Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Certainly. Stand. Hands over hearts. Face the flag, please.

I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Our first order of business is a consent calendar. Uh these items are considered general business and are acted upon together without discussion unless we pull an item. The first item is approval of the June 17th minutes. Are there any questions or concerns with the minutes? move that we approve the minutes as presented.

I'll second that. Okay, those have been approved. Thank you. And uh the second item are recommendations on two public art items from the architectural committee. Um we uh did look at both of those and we were pretty impressed especially with the size and the design for the um building the Tesla building on Poncho and then also very impressed with all the variances in the building on um Ventura. So we have approved both of those for your consideration.

Thank you. Do we have a motion to approve? I move that we approve the that consent item for the public art. Please call vote. Commissioner Vandervein, yes. Commissioner Murphy, yes. Commissioner Edel, yes. Vice Chair Davidson, yes. Chair Lemon, yes.

Okay. Now, uh, is it time for general public comments? These are for items that are not on the agenda, and it's an opportunity for members of the public to present a matter to the public commission. Um, and we cannot take action on these items, but they may be referred to staff or scheduled on a future agenda. We do have a speaker card for Phyllis Anderson. Will you please come to the podium? And before you be you begin, can you please state your full name for the record? My name is Phyllis Anderson. I've lived in Oldtown Camaro for over 60 years and I've been involved citizen in many levels. My concern is the parking rules on our Ventura Boulevard. On July the 9th, I spoke with Shawn at the Department of Community Development regarding a parking incident on June 27th of this year. He encouraged me to attend a planning commission meeting to address my concern. So my concern is the parking in and around Oldtown Camaria whose merchants depend on the important aspect of available parking. There is at least one business on the boulevard that does not cooperate in this endeavor. and I will share my experience with the gun store. It posts a sign that there is no parking and vehicles will be towed at owner's expense. It has been an unspoken right to park if our bis if the business is closed in Oldtown. One may park there, which I did. I was told within one and a half hours while eating at Olas restaurant a block

away. My friend and I was in total shock as the sun was setting and my vehicle was gone. My request is that you consider adding an item to your next meeting agenda that would discuss allowing parking in spaces after a business is closed, which would enhance the image of our walking the boulevard, which is a pride for Camaro. We push that all the time. My hope is that you will address this very soon so that we might see it on the city council meeting agenda in the very near future. I thank you for your time and attention and I don't think that any business on the boulevard after they close should tow your car away when they are no longer in business. It is not good for our merchants and it's certainly not good for me. It cost me well over $500 to pick up my vehicle the next morning. Oh jeez.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Okay, hearing none. We close public comment. We'll proceed to the next item. And the public hearing is now open. We have three items for consideration today. The first item is a request for approval of a conditional use permit to demolish an existing commercial building and construct a new um 19,814 square foot threetory mixeduse building on two parcels on Mentura Boulevard. This would require the commission to make a finding of exemption under SQA and pass a resolution. And we'll now hear the report. Thank you, Chair Lemon. This item will be presented by management analyst Mike CPAC. Good afternoon, Chair Lemon, uh, Vice Chair Davidson, planning commissioners. I am here today, uh, to discuss with you, uh, CP 429 and Charles Allison project on Ventura Boulevard. So, what is the request? Well, the request is uh to demolish an existing commercial building and construct a brand new 19,814 ft three-story commercial mixeduse building. The project uh proposes uh two commercial office suites on the first floor and 10 full rent apartments spread across across uh the second and third floors. The project site is located at 2401 Ventura Boulevard. Uh the general plan designation is commercial and the underlying zoning is Camrio Oldtown. Uh the site backs onto an alleyway and a freeway uh offramp thereafter. Immediately to the east uh is a commercial building currently occupied by the wine closet and to the west is a city-owned surfaced parking lot. Now um the existing and now much altered

from its original state uh structure on site was initially developed uh in around 1912 by Joseph Lewis. Uh the property served a variety of commercial uses and is locally known as the old plumbing building. The current state farm insurance office has been in at the address since 2021. And although the property has a long history of minor permits um due to its early construction date, there are no planned development permits attached to that location. Moving on um to the uh proposed new building. Uh the first floor uh shown here on the slide uh is comprised of two office suites and tucked in under the second story parking and outdoor patio elements which are patios right here and the parking is right here. Um as well as an incorporated into the building trash enclosure which would be located in this corner of the building. Now uh floors two and three uh well the second floor uh and third floor combined for a total of 10 apartments. Uh six of those are going to be on the second floor and a further uh four of these are going to be on the third floor. The second floor layout includes a residential community patio element which I will point out oop excuse me wrong button which I will point out right here. And the third floor includes a small attic space located over here. Uh the proposed building will be 30 foot 35 ft in height with the exception of certain architectural embellishments which are allowed uh to be of an additional height. Uh the building is designed in a Spanish style with S-shaped roof tiles, arch building openings and smooth finish plaster. A variety of colors, materials, and textures are proposed, including jewel accent tile and window awnings.

Articulation will be provided by stepback building uh design elements as well as balconies and the application of at times contrasting materials. The proposed project site is located within half a mile of the Camaro Metroink station um which puts it inside the uh radius for assembly bill 2097. In line with AB2097, local jurisdictions are limited in their ability to require parking on a site to these that are required by our building code specifically for electrical vehicle charging and accessible stalls. The project's uh proposed parking provision was reviewed by the city building official and the five spaces shown on the plans were determined to meet the current building code requirements. In line with the Camrian municipal code, no loading spaces are required for this project. Now, the project proponent has filed a density bonus application with the city under government code 65915. Uh that particular state law uh uh provision allows for achieving higher density of residential units on site in return for the provision of affordable housing. The same law also allows the developer to avoil of concessions and waiverss to remove certain development standards uh precluding it from reaching its allowed density under law or um oh excuse me I lost my spot here um or uh resulting in identif identifiable costs to the project. Um, in this instance, the developer is seeking relief from the water demand offset requirements, the building coverage standards, maximum number of stories and the minimum yard requirements. Now, as mentioned before, uh due to the density bonus application, uh the building is pro is required or the project is provide to provide required to provide affordable housing. In this

