Appeal of Planning Commission
Approval: Pura Vida Recovery
Services
(5761 Mountain Hawk Drive)
Challenging CUP Approval Based on Zoning
Incompatibility and Wildfire Safety Risks
Standard of Review
(CCP § 1094.5)
• The Council’s Quasi-Judicial Role: The
Council must determine if there was a
"prejudicial abuse of discretion. "
• Abuse of Discretion occurs if:
• The City did not proceed in the
manner required by law.
• The decision is not supported by the
findings.
• The findings are not supported by
substantial evidence.
Under CCP 1094.5, the Council’s task is
narrow: Were the findings lawful, and are
they supported by substantial evidence?
Failure of Findings: Neighborhood Commercial
(CN) Zoning and GP Inconsistency
CN zoning is for neighborhood-serving daily needs
A 24-bed regional recovery facility is not a daily neighborhood service The record never bridges that gap
CEQA & Wildfire Risk: The 2022 AG
Mandate
This project sits in a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Yet there is no project-specific evacuation analysis accounting for quadrupled occupancy. That omission violates CEQA’s requirement to analyze site-specific risk.
Lack of Substantial Evidence
• The 4-2 Split by the Planning Commission shows unresolved doubt:
• Approval relied heavily on letters from the applicant's own commercial tenants.
• Massive local opposition not reconciled in findings.
Procedural Irregularity: District
Representation
• The Issue: The District Council Member’s mandatory recusal leaves the most impacted constituents without their elected vote. • The Result: Under CCP § 1094.5(b), the remaining Council must exercise "heightened scrutiny" to ensure a fair hearing and protect the due process rights of the unrepresented
neighborhood.
Questions for the Record
• Zoning: what substantial evidence shows this 24-bed facility serves the daily needs of the Skyhawk neighborhood?
• Scale analysis: Where do the findings analyze whether quadrupling intensity is compatible with CN zoning?
• Wildfire Safety: Is there any project-specific evacuation analysis in the record for this site?
• Public Opposition: Where do the findings reconcile overwhelming neighborhood opposition?
• Fair Hearing: Given the district Council member’s recusal, how has the City ensured heightened scrutiny of the record? Alternative Mitigations (The "Safety Net")
• If the Council moves toward approval, it must adopt:
• Independent Evacuation Study: Prior to building permits. • Occupancy Phase-In: Limit to 12 beds for 12 months with a "No Nuisance" review.
• Annual Public CUP Review: Mandatory hearing for 3 years to ensure compliance.
• 24/7 Hotline & Liaison: Direct accountability to Skyhawk United.
Conclusion
• Primary Request: Uphold the Appeal and Deny the CUP.
• Secondary Request: Remand to the Planning Commission for a full Wildfire/CEQA Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Zoning protections exist to prevent the institutionalization of neighborhood hubs.