HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPPL-0665-2025_Council Agenda Report for Appeal of USE-0332-2025_10.21.25_Final Item Click or tap here to enter text.
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4006
For Agenda of: 10/21/2025
Placement: Public Hearing
Estimated Time: 90 minutes
FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Mallory Patino, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
DECISION TO REVOKE A USE PERMIT FOR OPERATION OF A
FRATERNITY ORGANIZATION AT 1236 MONTE VISTA PLACE (USE-
0332-2025, APPL-0665-2025)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision
to revoke the use permit for a fraternity located at 1236 Monte Vista Place. The project is
exempt from environmental review under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as represented in the council
agenda report and attachments dated October 21, 2025 (USE-0332-2025, APPL-0665-
2025).”( Attachment A)
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
On August 12, 1998, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit (U106-98)
(Attachment B - PC Resolution No. 5230-98) to allow a fraternity (Kappa Sigma) at the
multifamily apartment complex at 1236 Monte Vista Place. Delta Chi (Appellant) has
continued the use as a fraternity organization under the approved Use Permit since
moving into the complex in 2012. In 2025, the Community Development Director
(Director) referred the existing Use Permit to the Planning Commission for re-review
based on several recent violations of the permit conditions.
On May 28, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the re-review
of the Use Permit for the continuation of the fraternity. The Planning Commission voted
5-0 to revoke the Use Permit because they could not make the required findings
enumerated in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC) §17.110.070. Specifically, the
Planning Commission found that the design, location, size, and operating characteristics
of the use was not compatible with residential uses in the vicinity (§17.110.070(A)(3)),
Item Click or tap here to enter text.
and that continued use of the property as a fraternity under the Use Permit was not
appropriate for the subject location, was incompatible with the neighborhood, and would
be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or
in the vicinity (§17.110.070(A)(5)). The Planning Commission was not satisfied that any
set of conditions would secure these purposes. On June 11, 2025 Resolution No. PC-
1102-2025 was ratified with the final Planning Commission decision. This decision does
not prevent the Appellant from re-applying for a new use permit if they choose.
On June 20, 2025, the Delta Chi Fraternity filed a timely appeal of the Planning
Commission’s decision to revoke the Use Permit (APPL-0665-2025) (Attachments C and
D – Appeal Form and Supplemental Statements). As described in the Appeal Form and
statements, the Appellant does not concur with the findings that form the basis of the
Planning Commission’s decision. The Appellant requests that City Council uphold the
appeal, reverse the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke the Use Permit, direct City
staff to collaborate with the fraternity and community to draft clear and enforceable
Conditions of Approval that ensure compliance and alignment with City regulations, and
adopt a modified Conditional Use Permit with said drafted conditions.
POLICY CONTEXT
General Plan
Within the General Plan, Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 2.2.6 (Neighborhood
Characteristics) directs the City to promote livability, quiet enjoyment, and safety for all
residents, and highlights that one characteristic of a quality neighborhood includes a
sense of personal safety. LUE Policy 2.2.1 (Neighborhood Identity) encourages the City
to work with residents to address neighborhood specific issues. Additionally, Goal 7 of
the Housing Element (Neighborhood Quality) is to maintain, preserve, and enhance the
quality and livability of neighborhoods.
Major City Goals
One of the 2025-2027 Major City Goals is “Housing and Neighborhood Livability –
Healthy, Safe, and Affordable,” which specifically includes a focus on fostering diverse,
connected, and safe neighborhoods that are livable for all.
Zoning Regulations (SLOMC Chapter 17)
Per Table 2-1 of SLOMC (Uses Allowed by Zone), the establishment of a fraternity in the
R-4 zone requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Approval of a Conditional Use
Permit for a fraternity is subject to the requirements, listed below, to ensure its consistency
with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations and its compatibility with existing and
future land uses in the vicinity:
• Section 17.110.060 (Minor Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits – Criteria for
Approval)
• Section 17.110.070 (Minor Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits – Required
Findings)
Item Click or tap here to enter text.