instance, a total of 10 units are proposed uh and the project will provide two low-income units and a one moderate income unit. The project will be subject to an affordable agreement and a 55 year year-long covenant uh which will be recorded on the property to ensure the affordable unit provision. Now, due to the original construction date of the building, staff commissioned uh Rink Consultants to prepare a historical assessment to determine if the structure is eligible for any kind of historical designation. The HA uh remarks that the structure was uh previously evaluated and recommended ineligible for any sort of historical designation. The report goes on to explain that the building no longer conveys its historical significance due to its lack of integrity. Although originally a good example of early commercial architecture, the building has lost its original design language due to the numerous changes it was subject to over its existence. The report does acknowledge that although ineligible for historical designation, the property does represent one of the earliest examples of commercial enterprise in Camaro and this warrants a special consideration in local planning. Because of this, the project has been conditioned to undertake a historical report uh on the existing building inclusive of digital photography prior to its demolition. And additionally, the project proponent volunteered to install a public art installation that pays homage to the existing building on site. A condition to that effect was placed on the project. Finally, the HA concludes that the demolition of the existing building is consistent with the categor categorical exemption under SQA. Now, on to the Housing Accountability Act. Um, the HHA compels local jurisdictions to approve housing developments that meet objective design standards unless certain high legal thresholds are met. Under the HHA, jurisdictions that fail to approve a housing development based on a

subjective standard risk the violation risk violating the act. Density bonus project benefit benefit from the HH HA protection and any concessions and waiverss that remove an existing objective development standards are not considered a violation of any locally adopted policy documents. Onto the environmental review. This project has been reviewed under SQUA and has been determined that it is categorically exempt u under the infill development exemption. This is because the location is less than 5 acres. It is surrounded by urban uses, has no value as a habitat for endangered, threat threatened or rare species. It is determined that the project will not cause any adverse effects on the environment and that the property is adequately ser served by existing utilities. In light of the above, no further environmental review is necessary. So the recommended action for today is to find that CUP 429 is exempt from further SQL review under the class 32 infill exemption and to adopt a resolution approving CP429 subject to the recommended conditions of approval. This concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Uh, do the commissioners have any questions or comments for staff?

Would you explain what the um water demand supply is?

Yes. Um uh broadly speaking uh I believe it's title 14 of our municipal code um requires project to essentially zero out the amount of uh water that they use uh through new development. Uh this can be done in a in multitude of ways. Um they can retrofit landscaping somewhere for drip versus uh regular type of uh um sort of um watering devices that are more um efficient. they could uh retrofit uh another building with low flush toilets or sinks that stop uh the water stops running after a certain amount of time. Uh and the projects do also get credit for the existing uh the existing uh use. So the existing use of course requires a certain amount of water. So broadly speaking uh the applicants seeking uh reprieve from that um uh with a uh with the density bonus provision. So they're not required to have like low flow process.

Um no they will be required the project will be required to meet all of the modern building code standards. This is about the net increase in water use. So if the project results in a net increase in water use they would have to find a way of uh negating that net increase across the whole city. So they can go off and find a another building or maybe a school that perhaps has bathrooms that were last redone in 1990s and they can retrofit those um uh and balance that scale to basically sort of net zero if you will. Thank you. I appreciate that. Not a problem. Any other questions?

Uh I think I just have one. um for the office buildings down down on the first floor. Is a restaurant anticipated for that? It is not. So um the plans do include a uh sort of um a a second representation and that's for the purpose of for the applicant to be able to show that should they wish to turn that space into a restaurant, uh they still meet the requirements. This is this is largely really based around that parking calculation due to the complexities of the the state laws. Um the we're required to calculate the amount of parking that the project would have required prior to any application of uh AB2097. So based on our standards and only to that amount do we apply the amount of parking actually required under the building code which is a like a percentage ratio. So uh in in submitting this, the applicant was uh sort of hedging their bets in a way to say that if should they want to put in a restaurant in there, they would still meet those requirements. And in fact, there's some uh uh the building is going to be constructed in such a way that should they wish to put a restaurant in, it's going to be made a lot easier than retrofitting an existing building with the chases and the grease traps and things of that nature that make it difficult to convert an existing building into a restaurant. But at its core, the applicant is uh intending on uh pursuing the two office suite uh uh sort of layout.

Okay. So, it'll be it'll be set up to allow for uh the incorporation of a restaurant and on the parking spaces. In that case, would they be required? So to add parking spaces or

no uh no the square footage is adjusted in such a way that the parking provision on site that is going to be available will meet those should they wish to convert it at some later stage into a restaurant. A restaurant use in in Oldtown is permitted by right. So although the applicant is not proposing a restaurant, they're they're simply showing that they would be able to do that should at a later date uh they wish to the actually the building owner does uh run the state farm insurance uh uh office there. So uh my my I he would he's going to be looking to continue that business. Uh hence the office um sort of u layout that they proposed.

Okay, I understand now. Thank you. No questions. Yeah, I just uh want to comment on that report done by uh Rencon which was a historical resource assessment that interesting read uh you know well done but what what triggers the requirement of that is there because of the age of the building is that what triggered that?

Uh so yes in in general building I believe over 45 years old you know can be a historical resource. There's other qualifiers for those. This building being built circa 1912 certainly it was something that staff wanted to investigate to make sure that we're not allowing for a wholesale demolition of a historical resource which in itself if it was the case would take a completely different SQA path. So we'd have to do likely I mean an EI realistically if it would be an an unavoidable significant unavoidable impact if we were to demolish a historical resource. in in the report um it was determined and in fact in line with previous reports in relation to other development projects uh often you get these reports along the CLR one uh rides of way

uh because CALR does work in adding lanes and extending uh doing freeway offramps and on-ramps and they tend to cast a very wide net in terms of reporting uh usually the funding requires them to at least be within a mile of what they're working on to to cast the net of uh assessing all the resources. So we would have seen that before in previous reports. Um uh I believe a 1994 report determined that it looked at that resource and again it determined that due to its lack of integrity uh the resource itself was not eligible for any historical designation. It was good good read interesting read. Thank you.

No further questions or comments? Um well the questions I had were already raised and and answered. Um, a question however about the the income brackets for the moderate, low and and very low income. Um, just for for public transparency, I think it'd be interesting and maybe helpful uh for public knowledge to have those brackets or those ranges available. Is there any reason to not include that in the presentation? Is that something that we can do? There is no reason, but we can certainly make that adjustment going forward. Uh, these are published by HCD, so they're widely available online. However, I see no reason why we shouldn't include them in in reports going forward. I'm the percentages.

Great. Thank you. Yeah. Rather than if there's anyone who's interested, they have to research it every in every instance. Uh my job is in housing, so I I absolutely uh see your point. Great. Thank you. Okay. Um are there any comments from the public on this item? Yes, we received one from Michael Couchman. Um I have one more question if that's okay. Yeah, please.

