Agenda Packet_2026-02-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

12. CONCLUSION & REQUESTED ACTIONS The approval of CUP No. 1982-18-MOD-1 was reached through a process that did not meet - the standards of lawful review, public transparency, equitable treatment, or residential protection, and therefore must be vacated and remanded for proper reconsideration. 12.1 Vacate the Approval of CUP No. 1982-18-MOD-1 Given the due process deficiencies, misapplication of CEQA, failure to evaluate cumulative impacts, lack of alternatives analysis, and inequitable treatment of the most affected R-1 residence, the approval cannot stand as issued. The first and necessary step is to vacate the Planning Commission's approval. 12.2 Remand for Proper and Lawful„Reconsideration The matter should be remanded for a full and lawful review process that corrects procedural, analytical, and equity-based deficiencies, ensures transparency, and provides a fair opportunity for public participation and informed decision-making. 12.3 Require Appropriate Environmental Review Prior to Any Reconsideration Any reconsideration of the project must include appropriate CEQA-level environmental review—at minimum, an Initial Study—that: • evaluates reasonably foreseeable environmental and operational impacts, • discloses findings to the public, and • identifies mitigation measures where required. This environmental review must expressly address; cumulative institutional corridor impacts, - . ADA and senior-resident impacts, land-use conversion and operational intensity changes, and • a full alternatives analysis. 12.4 Applicant and City Must Bear the Burden of Demonstrating Compatibility Any future consideration of expansion must begin with the presumption that the Applicant and City—not the affected residents—bear the burden of demonstrating that the project Is compatible with R-1 zoning, protects the adjacent residence, and does not adversely impact vulnerable senior and ADA-protected occupants. Compatibility must be proven through evidence, not assumed or asserted. 12_.5 If Compatibility Cannot Be Demonstrated, the Appropriate Outcome Is Denial of Expansion at This Location Should the City be unable to demonstrate that any revised project can meet the requirements above, protect the adjacent R-1 residence, and uphold residential welfare, equity, and public interest, then the appropriate outcome is denial of expansion at this location. 29 City Council 18 —45 2/3/2026