• Section 17.86.130(B) (Fraternities and Sororities – Required Findings)
Per SLOMC §17.102.020(C)(7), revocation of a Conditional Use Permit is a quasi-judicial
process providing for the review of potential violations of conditions of approval for an
authorized use, and for the revocation of such approval based upon findings set forth in
Chapter 17.110.
DISCUSSION
Site Data
Appellant Delta Chi
General Plan Land
Use Designation
High Density Residential
(HDR)
Zone High-Density Residential
(R-4)
Site Area Approximately 0.66 acre
Environmental
Determination
Categorically exempt from
environmental review
under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301 (Existing
Facilities)
BACKGROUND
On August 12, 1998, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit, U106-98 (PC
Resolution No. 5230-98) (Attachment B) to allow a fraternity (Kappa Sigma) at the
multifamily apartment complex at 1236 Monte Vista Place (Property). The fraternity
organization Delta Chi began residing at 1236 Monte Vista Place in 2012, continuing the
use of the site under the existing Use Permit.
The Police Department issued one (1) citation for a noise violation and one (1) citation for
an unruly gathering to the Property between September 2024 and March 2025. The noise
violation citation (issued on March 3, 2025) was successfully appealed resulting in the
citation being dismissed. The unruly gathering citation was issued March 15, 2025, the
Saturday ahead of St. Patrick’s Day (locally referred to as “St. Fratty’s Day” weekend).
The notes from the Police response visit to the site at 4 AM on March 15 cite that
approximately 100 people were visible in the courtyard, music could be heard from over
200 feet from the property line, and alcohol was present on site. Despite efforts from Code
Enforcement and the Police Department to encourage safe celebrations and deter unruly
gatherings ahead of St. Patrick’s Day, an event still took place at 1236 Monte Vista Place
that resulted in the citation. On March 9, 2025, a complaint was made to the Police relating
to loud music at the Property, though no citation was issued.
Item Click or tap here to enter text.
On March 19, 2025, Code Enforcement issued a Notice to Correct Code Violation(s) /
Notice of Violation relating to the multiple, confirmed administrative citations, noise
violations, and Use Permit violations. The Notice of Violation stated that due to the active
and continued violations by the fraternity, Code Enforcement staff would be
recommending review of the Use Permit to the Director of Community Development. The
Director then referred the Use Permit to the Planning Commission for re-review in
accordance with Condition No. 111 of Use Permit U106-98.
On April 18, 2025, after the fraternity had been notified that the Use Permit would be re-
reviewed by Planning Commission, the Police Department issued another citation for a
noise violation to the Property related to a large gathering of approximately 50 visible
people with alcohol present.
Planning Commission Action
On May 28, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the re-review
of the Use Permit, U106-98, to consider the continuation of the fraternity at 1236 Monte
Vista Place.
Staff evaluated the fraternity and its recent violations against current City standards and
regulations, including the updated findings and criteria for approval as well as code
requirements. Staff additionally took previous, recent Council and Advisory Body actions2
into consideration for consistency across all fraternity and sorority use permits. Staff
recommended the Planning Commission allow continuation of the fraternity subject to a
modified Use Permit. The proposed modified conditions reflected updated language for
consistency with current Municipal Code requirements per Section 17.86.130(A) and
recent actions related to fraternities and sororities. The proposed conditions included
thresholds for future re-reviews, limits on routine gatherings and meetings, standards for
Cal Poly affiliation, site maintenance requirements, restrictions on amplified noise, and
an updated process for special events. The proposed modified conditions can be viewed
in total in the draft resolution that was provided to the Planning Commission (May 28,
2025 Planning Commission Agenda Report).
In evaluating whether to revoke the Use Permit or to approve a modified Use Permit
based on the conditions recommended by staff, the Planning Commission considered the
1Condition 11 of U106-98: Use permit shall be reviewed if any reasonable written citizen or Police or Fire
Department complaints are received by the city. In review of the use permit, the Planning Commission may
add, delete or modify conditions of approval, or revoke the use permit. The Planning Commission may
consider adding a condition requiring fraternity officers to perform a community service project in the
neighborhood.
