Laserfiche WebLink
8.B. - Page 1 <br /> REPORT <br /> To the Honorable Mayor and City Council <br /> From the City Manager <br /> July 28, 2014 <br /> SUBJECT <br /> Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of the Cambridge Academy Project <br /> RECOMMENDATION <br /> 1. Hold a public hearing. <br /> 2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) denying the appeal filed by Carol and Nicholas <br /> Berg, applicants for the Cambridge Academy Project proposed at 2323 -2325 Euclid <br /> Avenue, and upholding the February 4, 2014 Planning Commission Actions in <br /> connection with the certification of the Environmental Impact Report and denial of the <br /> Use Permit Application for the Cambridge Academy Project. <br /> Executive Summary <br /> The City Council is considering an appeal of a Planning Commission action denying an <br /> application to operate a new private school on the Redwood Baptist Church property <br /> located at 2323 Euclid Avenue. The applicant proposed to operate a new private school <br /> (Cambridge Academy Project) with a maximum enrollment of 180 children and 20 <br /> employees. Throughout the application process, there was significant neighborhood <br /> concern, primarily related to traffic and noise due to a perceived over concentration of <br /> schools in the immediate area. Staff initially recommended approval of this project to the <br /> Planning Commission. After careful consideration, however, on February 4, 2014, the <br /> Planning Commission certified the project Environmental Report confirming the <br /> environmental review was done in accordance with law, but did not adopt the <br /> "Statement of Overriding Considerations" required for a project to move forward under <br /> the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Commission also <br /> denied the use permit in light of the environmental and neighborhood concerns. Since <br /> that time, the applicant has appealed the Planning Commission decision and submitted <br /> a revised proposal that reduces the total project scope. Given this appeal, the EIR is no <br /> longer certified. In addition, the project in front of the Council for consideration is the <br /> original application that was denied by the Planning Commission. The staff <br /> recommendation is for the Council to uphold the Planning Commission decision and <br /> deny the applicant's appeal by adopting the attached resolution. Alternatively, the <br /> Council may wish to move forward with project approval as originally proposed by <br /> adopting an alternative resolution, which is also attached to this report. The Council <br />