Um in regards to the affordable units. So we have two additional affordable units and um which which helps with our reena goals? Um was this even an area that was contemplated that we'd be able to to add affordable units in or is these two like bonus units if if that question makes any sense? Was it contemplated by by staff or was it uh or was it in our housing element?

Correct. In our in our housing element, we uh project uh how many um properties are still available for meeting our our housing goals including affordable housing. Was this even a property that where that was contemplated?

Um our senior housing planners working on that. I from in my recollection I I'm not quite sure that it was but um since the housing element is hundreds of pages long perhaps I'll let James uh just James find out that real quick. One note of uh to say though is it's actually three affordable units in this instance. Uh it's two low income and one moderate. So although the levels of affordability are different uh they are still uh there are still three affordable units.

Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you for your patience. So, it was not um included as one of our housing element sites. So, to your um pointed they are like kind of bonus units, but they they do help us reach that number. Good. I like that answer. Thank you. Anything else from the commissioners? Okay, great. So, we'll proceed to public comment. Michael Couchman.

Good evening, members of planning commission. My name is Mike Couchman. I'm here tonight both as a Camar Camaro resident of nearly 45 years as well as chairman of the board of elders at Chapel City Church located at 2315 Ventur Boulevard just a couple of doors down right there on the corner of Arnneal and Ventur Boulevard. Uh first I want to express my appreciation for the comprehensive review process of CUP 429 and that has already been received uh by the planning department. However, I do have some specific concerns about this project that I believe warrant additional consideration and conditions to protect both the public safety and the surrounding community. My first concern uh involves parking and traffic impacts during both the construction phase and subsequent operations. The current conditions require a construction plan that's quote acceptable to the Department of Public Works, but it lacks specific provisions to address the likely reduction of public parking. availability on that west side of the building. This public lot serves multiple businesses and our church, particularly during hightra periods like Friday and Saturday evenings and boulevard events. With only those five ADA stalls proposed within the project boundaries, overflow parking will inevitably impact this already constrained public resource. The access situation um compounds this concern. That westernmost entry point at Glen Drive allows only right turns in an egress, while the eastern access point, though permitting both directions, it immediately funnels left turning traffic into the southbound 101 on-ramp lanes. This configuration already creates challenging conditions that would be exacerbated by additional residential and commercial traffic. My second major concern is the pedestrian safety at the Glen Drive uh crosswalks. While I

acknowledge and certainly appreciate the city's proactive installation of the inlane warning signage and pedestrian activated flashing signals, the increased density from this project will substantially increase both vehicular and pedestrian traffic at these crossings. The challenging visibility conditions, especially during evening hours, combined with the impracticality of installing traffic signals due to the proximity of existing signals at both Arneal Road and the 101 on-ramp suggest that additional measures may be warranted. So, I respectfully request that the commission consider adding specific conditions requiring first a detailed parking impact study with mitigation measures to preserve public parking availability and second consider requiring a pedestrian safety impact assessment that evaluates whether the existing safety infrastructure remains adequate for the projected increase in traffic. This could include enhanced lighting specifically focused on the crosswalk areas or exploring emerging technologies like embedded LED crosswalk systems that provide additional cues to drivers particularly during those challenging sunset visibility conditions.

Mr. Couchman, your your time is over. Thank you very much for your comment. Any other member of the audience like to speak on this item? Okay, we did receive uh a comment by email in support of this um of the resolution. Um okay, seeing no further public comments, I'll close a public hearing um and open up for the commissioners. Any discussion?

I I guess I just had a follow-up question of of staff. Was was there a traffic study that was done I would think as part of the project already? Um in this in this instance um the project is located within half a mile of the of the Metroink station and and those projects are generally considered as having a less than substantial impact on traffic. So uh there was no uh need to prepare that study. We do did however uh consult with our traffic engineer uh to make sure that the level of service on Ventura Boulevard which I believe is a level of service C uh in that portion of Va Boulevard is maintained and that level of service has not changed and level of service in general refers to the volume of traffic um at any given uh location. So there was no admittedly of course it is new development uh but there was no um increase in traffic such that it would uh um decrease the level of service below C.

Thank you. And I can perhaps speak to the parking as well. I I would perhaps sorry before you do that I want to make sure that the the hearing is open and so that the comments um are in public record. Okay. So reopening the hearing please proceed.

Okay. As I um hear there were two components to to the public comment. One was related to parking specifically. The other one is is more so to uh pedestrian and and and traffic safety. Uh I will uh I will hand over the uh the safety aspect to our traffic engineer and and public works in general. Uh condition of theirs was quoted. But I do want to address the parking first because that's something I can do. And the the the reality is and as unfortunate as it might be that state laws uh prohibit us from requiring more parking on this project. This is because AB20 2097 which I believe passed sometime in 2022 and we we've had some projects actually on Ventur Boulevard me including that was subject to AB2097. It really precludes local jurisdictions from requiring additional parking. uh you know it had that not been in existence we we could have required more parking and was certainly would have because that's what our code calls for. Uh unfortunately the way uh the law is written it it only allows us to require the kind of parking that the building code would need specifically as it relates to only ADA and electric vehicle charging. And those are ratios in the building code. So they're percentage of the total parking that would have been provided on site. This is how we um we uh sort of arrive at a five space um development parked at five spaces for 10 units and two commercial units. Uh it is a as a function of state law. Uh as far as unless there's any questions on traffic, I will uh hand over to Rick Gyos. Go ahead.

Maybe so we don't bifurcate. I have a question regarding parking. I think your explanation was beautiful and I it's something I don't think the public understands enough is that as a city we don't have control over that. But I think the gentleman was also referring to the impact the construction was going to have. And I think that's a very reasonable concern. And my hope would be that staff would be willing to work with a church that helps to build the culture of our community and mitigate um to a large extent that those impacts because I know that contractors can get a little greedy with space and then it sits empty and you wonder why barricades are blocking something that never really never gets used. So, um I think I think they would appreciate very much some proactive um help in that regard and maybe that could be placed as a condition.