2Resolution No. PC-1085-2024 (USE-0331-2023) approving a Conditional Use Permit to establish a
fraternity at 1264 and 1264 ½ E. Foothill and 1241, 1243, 1249 and 1251 Monte Vista Place;
Resolution R-11529 (2024 Series) (USE-0331-2023, APPL-0365-2024) denying an appeal and upholding
Planning Commission’s decision to approval a Conditional Use Permit to establish a fraternity at 1264 and
1264 ½ E. Foothill and 1241, 1243, 1249 and 1251 Monte Vista Place; and
Resolution No. PC-1092-2024 (USE-0625-2024) approving modifications to Conditional Use Permit to allow
continuation of the fraternity at 280 California Boulevard.
Item Click or tap here to enter text.
findings outlined in SLOMC §17.110.070.A, which are required to approve a Use Permit
and read as follows:
1. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific
plan;
2. The proposed use is allowed or conditionally allowed within the applicable zone
and complies with all other applicable provisions of these zoning regulations and
the municipal code;
3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity
will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity;
4. The site is physically suitable in terms of:
a. Its design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics of the
proposed use;
b. Traffic generation and the provision of public and emergency vehicle
(e.g., fire and medical) access;
c. Public protection services (e.g., fire protection, police protection, etc.);
and
d. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste
collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment,
and disposal, etc.).
5. The establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not,
because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing
or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity of the use.
After considering all evidence, including the staff’s evaluation and recommendation, the
applicant’s testimony, and public testimony, the Planning Commission determined the
design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the site as a fraternity were not
compatible with residential uses in the vicinity. The Planning Commission also found that
continued use as a fraternity was not appropriate for the subject location, incompatible
with the neighborhood, and detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living
or working at the site or in the vicinity. As such, the required findings enumerated in
SLOMC §17.110.070(A)(3) and §17.110.070(A)(5) could not be made by the Planning
Commission.
The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to revoke the Use Permit, based on the findings
specified in Resolution No. PC-1102-2025. This decision does not prevent the Appellant
from re-applying for a new use permit if they choose.
APPEAL
On June 20, 2025, Delta Chi Cal Poly Chapter filed a timely appeal of the Planning
Commission’s decision to revoke Use Permit U106-98 (APPL-0665-2025) (Attachments
C and D – Appeal Form and Supplemental Statements). As described in the Appeal Form
Item Click or tap here to enter text.
and supplemental materials, Delta Chi asserts that the revocation was premature and
that issues cited can be effectively addressed through collaboration with City staff and
other stakeholders. The Appellant requests that the City Council uphold the appeal,
reverse the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke the Use Permit, and direct staff to
work in good faith with Delta Chi to amend the existing permit to ensure compliance and
alignment with community expectations to avoid a costly and time-consuming
reapplication process.
The Appeal Form and supplemental statements can be distilled into two (2) issues, which
are summarized and discussed in the following analysis.
Appeal Issue No. 1 – Good-Faith Reliance, Cooperative History, and Severe and
Disproportionate Penalty
The Appellant asserts that they have worked systematically to reduce incidents that result
in citations or use permit violations in recent years, reflecting their commitment to
improvements. They cite their efforts to work with City staff over the years to comply with
permit conditions, to address neighborhood concerns in good faith, and to respond to
feedback and implement operational improvements. The Appellant notes they have
invested time and resources in mitigation measures and adjusted management practices
and have consistently sought to be a constructive member of the community.
The Appellant states that after years of interaction and reliance on City feedback,
revocation imposes a severe and disproportionate penalty, which leaves them to face
significant hardship due to a sudden change in course, especially considering Staff’s
recommendation to modify the use permit during the Planning Commission hearing.
Staff Response
The Community Development Department and Planning Commission acted in
accordance with and did not exercise any discretion outside of that which is provided for
in SLOMC §17.102.020(C)(7).
