RES 2026071 - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. 2026-071 Page 5 of 7 a lack of a street-facing primary entrance—fails to integrate with the established streetscape and surrounding landscape context. As such, the City Council finds that this finding cannot be made. 6. Whether adequate public safety measures have been incorporated into the design or the proposed development plan. The proposed development plan does not demonstrate that adequate public safety measures have been incorporated into the design. The project's site layout and circulation pattern do not provide clear, safe, and intuitive pedestrian pathways from the public right-of-way to individual residential unit entrances, resulting in potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, particularly given the reliance on driveway access for primary entry points. The absence of a street-facing primary entrance along Old Bernal Avenue reduces natural surveillance and "eyes on the street," which are key elements of passive public safety. In addition, inconsistencies in the submitted plans regarding unit access, bicycle facilities, refuse location, and utility design prevent a full evaluation of operational safety and emergency access considerations. Furthermore, incomplete information regarding fencing and gate design limits the ability to confirm that the project provides adequate visibility, access control, and safety features throughout the site. Collectively, these deficiencies indicate that the development plan does not sufficiently incorporate public safety measures into its design. As such, the City Council finds that this finding cannot be made. 7. Whether the proposed development plan conforms to the purposes of the PUD district. The City Council finds that the proposed development plan does not conform to the purposes of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. The PUD District is intended to promote well-planned projects that achieve high-quality design, superior site planning, and compatibility with surrounding uses while advancing adopted General Plan and specific plan goals. As proposed, the project does not meet these objectives because it is inconsistent with the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan, removes commercial or mixed-use components, and does not provide active, pedestrian-oriented ground-floor design. The project also fails to demonstrate superior site planning due to limited pedestrian connectivity, constrained circulation, inconsistent access design, and insufficient integration of landscaping and site features. In addition, the building's height, massing, and orientation do not provide appropriate transitions to surrounding development or contribute to the intended downtown character. As such, the City Council finds that this finding cannot be made. SECTION 6. After review of the materials presented, the City Council determined the proposed Project is not consistent with the City's General Plan and purposes of the PUD ordinance and certificate of appropriateness, and by this reference adopted and reaffirmed all findings set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-2026-14. SECTION 7. The City Council denies Case Nos. P26-0360 and PUD-152 for a (1) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezoning to rezone the subject parcel from MU-T (Mixed Use- Transitional) District to PUD-MU-T (Planned Unit Development-Mixed Use-Transitional) District; (2) a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an existing 6,160 square-foot commercial office building in the Downtown Revitalization District; and (3) a PUD Development Plan to construct a