So, I can speak to that. Um I this is more of a public works uh sort of uh wheelhouse, but I I I feel comfortable answering that in a way. Um considering that the law itself um is going to be built out to within I believe 93% the staging is going to have to occur somewhere, right? And when that happens, uh, usually the developer is required to come to the city and request what's called an encroachment permit. And that permit dictates where they can stage and what the staging is in general, how long this is going to be. Uh, it requires uh quite stringent insurance requirements as well to be submitted to the city. So uh there is an existing process uh that would compel the applicant to follow uh city's requirements and guidelines on um uh on staging in the public right of way. And that applies to big projects and that applies to someone who wants to build a wall along the public right of way behind their house. If they're going to do that from the sidewalk, they'll need to talk to us about it. But I think uh our public works u guys can speak to that a little bit more and probably a little bit more eloquently than I can. Okay. Yeah. And that and that's another great explanation of of sort of the process. And I think I think it's the care and feeding side that I the concern I hear from the gentleman is the care and feeding side, not the what the city requires. But can we be assured that somebody from the city is going to come out and look at it on behalf of the church to help decide? And I don't attend this church. So I want to be very clear there's no I have no you know I think all churches are wonderful and do help to create great character within a community. So, I think he's looking for the care and feeding side of the equation, not so much the how we're going to do it, but that someone's going to put a a keen eye on it because it is pretty tight in there. I go to the wine club not that often, um, but I go there and uh, so I understand the parking there and I understand that the unique challenges. So, I think that's what he's looking for is some assurance that it won't simply be a counter stamp and nobody understands that, wow, that that turn right there is really going to be a

problem or you know what I'm just saying that. Absolutely. And I'm glad the public works is here and I'm not trying to dump over to them, but it just, you know, sometimes that gets lost and I think that's exactly what he was speaking to is just, hey city, please pay attention to what we're trying to do here too. Thank you. If I could

make one more comment, as long as we hear from public works, another consideration that I have or thought of while we're talking about this was once these units are built, if they're residential, you're going to have people walking across the street to the because that's going to be their only area to really go get out in the open. So, you're going to have a lot more foot traffic going across Ventur Boulevard at Glenn to get to the park. So, that's also a consideration that I'd like them to address. Uh I will hand over to our traffic engineer.

Yes. Hello. I'm hear me. I'm Rick Ayos. try to answer a few of these questions for you. Um, let's start with uh the pedestrians. So, that location out there, we as gentleman mentioned uh we do have two pedestrian crosswalks in that location and they are they do flash. Uh that's usually kind of the thing that we would put out there. even you know if there was nothing if if someone had brought this to us and asked us to to improve that location the first thing would have been to have put in these flashing uh beacons in the first place uh we could go through and we could put in a bigger brighter uh system in the future if we need to to make it more apparent that pedestrians need to cross uh but we could also put in some additional signage if needed uh but from what I've seen out there it looks like it's it's pretty well taken care of but we can look at that in the future So, we can when this happens, we can go out there and actually look at the peds and do ped study and see exactly what we've got out there and we can adjust as needed. Uh, as far as the uh the parking uh you know, I've got concerns with that, too. Unfortunately, we uh our hands are tied in this situation. Uh but uh during the construction, yes, we can definitely go out there and see where we can go ahead and uh figure out their staging and everything for all of the uh construction. Uh we'll definitely talk with them and see what we can do. Unfortunately though, I I do see that we're going to be limited in where and what we can do because of the proximity of the building. We're probably going to have to take out a little bit of that parking while they're working on that just for safety reasons. uh on the weekends they might be able to tie everything up and push everything back into the building so this way it doesn't impact as much on the weekends as much as possible. But uh when that comes to us we'll definitely take a look at that and see what we can do to uh mitigate that as much as possible.

Any other questions? Yeah. On on Oh, go ahead.

Oh, um thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gay. So, appreciate your comments. Um, specifically having to do with the the pedestrian impact assessment uh study that was uh implied um by this gentleman uh Mr. Kman Cageman. Um, is that something that the city would um if if we did add that as um to this project as a condition, is that something that the city would review in house or would you need a specialist to actually review it? And

we could actually handle that one in house. Okay. Is it possible to combine a a a pedestrian impact and construction impact report in the same report? It is a really tight site. I mean, there's a lot that will happen on this project, and there isn't a lot of room to work with and and it it may be a good idea to to have uh have it evaluated and reviewed by your staff.

The uh construction impact may be uh a bit more than we would handle through traffic. Uh so, we would have to see what we'd want to do with that. Uh Carl says he can speak with that about that. Uh good evening Carl Malik from public works. Uh before we issue permits will require the developer to submit a uh construction sequencing and schedule plan and we'll review that as far as construction staging, location, fencing, that type of thing. And um whatever we agree upon or approve will be inspected and reviewed by our inspectors. So there'll be there'll be eyes on it during the con course of construction. So that that's a standard protocol with projects. They come in and uh pro provide that information or we require it.

Okay, great. Thank you. Um I also have a some questions about the the parking conditions for construction during that phase. Um I didn't see anything in the conditions, but I may be overlooking it and if so it'd be helpful if you can point them out. anything as to uh limitations to construction hours, particularly making that explicit about u excluding weekends um and mitigation on dust um any other impacts.

Um those are are standard policies that we have. They're not necessarily in the conditions for every project, but working hours 7:30 to 3:30 and um you know, noise limitations and things like that that we uh provide to the contractor, the the requirements of that uh prior to construction and I can certainly speak to the dust portion of that. Uh it is um reg existing regulation uh as far as air quality goes, dust suppression. So this project would be no different. it would be subject to that regulation and the applicant would have to comply with the local air quality board standards.

Thank you. And in terms of the pedestrian safety, um do you have any existing reports or studies or data about the safety that the what the status quo is of any incidents or concerns, anything that um may have already triggered uh an inquiry? I'm not aware of any at the moment. There may have been some that uh something may have that may have triggered the need for the flashing beacons in the past, but uh I'm not aware what that was. So, I can look into that if we need to.

Okay. And have there been any projections based on um the the the park renovation and projections of increased uh foot traffic and events for example and just a future uh building out of Ventura Boulevard that would require additional or different types of pedestrian safety measures. Uh we haven't looked into any of that yet as far as impact from the park uh and how this would interact with that. Uh but this is one of those type of things where you go out, you build it, you see what's going on out in the area, and then we take a a good look and see what we can do to improve the uh the area and the infrastructure to make it safer. Uh so we would have to take really take a look at it when when everything's constructed to really get a good view of how this is going to work. And

perhaps I can speak a little bit to the this dark park uh portion of it. um it was a project in itself and a as a project it would have gone through an uh an assessment uh and any applicable um whether it was I'm not I I don't quite recall what uh environmental document was prepared for it but whatever the recommendations there were the project that specific project would have to follow. So uh whether there was a traffic study then done as it relates to that project that project would still be subject to to maintaining those But would a squa assessment for the park would that have included pedestrian safety?

Um I I I don't think that specific comp component would have gone in there. They I'm not sure that they would have had residential use planned at that time across the street to be able to address that. I mean, did they project residential living across the boulevard as it relates to the the park project? Mhm.