Due to active violations by the fraternity, the Director referred the Use Permit to the
Planning Commission for re-review in accordance with Condition of Approval No. 11 of
Use Permit, U106-98, which states the following:
11. Use permit shall be reviewed if any reasonable written citizen or Police or Fire
Department complaints are received by the city. In review of the use permit, the
Planning Commission may add, delete or modify conditions of approval, or revoke
the use permit. The Planning Commission may consider adding a condition
requiring fraternity officers to perform a community service project in the
neighborhood.
As described in Condition No. 11, revocation of the use permit is one possible outcome
of a review instigated from a complaint. Several complaints and violations contributed to
the Director’s decision to refer the Use Permit to the Planning Commission for re-review.
Item Click or tap here to enter text.
One complaint that resulted in the Police issuing a noise violation citation to the Property
on March 3, 2025 contributed to the Director’s referral of the Use Permit to Planning
Commission. Though this violation was successfully appealed resulting in the citation
being dismissed, the appeal process did not conclude until April 15, 2025, after such
referral was made. Another complaint that contributed to the Director’s referral was made
to the Police on March 9, 2025 relating to loud music at the Property, though no citation
was issued.
Another complaint that further contributed to the referral related to the event held on
March 15, 2025 at 4 AM, which resulted in a citation for an unruly gathering. Police notes
indicated the large party had over 100 people visible in the courtyard, people shouting,
and a live DJ playing music that could be heard from over 200 feet from the property line.
As defined in SLOMC §9.13.020(E), unruly gatherings are gatherings of twenty or more
persons on private property with conduct that causes a substantial disturbance of the
quiet enjoyment in a significant segment of an immediate neighborhood or presents a
threat to the health, welfare and safety of those in attendance, responding enforcement
personnel, or nearby residents or properties. Per SLOMC §9.13, unruly gatherings are
prohibited, as they are detrimental to the public health, welfare and safety, and are
contrary to the public interest. This event was also in direct violation of Conditions #4, #5,
#7 and #12 of Use Permit U106-98, listed below for reference, as well as in opposition to
the extensive outreach that was conducted by Cal Poly and the City regarding events
during the days around St. Patrick’s Day.
4. The maximum number of persons allowed on the site for routine meetings and
gatherings is 53, except as specifically approved by the Community Development
Director for special events. For such special events, the applicant shall also submit
a parking and transportation plan.
5. No meetings, parties, or other types of similar activities involving persons other
than residents are allowed between the hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m., except as
approved by the Community Development Director.
7. Events, including meetings or parties, on site, shall be limited to those listed on
a meeting and activities schedule, submitted to an approved by the Community
Development Director in the fall of each year. Exceptions to this schedule must be
approved by the Community Development Director. If the Director determines the
change is significant and may have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, then
it will be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration.
12. Failure to comply with the above conditions or code requirements, or the
conduct of the use so as to constitute a violation of Federal, State, or local l, or so
as to constitute a public nuisance or so as to cause adverse impacts on the health,
safety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity of this use is prohibited and may
constitute grounds for revocation of this permit.
Code Enforcement issued a Notice of Violation to the Property on March 19, 2025, which
stated that the administrative citations, noise violations, and police contacts between
Item Click or tap here to enter text.
January to March 2025 constituted violations of the Municipal Code and the Use Permit
Conditions of Approval. The notice stated that immediate compliance was required to
correct the violations, and that the violations constituted a public nuisance that must be
abated.
A few weeks later, the Police responded to a complaint on April 18, 2025, around 9:30
PM, which resulted in another citation for a noise violation. Police notes indicated the
large gathering had approximately 50 visible people and alcohol present. This event was
in direct violation of Conditions #7 and #12 of Use Permit U106-98 and the Notice of
Violation sent to the fraternity on March 19, 2025.
Collectively, these actions of the organization have constituted a public nuisance and
caused a substantial disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private property in the
immediate neighborhood. Therefore, the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke the
Use Permit would not be considered a severe or disproportionate penalty.
