capacity without requiring expansion at the most sensitive edge of the campus; and • Enhancing academic offerings within the existing K-6 program rather than expanding to K-8, thereby meeting programmatic goals without intensifying daily operations or campus density. The absence of any consideration of these alternatives precluded a balanced evaluation of approaches that could have significantly mitigated residential impacts. 9.3 Failure to Consider Alternatives„that Reduce Impacts on R-1 Residence A core purpose of evaluating alternatives is to identify solutions that avoid or reduce harm. Mere, the most directly affected R-1 property was not afforded any consideration in alternative planning. Alternatives that would have lessened adjacency impacts—such as re-orienting building massing, maintaining active-field buffering, or shifting high-impact functions toward interior campus areas--were never presented or discussed. The failure to assess options that would have minimized noise, privacy intrusion, lighting spillover, vehicle circulation, and after- hours activity at the shared boundary represents a significant procedural omission. 9.4 Alternatives Required Where Seniors and ADA-Protected Residents Are Affected Where impacts fall upon senior or disability-protected residents, there exists an elevated obligation to evaluate options that reduce adverse effects. In this case, the only directly- 23 City Council 18 — 39 2/3/2026