Uh no, it's unlikely that they would have projected that. Uh they would have taken the existing status quo and based uh all the investigation uh on on that specific uh snapshot in time, if you will. Yeah, it it it does raise a question of given the the renovations of the park and what I imagine we anticipate um larger public events and greater use and now with uh residential units across the street um and other future projected uses um that rather than have a like wait and see approach, it seems wise to to take a look beforehand um to identify whether any different or additional measures uh would be helpful to protect community safety. Can you tell us what that would entail like the time frame and what it means for this particular request?

I would uh I'd have to see uh I'm not sure exactly how long. I mean, the the actual pedestrian study, uh, we'd have to figure out what how many vehicles we were expecting to go to the park and and then, you know, we'd determine how many we would think would be added from the the new building that's going to be there. Um, it would it would take I I couldn't give you a good time frame. I'm trying to think of how long it would actually take to come up with have to do a full study. That might be something we'd have to probably send out to to have that analyzed.

And and because it would be not specific to this project, but really cumulative sort of uses is uh would that be its own sort of just like independent project that is relate to this application but not necessar not necessarily specific to this application,

right? We would probably go out there and we would take a look at this if we wanted to study that and uh we could take a look at that. I'd have to we'd have to get all the data from the Dizdar uh study and this one and try to combine it and see what we our future impacts would be. Uh but as I mentioned earlier, the fact that we've got the FL the really the next stage at that intersection as far as public safety would probably be a traffic signal, which at this point it definitely wouldn't warrant for a traffic signal at that location because right now we've got the flashing beacons and that's usually the next stage up from basically just a regular crosswalk out there. Uh, I guess the to go back a step, you could possibly put in uh stop signs out there, but the amount of traffic out there would really make a mess with that if we if that happened. So, I don't think it would warrant for stop signs out there either. So it really the the next step in if we were to increase public safety would be uh a signal which would take quite a while to put in and at at this point I don't think it would warrant for a signal there either right now but we could still look at

it's pending pending a study but what I understand is it's not specific to this application right it would not be for the so what would be the the proper procedural mechanism to refer recommend a a study such a study that looks at it holistically. Well, I can uh I can go ahead and and submit that to the public works director. I mentioned that we want to go ahead and do this and we could probably do a study out there.

Chair Lemon, if I could add. Um it sounds like the concern is much broader than this individual project. Um and so that that is the type of thing that we would consider um kind of a part of our long range planning u for Oldtown. We're in conversations currently um broader conversations for the treatment of Oldtown. Um there's a strategic plan um that's been reviewed by council that's a little bit more focused on economic development, but we're having these topics come up. What's the parking supply in Camrio Oldtown? Uh what are the pedestrian and safety mechanisms? So, um I think we can take this feedback into our continued conversations on Oldtown. Um another piece of the puzzle that I was going to share in the director's report is um the city council's authorized a comprehensive general plan update. Um and that would be kind of another launching point for looking at Oldtown uh Camry Oldtown very specifically um and looking at these um levels of analyses. But if we want to move something ahead of that general plan process u we can have some conversations internally about that um and report back to this body.

Great. Thank you. Anything else? I just have one more kind of quick parking issue that I kind of keep running back to. So, if we're only allowing five parking spaces, does that mean all the renters have to have just walking mobility or bicycles, what happens? Where do they park if they have cars?

Uh, great question. Uh, so the residents will have the ability to park where any other member of the p public is allowed to park. Um, so there is a city surface parking lot there. There's also uh restricted parking on the street right now by the project. I believe it's a two-hour restriction between the hours of 9 and 5 with the exceptions of Saturdays and Sundays. Um so those provisions are available to to the residents as they would be to anyone else who lives in Oldtown or frequents Oldtown for um for shopping purposes or other business purposes, but not overnight.

Uh where there are overnight parking restriction, then that's right, not overnight. But where there isn't overnight parking restrictions, they would be allowed to park uh as advertised on on the street. Okay.

And of course there's, you know, we do have um the Camaro Police Department does enforce our on street parking um uh in the city. So, you know, generally I believe it's 72 hours. You know, it's that's what the when the vehicle has to be moved. Uh so that that is a vehicle to to address that potentially if if if cars are parked in a in a city rightway or in a city surface parking lot beyond uh the amount of time that that our municipal code allows them to. Okay. Thank you. You'll entertain a motion. Yes, please. Is there a motion?

I would uh make a motion that we approve or wave further reading reading and approve and call for a reading. Is there a second? I'll second.

Okay. Um Okay. And then there's a a motion u by Commissioner Davidson and a second by Commissioner Edel. Please call for the vote. Resolution number PC 2025-6, a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Camaro approving a request from Charles Allison for a conditional use permit for the demolition of an existing 6,258 ft commercial building and construction of a new 19,814 square ft 3-story mixeduse building at 2401 Ventura Boulevard in the Camaro Oldtown zone further described as CUP-429.

I'll wait further reading and move to adoption. Commissioner Vanderm, yes. Commissioner Murphy, yes. Commissioner Edso, yes. Vice Chair Davidson, yes. Chair Leon, yes. Okay. And the motion passes. The next item concerns an application requesting approval of a tenative parcel map subdividing an existing lot into three new residential lots. Approval would require the commission making a finding of exemption under SQA and pass a resolution uh approving the application.

And yeah, madame commissioner, I have a potential conflict on this one. So, I'm going to step out and come back for the next item.

Thank you, Commissioner Edel. And we'll now hear the report. Thank you, Chair Leone. In just a minute, um you'll hear this item presented by our assistant planner, Sean Kunau. Good evening, Chair Lemon, Vice Chair Davidson, and plan commissioners. The applicant is seeking approval of a tenative parcel map to subdivide an existing parcel that is just shy of an acre into three parcels. The project site is located at 143 Mission Drive on a parcel that is designated lowdensity residential five dwelling units per acre maximum by the Camaro General Plan and is zoned single family residential 10,000 square foot minimum lot size by the city's municipal code. The existing single family home at the site will remain on proposed lot one. The proposed project will comply with the minimum lot width, depth, and area requirements of the single family residential zone. Lot one, where the existing single family home will remain, will be 16,389 ft. Lot two will be 14,437 ft and lot 3 will be 11,090 ft, which all complies with the minimumly required 80 foot width, 100 foot depth, and 10,000 square feet lot area required of the zone. As shown, the existing lot of the 0.95 acres with the front yard faces east, the sideyard faces north and south, and the rear yard faces west. The single family residence is shown here with a 11.6 ft sideyard setback and a greater than 20 foot rear yard setback.

