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