During the May 28, 2025 Planning Commission hearing, the fraternity representative
presented information concerning their reduction in complaints in recent years. The
representative also noted the fraternity’s history of cooperation with the City and
organizational mitigation measures and adjusted management practices. The Planning
Commission considered this information, as well as the information relating to the multiple
confirmed use permit violations, including the March 15th and April 18th incidents, and
public input from community members. Based on all the evidence discussed, the Planning
Commission was unable to make the required findings to grant continuation of Use Permit
U106-98, as required under SLOMC §17.110 and revoked the Use Permit per Condition
No. 11.
It should be noted that the multi-family residential complex located at 1236 Monte Vista
Place may continue to be used for residential uses, regardless of holding a use permit.
Revocation of the Use Permit means that the site cannot be used as a fraternity or sorority
house, which is defined as residences for college or university students who are members
of a social or educational association that is affiliated and in good standing with the
California Polytechnic State University and where such an association also holds
meetings or gatherings (SLOMC §17.156.014). While fraternity members may continue
to live at 1236 Monte Vista Place, the change requires regular fraternity operations, such
as chapter meetings and special events, to cease on site. Those meetings and gatherings
may continue at off-site locations, including Cal Poly’s campus or other private venues
suitable for the intended land uses.
Additional Noise Violation Citation
Since the Appellant filed an appeal, the Police issued another citation to the Property on
October 4, 2025, for a noise violation. Police responded around 2:30 AM to a complaint
relating to loud noise. The responding Officer confirmed music and voices could be heard
from beyond the property line. The responding Officer noted that people were running
into the apartments from the courtyard with Police’s arrival, and approximately 10 people
were visible in the courtyard with alcohol present.
Item Click or tap here to enter text.
Appeal Issue No. 2 – Collaborative Process for Constructive Resolution
The Appellant requests that the City Council uphold the appeal and direct staff to
collaborate with Delta Chi, neighbors and university partners to modify the conditions of
use permit so that they are clear, achievable, enforceable, and ensure accountability. The
Appellant has provided feedback and draft modifications to conditions of approval for the
use permit (Attachments C and D – Appeal Form and Supplemental Statements) based
on the draft conditions of approval that were presented in the May 28, 2025 draft
resolution and the comments made by Planning Commission (see Planning Commission
Agenda Report). The Appellant argues that their drafted modifications address concerns
raised by the Planning Commission and, if adopted, would allow fraternity operations to
satisfy the required findings in SLOMC §17.110.070(A).
Staff Response
Revocation of the permit by the Planning Commission was based on the findings that the
continued use of a fraternity would be incompatible with residential uses in the vicinity,
and would be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working
at the site or in the vicinity. In the supplemental material provided, the Appellant has not
provided evidence that the fraternity would be able to satisfy the Planning Commission
concerns and meet the required findings in SLOMC §17.110.070(A).
Staff has analyzed the proposed alterations and additions to the conditions that the
fraternity has submitted, and this analysis is provided in Attachment E. Many of the
proposed changes and provided reasoning from the Second Supplemental Statement
(Attachment D) have the possibility for beneficial outcomes, but they are still conceptual
ideas and would be difficult to enforce. Information is lacking regarding how the proposed
changes might be implemented, and how implementation would effectively change the
operations and behavior of the fraternity. There remains insufficient evidence to address
the concerns raised by the Planning Commission that operation of a fraternity is
appropriate for the subject location, compatible with the neighborhood, and will not be
detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of people living or working at the site or in
the vicinity.
The Appeal process, as outlined in SLOMC §17.126, does not provide an effective
avenue to support a collaborative conversation or the time necessary to modify the
existing Use Permit. If City Council directs staff to undertake the effort requested by the
Appellant, the appeal would need to be continued to either a date certain in the future or
off-calendar to provide time for staff, the Appellant, and the community to discuss the
proposed conditions and then return for consideration of a revised Use Permit and
proposed findings. However, the Appellant has the ability to re-apply, at any time, for a
new use permit if they choose. If the Appellant applied for a new use permit, staff would
be able to collaborate with the applicant and other stakeholders on their application
proposal.
Item Click or tap here to enter text.