The proposed project will include the widening of Mission Drive to city standards along with a 5-ft wide dedication to achieve the ultimate right away width of 60 ft along uh total in front of 143 Mission Drive. It will include a 5-ft sidewalk and drainage improvement along the frontage of both 143 and 111 Mission Drive. The new sidewalk will tie into the existing sidewalk to the north and south of Mission Drive. An 18-inch storm drain will be installed along the frontage of both properties, connecting to the existing 18-in PVC storm drain located at the north end of the site, which currently flows into an open V ditch along 143 Mission Drive. The new storm drain will tie into an existing 18-inch storm drain at the south end of 111 Mission Drive. Additionally, the project will develop a new common access driveway and infrastructure easement serving all three parcels which will also feature underground common access utility lines such as water, gas, sewer, which will be maintained throughout an infrastructure easement. In addition to that, between lots two and three, there is a hammerhead turnaround, which will um be utilized by the fire department. Next, we'll see lot one here, which will front Mission Drive and feature the existing single family residence. Then, lot two will be in the middle. And lastly, lot three, which was the smallest of the three. Staff finds that the proposed project is exempt from SQA under a class 15 minor land division exemption. Staff recommends that the plan commission finds the project categorically exempt from the provisions of SQUA and recommends the plan commission adop adopts a resolution

approving LD567 subject to the recommended conditions of approval. This concludes staff presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Do the commissioners have any questions or comments for staff? Commissioner Manland on the um the sidewalk and whatever else is going on that is that going to be over the ditch basically that's there. So the new pipe will go in underneath yes all that area. So that whole area will be filled in. Correct. It will that whole area will be improved that pavement will be improved on in that area.

I just wanted to make sure I understood what was going where. Commissioner Murphy. Yeah, me too. On the uh sewer extension, is that connecting with an existing underground sewer um to the south of the project and then extends up through the frontage road um all the way to the northern uh boundary of the site? Yes. So, we'll start the connection there. I'm trying to pilot this uh laser pointer and then it will continue all the way down and uh right here will be 111 mission drive. It'll continue down past the uh homes right there. Okay. And it does go all the way to the north looks like. Yes.

Yes. To the north boundary there. So, okay. All right. Thanks. I have no questions. Okay. Right. And I have no questions. Are is there a public comment on this item? Yes. Receive one from Jeff Langley. Good evening. Can you please state your name for the record? Yes, Jeffrey Langley. Thank you.

Hi. So, uh, we live at 1834 Lindhurst Avenue and our house would be just behind that purple parcel. Um, so we purchased a house eight years ago in 2017. Part of the reason we purchased the house is because there was an empty lot behind it. Uh so now it's being proposed to build who knows what because it's not on this plan right behind our house. Uh basically in our backyard uh our daughter and son's room would look directly into the windows of another two-story house. Um the so we have concerns about the noise during construction um that are are would be right outside our kids' windows. Um, we have concerns about the value of our home, uh, when we have a house built in our backyard. Uh, and we're concerned about traffic on Mission Drive. Uh, Mission Drive is one of the only emergency evacuation routes for all of Camrio Heights. Uh, we have friends that live on Mission Drive and during the mountain fire, it took them almost an hour to evacuate and now we're putting more houses in. Um I'm not sure where there's fire hydrants on Mission Drive, but I'm not sure how they're going to get a fire hydrant to reach that third parcel if there's a fire that would then burn onto our property. Um, so some of our things we were hoping to get here are some conditions, uh, like a traffic survey on Mission Drive, a fire hydrant survey on Mission Drive, evacuation route, uh, some kind of analysis of evacuation route, um, and something to uh, some kind of reciprocity for any property value loss on our property. And then also, uh, we'd appreciate any kind of an opportunity to be the first to have the opportunity to purchase, uh, one of those lots, uh, specifically the one right behind our house. Um, those are our main concerns. Uh, I don't know. Um, I'm not familiar with this process, but when do we find out what they're planning on building right behind our house? And is that another

process we get to come and have a hearing about? I I don't know. Um, but if there is, we would appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak on this item? Okay. Um, any additional questions or comments for the staff or would the staff like to say anything else?

Um, I would like to comment on some of the questions just to make some things clear. it was reviewed by the fire department along with traffic. Um and then for the noise concerns, it will the applicant is um conditioned to adhere to our noise the city's noise standards and in addition to that um with the um increase traffic. Um the applicant is conditioned to mitigate some of the issues by making the improvements to make the to make the street uh more in line with city standards. I I guess I do have a question. Can you talk a little bit about you you mentioned it setbacks um that are going to be enforcable at we're kind of specifically talking about lot three um lot two I think just as maybe equally but can you talk a little bit about what the setback would be from that what it looks like is the existing block wall there and um that might give u the the gentleman a little more um you know ease. I know the the con, you know, the idea of somebody building a a house, a two-story home behind yours is is not exactly a a pleasant thought. I appreciate a nice view as much as he does. So, um I I I feel him his pain for that. But can you talk about what that setback would be and what what he could look forward to with respect to that what that distance would be? Um, so these this lot's located in the R1 zone and they will adhere for lot three would be a rear guard setback of 10 feet.

10 ft. Okay. Oh, I apologize. 20 ft for that one. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. That question will be on the side oriented that way. If I can get a clarification on that. On that map, is that parcel three that you're referring to? Parcel three to the north of what would be lot three on the subdivision? Yes. Is that your house? Our house would be to the left. It's not on this. Oh, okay. Okay.

So, just to clarify, that'll be 20 feet. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions or appreciate that stuff? Commissioner Murphy. Yes. You mentioned a a fire hydrant study. Did uh is this I don't know if this is Pleasant Valley Mutual for water supply, but um that typically is done for for projects of this nature. And I didn't study the map close enough to see if if a hydrant is um included in this or or whether that was studied. So this project was reviewed by fire and approved by fire. Um so in addition that what they're were more carefully concerned was the access easement to make sure that department vehicles have accessible ways to get in.

Okay. Um, for the previous item, I had a question about the construction hours and and limitations and um, that question was answered. Uh, I believe the construction hours are Can you Can you tell us again what the construction hours are? Sure. I believe it's condition number 92 and it's no constructions before 7 a.m., no constructions after 7 p.m. and no constructions on Sundays and holidays. Okay. And and that's included in the condition for here. Believe it's condition number 92.

Okay. Um, and this is the residential zone. So, yeah, that's um I I feel like that's quite early and also goes into uh into the evening. Um, I thought it was 7:30 to 3:30. The gentleman that said 7:30 to 3:30. Yeah, I thought it was 7:30 as well. 3:30, but you're saying 7. Are you saying 7 to 7 and including Saturday? That's what it said. So, uh, with the grading permit, that does have a little bit more stricter, um, st, uh, noise standards and timelines to follow suit for that part.

