Agenda Packet_2026-02-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F. Staff presented the following in response to the Appeal: The Appellant does not provide any evidence that the proposed Project would adversely impact the community, pursuant to Section 41-638 of the SAMC. Specifically, the Appellant does not provide evidence to substantiate that the Project will be a detriment to the general wellbeing of the neighborhood or the community; detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; would adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of property in the surrounding area; does not comply with the regulations and conditions specified in this chapter for such use; and would adversely affect the general plan of the city or any specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use. A comprehensive response on the appeal items previously outlined has been prepared and can be found in Exhibit 6 of the staff report dated February 3, 2026. Section 2. The City Council, after hearing, considering and weighing all evidence in the record presented on behalf of all parties and being fully informed of the application, the Planning Commission's decision, and the appeal, hereby finds and determines that the Planning Commission's decision was not made in error, that the Planning Commission's decision was not an abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 3. The denial of Appeal Application No. 2025-02 would result in upholding the Planning Commission's October 27, 2025, approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 1982-18-MOD-1, which in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, is exempt from further review per Section 15314 (Class 14— Minor Additions to School). The Class 14 exemption consists of minor additions to existing schools within existing school grounds where the addition does not increase the original student capacity by more than 25 percent or ten classrooms. The proposed school expansion will not increase the student capacity by more than 25 percent and it only proposes to add four classrooms and one laboratory. Moreover, pursuant to Section 15300.2 (a)through (f)of the CEQA guidelines, exceptions to the CEQA exemptions do not apply to the proposed project because the Project is not located on an environmentally sensitive location nor on a hazardous waste site, does not have significant cumulative impact nor significant effect according to the focused traffic study and parking demand analysis documents that are part of the Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit 3), and it will not cause substantial adverse change of a historical resource. Furthermore, the denial of Appeal Application No. 2025-02 would result in upholding the Planning Commission's approval of CUP No. 1982-18-MOD-1; therefore, there is no further environmental impact associated with Appeal Application No. 2025-02. Based on this analysis, a Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2023-34, will be filed for the proposed Project. Section 4. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, Resolution No. 2026-xx City Council 18 — 49 6