City Council Consideration
Per SLOMC §17.126.040(B), decisions of the Planning Commission shall be appealed to
City Council. Delta Chi Cal Poly Chapter filed a timely appeal of the Planning
Commission’s decision to revoke Use Permit U106-98 resulting in this review (Application
No. APPL-0665-2025) being brought before City Council.
Actions on appeals are “de novo” review per SLOMC §17.126.050(A). De novo review
means that the City Council must exercise its independent judgment to determine if the
Applicant/Appellant’s Use Permit should be modified, revoked, or remain in effect as it
was prior to the Planning Commission’s revocation. The City Council is not bound by the
Planning Commission’s findings or conclusions.
The decision made by City Council shall be made based on the required findings in
SLOMC §17.110.070 and listed above under the “Planning Commission Action” section
of this report. Because this is a “de novo” hearing, the City Council can take any of the
actions outlined in the alternatives section below or staff’s recommendation.
Public Engagement
The project has been noticed in compliance with the City’s notification requirements for
Development Projects for each public hearing associated with the project. Newspaper
legal advertisements were posted in the New Times ten (10) days prior to the Planning
Commission and City Council hearings. Additionally, postcards were sent to both owners
and occupants of properties, located within 300 feet of the project site, ten (10) days prior
to each hearing.
CONCURRENCE
The Council Agenda Report was reviewed by the Planning Division, and the City
Attorney’s Office for concurrence.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) (Common
Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit may have a
significant effect on the environment. Additionally, CEQA does not apply to projects which
a public agency rejects or disapproves. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15270.).
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: N/A Budget Year: 2025-26
Funding Identified: No
Item Click or tap here to enter text.
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $ N/A $0 $0 $0
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total $ N/A $0 $0 $0
Consideration by the City Council of an appeal of a decision made by the Planning
Commission does not directly result in expenditure of funds and thus has no fiscal impact
to the City. The appeal fee, which covers a portion of the staff time required to bring this
item forward, per City policy, was paid by the Appellant, and there is no upfront cost
resulting from the revocation of the Use Permit. If Council adopts the Resolution to deny
the appeal, subsequent review of a new use permit application, should the Appellant
reapply, would be subject to the appropriate permitting application fee, which is paid by
the applicant.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue review of the appeal. The City Council may continue the review of the
appeal with direction to staff regarding additional information or analysis required to
make a decision. Under this alternative, the hearing would be continued to a date
certain or, if amenable to the Appellant, continued off-calendar and then re-noticed as
a new hearing in the future.
2. Uphold the appeal and modify the Use Permit. The City Council may uphold the
appeal and modify the findings and/ or conditions of approval based on consistency
with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, or other policy documents. The City
Council may consider and incorporate any of the Appellant’s submitted modified
conditions, which are listed and analyzed in Attachment E – Staff Analysis of APPL-
0665-2025 Appellant Submittal. Under this alternative, a revised Resolution would
need to be prepared to provide findings to uphold the appeal and allow the Use Permit
to continue, as well as to adopt the revised conditions of approval; therefore, it would
be recommended that the hearing on the appeal be continued to a date certain to
allow for the preparation and consideration of a revised Resolution.
3. Uphold the appeal and retain the existing Use Permit as is. The City Council may
uphold the appeal and retain the Use Permit with the existing findings and conditions
of approval. Under this alternative, a revised Resolution would need to be prepared to
provide findings to uphold the appeal and allow the Use Permit to continue; therefore,
it would be recommended that the hearing on the appeal be continued to a date certain
to allow for the preparation and consideration of a revised Resolution.
Item Click or tap here to enter text.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Resolution denying the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision
to revoke the Use Permit U106-98 (USE-0332-2025, APPL-0665-2025)
B - PC Resolution No. 5230-98 (Approval of the Original Use Permit, U106-98)
C - Appeal Form and Supplemental Statements from Appellant (APPL-0665-2025,
06.20.2025, 07.11.2025)
D - Second Supplemental Statement from Appellant (APPL-0665-2025, 09.22.2025)
E - Staff Analysis of APPL-0665-2025 Appellant Submittal for Modifications and Additions
to Draft Conditions of Approval