Okay. Um, yeah, I imagine since the these again are are homes um that are surrounding this construction site, I request that uh stricter hours be set. Um I I don't know what it'd be helpful to understand what has been set for other residential zones. Seven is very early.

Oh, we can I ask for clarification? So we are not talking about any form of construction on this. We are simply talking about whether or not this homeowner and I know it's a it's a precursor too, so I'm not being naive. Um, but what before what's before us now is is simply the zoning to I'm sorry, the the lot breakouts, the three lot breakouts. That's what we're what's before us, parcel map,

and then the parcel map. And then if there is to be any attempt to build that would then be a whole new ballgame for for whomever whoever bought the lot or the home, you know, whoever they would then have to come back to the city, which would open the door to all of this. Is that I and I'm not trying to short change what's being asked, but I'm just trying to keep us focused on what's really before the commission tonight, which is the parcel map. And I So I I that's a very important clarification. I don't mean in any way short change the concerns because I think they're totally valid, but we have a parcel map before us, not a construction request. Uh, in regards to the LD question, yes, we are discussing the um lot division on that, but I'm going to defer the rest to Car Malik.

Um, that is correct. This is a tenative parcel map. However, it is setting the conditions that are required for the final map. Okay. And the recordation of the final map. Uh-huh. And with this particular parcel that includes grading and installation of the utilities as well as the street widening. So that that construction is related to this entitlement. Thank you. The vertical construction of actual homes that is um a separate um permit and requirement. Thank you for that. That that's so we're discussing Yeah. the construction of the infrastructure essentially is what we're discussing. That's correct. So there will be drilling. It will be quite noisy.

Correct. Okay. So on condition 92, that seems to be the condition of approval for this project. Shouldn't those conditions be consistent with what would be on the grading permit, which I think I heard earlier is is is more strict, perhaps 8:00 to four o'clock, whatever whatever grading is. It seems like there should be consistency there with um any and all of the construction for this project.

Yeah, I believe that's um if the commission uh desires it to be different or more more restrictive in the especially it's a residential area that's um you can provide some I think uh direction to staff to change that condition. Thank you. Excuse me. I would entertain that. Okay. Any discussion on um the proposed hours? Yeah, I would um Commissioner Vanderin.

Well, to Yeah, I mean 7 o'clock to me is extremely early for a residential area. Um, and noticing also on this one point I wanted to make is that there is a lot of items that take place before we would ever get to building any residences on the lot. They have to put in the streets, all the underground utilities, um, the front part, all that has to be satisfied, if I'm reading this correctly, before they can start building on any of the the other two lots. So, um, that could take a while. I know the one up the street that we approved months ago, they haven't done anything with that yet. So, you know, I don't know when they will want to do something with this, but it would have to come back. But, yeah, anything of the the pre-work and stuff that we have to go in the grading or digging and and laying stuff, I am concerned about the hour, the early hour for that. I yeah, I would say that I would entertain a motion that included a restriction from uh 7:30 to um no later than 3:30 or 4 and uh weekends would be uh not allowed um for heavy heavy machinery or things that Saturday and Sunday be uh excluded. That just seems to be a good neighbor kind of an approach. I if staff if that's so far off that we're creating a real hassle for you. I would hope that you'd kind of pull pull my leash and you know point that out. But it does seem like in a very in a very residential area that that's not an unre that would not be an unreasonable ask to um to do that kind of work uh during relatively normal hours. That would I would entertain that unless staff has a severe push back that that for reasons I'm not aware.

I believe that could be accommodated. Um, condition number 92, um, a as you as as you see fit could be, uh, revised to reflect the hours that you feel would be more appropriate.

There could be logistical things that I don't see though that maybe, you know, public works or, you know, hey, well, look, deliveries typically happen at this and that. If if I'm not aware of certain construction, you know, uniqueness that that, uh, you know, if I'm creating problems, tell me. But I I just don't see it a problem. I know we talked about the Ventura Boulevard um project and I heard 7:30 to to 3:30 mentioned. So I think that a neighborhood would be just as sort of have just as much a right to that that time of uh of peace after those hours. So um like I said, I would entertain a a motion or a restriction as part of the motion. An amendment to the

Thank you to condition number 92. I just want to say to and to add to that necessity, all these houses on Grace Court, that's a newer neighborhood and so they back right up to this area. There's one and two story houses along there that are all newer that are I'm sure would be all families that would be impacted by anything that goes on on this lot. Yeah,

I would make the motion. Um, and and I I appreciate the the shift of the hours and as a as a mother of two small children who has to uh together with my husband get our kids ready in the morning and sometimes they you know sleep in and uh you go through the morning um hectic schedule. Uh hearing drilling I think would make it much more hectic. Um, and so I would uh propose that that be modified to from 8 to 4. That's usually when you're pushing the kids out the door already.

I I'd be willing to make that motion that we um we approve it with the condition changed to number 92 or three to to reflect 8 to four and uh wave any further reading and uh approve approve the uh SQA exemption. Is that the Are you making sure? I'll second. I'll second that. For clarification, the commission is referring to 8 a.m. to 4 pm during weekdays only. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate the catching of that. Commissioners, just one one other um piece of advice. Um the I don't believe we've heard from the applicant tonight. Are they in the in the room?

Um it may be um prudent to just discuss this with the applicant um before conditioning. our manners. Well, reopen public comment. Would you like to address the commission?

And it's fine if you don't. We're just allowing the opportunity. If you could please state your name for the record. Rick Moraga, RGM architect, um, architect for the project. I I think my client's concern is that it would be consistent with other similar projects in the area. You said that you approved a project up the street that was very similar. I believe it was like a three lot split and I don't know what the conditions were on that as regards to uh timing for construction. Uh, also other projects around the city. I mean, that's a standard that uh the staff has put onto our project. We didn't say we want to be 7 to 7 every day of the week. You know, we just go along with what the staff was saying. Um I think typically consistent with other projects would be um no Sundays and holidays. You can do it on Saturday. I think 7:30 to, you know, maybe 5 or something would be more reasonable, but um to restrict it to 8 to four or something might be somewhat unreasonable. I do want to chime in that last year, um Mr. Saraga has mentioned that LD554 was approved with the same conditions of 7 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. I believe that was approved last year last August.

Okay. It's right up the street across the street. Is that a 260 Mission Drive? Brad. Okay.

