Agenda Packet_2026-02-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Appeal Application No. 2025-02 — Forty Martyrs Armenian Church Middle School (5311 W. McFadden Avenue) Appeal Application No. 2025-02 Pursuant to Section 41-645 of the SAMC, the appellant is requesting the following: 1. Vacate the Planning Commission's approval of CUP No. 1982-18-MOD-1; 2. Remand consideration of CUP No. 1982-18-MOD-1 back to Planning Commission; 3. Conduct at minimum an Initial Study as part of CEQA analysis that accompanies re-consideration of CUP No. 1982-18-MOD-1 by the Planning Commission; and 4. Demonstrate that the project is compatible with neighborhood context, if it cannot demonstrate compatibility, deny the project. The appellant does not provide any evidence to substantiate that the proposed project would adversely impact the community, pursuant to Section 41-638 of the SAMC. Specifically, the appellant does not provide evidence 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. Nevertheless, a comprehensive response on the appeal items previously outlined has been prepared. All the appellant comments listed below have been summarized for brevity; however, the full comments can be viewed in Exhibit 1 of the full appeal application packet. Analysis of Appeal 1. Appellant Request: The following procedural deficiencies materially limited the ability of affected residents to participate meaningfully in the public review and hearing process, result in an incomplete an imbalanced record prior to approval. The list of procedural deficiencies includes notice irregularities, limited access time for public review, unsolicited purchase offer to the only R-1 residence sharing a direct boundary with the applicant's institutional property, complexity of materials and burden shift to the public, mischaracterization of the Trust property's proximity and impact, omission of multi-institutional corridor context, lack of existing classroom and enrollment baseline data, inadequate consideration of land use changes, omission of dual use impact on adjacent residential property, failure to include enrollment growth enforcement measures, failure to disclose commercial event use within the corridor, limited public participation at the hearing, imbalanced hearing structure and limited opposition time, and predetermined outcome. Analysis of Issue: Exhibit 6 — Response to Appeal Comments ity ouncil 18 — 154 2/3/2026