That's a a valid valid point and I and we were sitting at that time. Um perhaps you're hearing from a neighbor and they're concerned you and your client would be willing to discuss with them a voluntary some kind of a voluntary claim because I I think you're right. I think it'd be unfair to be completely departure. But I but I do think that based the fact that a neighbor has come here and asked us that some restriction is not unreasonable for this board given that there are people who have have taken the time to to come here. As I recall the other ones, we had a few letters, but nobody came in. So, so I think some restriction is appropriate, but perhaps you and your client would be willing to meet the neighbor who lives quite close and and beyond that even restrict yourself further um as a as a sign of of goodwill. While I can't involve myself and I always do this and go too far from the from the um from this my seat, uh I that's you know, that's how I think neighbors should be anyway. So I I think that's reasonable. Yes.

Murphy. Oh. Um Milan, I saw his hand go up on the How long is the permit good for on the other one that we approved before they have to come back again? Two years.

Two years. And I the other thing that I wanted to note on that is that the other lot didn't have new houses and stuff on each side of it or even one side of it. So, it was more just the larger lots and then it was still kind of close to the back of parking of the church. So, it this one because it's got all the new houses, you know, right on the side of it. Um, it's a little bit different condition to be considered at least in somewhat. And the other one, I don't know when they're going to come out and you'll want to do anything with it. So, this this is a little bit different situation when I look at it and look at the condition on the other one where it is and what it's sitting at um with just more vacant lots or lot space on each side of it.

Right. Yeah. I I certainly appreciate consistency and um I'll say that that pre it's not binding precedent and we always want to improve our our decision- making and certainly considering the um the the safety and welfare overall of surrounding residents is a consideration um that is something I I appreciate that we are thinking about thoroughly being careful about. So, um there is a motion um on the table. I don't think we have a second yet. So, uh

I'll maintain I'll maintain my motion. I I would have been willing to discuss Saturdays, but you I agree with you that there there's we can dis this is distinguishable from the other project. This is um we we have involved people who took the time to come here and that we are looking to constantly improve and because this issue didn't come up last time, it really wasn't an issue. So we perhaps we need to re-evaluate what the standard uh verbiage is for these. So I would stand by it and I'd welcome a second.

Madam chair, members of the planning commission, if I may just briefly, so the Camo Camaro municipal code generally uh prescribes the construction hours as it's currently reflected in condition number 92. However, it also gives the planning commission some discretion to impose more strict requirements when the circumstances warrant. So, plan commission's uh motion um would be supported by the Camrio Municipal Code as well. Thank you for clarifying the authority to do so. Okay, I'm going to um close public comment. Thank you. Thanks. So, we have a a motion. Um is there a second? I'll second. Great. Thank you. Can you please call for a vote or read the resolution?

Yes. Um resolution number PC 2025-07, a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Camaro approving a request from RGM architecture and planning for a tenative parcel map subdividing an existing approximately 95 acre lot into three parcels of 1.37 acre lot, 1.33 acre lot and 1.25 25 acre lot located at 143 Mission Drive in the single family residential 10,000 square foot minimum lot size zone further described as LD-567

move to wave further reading and vote to adopt. Is there a second? Second. Madam Chair, members of the commission, one more time for point of clarification. What would be the hours of uh the construction hours? Would it be 8:00 a.m. to 400 p.m. Monday through Friday? Correct. Thank you. That's an amendment to the condition. Thank you. Thank you. Can you call for a vote, please? Commissioner Vanderm, yes. Commissioner Murphy, yes. Commissioner Edel, he recused. Oh, yes. Vice Chair Davidson, yes. Chair Leone, yes. Okay, the motion has passed with the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll grab Commissioner. Thank you.

H How you doing? Good. I'm itching. I keep wanting to scratch. Yeah, we're going to take a four minute recess.

our meeting. We have one last item which is an application from Pacific Oaks Academy for approval of conditional use permit to partially convert an existing church property to priv a private school. Um and again approval would require finding of a SEC exemption and uh resolution. Are there any public comments? Oh, I'm sorry. We'll hear the report first. I'm getting ahead of myself. Uh thank you, Chair Lemon. This item will be presented by Associate Planner Serena Gonzalez.

Good evening, Planning Commission, members of the public. Uh tonight I will be presenting on CUP 438 Pacific Oaks Academy. Um this is a conditional use permit requesting to establish a private elementary school on the site of an existing church. Uh the proposed location is at 2280 Antonio Avenue. Um the general plan land use designation is quasi public and the zoning um designation is single family residential R1. Um here you can see the site plan. It's a little hard to see so I'll try to walk you through it. Uh right here in the middle we have the main classroom building. There will be two classrooms on the first floor and then administrative offices on the second floor. And then above that, sorry this is hard to see. Above that building, um there will be two other classrooms. Uh and they will also function as the lunch area. This is a little bit closer into the floor plan. So, sorry, wrong button. Over here we have like I was saying the classrooms on the first floor and then the administrative offices on the second floor here. Um this is the floor plan of that back module building that will also function as classrooms and uh the lunchroom. Here we have the school operations plan um showing that there will be very limited overlap between the existing church and the proposed school with really the only overlap being the optional study center that will be offered on Wednesday nights from 3:30

p.m. to 7:00 p.m. That will slightly overlap with the youth group, but as I said, it's optional. uh there is um unlikely to be many students at that time. Even if there are, it's a smaller school. So there's ample parking as I will get into in the next slide. Uh so I just want to start by saying that there is a slight typo on the parking both in the uh presentation and in the staff report. So it states three parking spaces um but it should actually be six. That doesn't change anything as I'll go through for the rest of the slide. So pursuit to uh section 19.44.050 the school is required to provide six parking spaces. Um and the church is required to provide 52 parking spaces. Uh there's currently uh 54 spaces on the site and given that there is minimal overlap as shown in the last slide, uh there's still sufficient parking and the school and church should run smoothly with very minimal overlap other than that one day on Wednesday. Uh CUP438 is not subject to SEO review. uh they will not be making any changes to the site other than just resurfacing the parking lot. Um so for that it is exempt under section 15301 class one existing facilities. Uh tonight we recommend that the planning commission find that the proposed project is exempt from SQA and we recommend adopting a resolution approving CUP 438 subject to recommended comm conditions of approval. Uh that concludes the presentation. Uh the applicant is here if you have any questions and I'm also here for questions.

Thank you for the report. Any questions from the commissioners? I know I think this is for staff, but has there been a traffic study for the um the additional flow that would be expected particularly in the morning at 8:00? Um I'm thinking 50 additional vehicles. Um uh we did not require a traffic study as part of this, but our traffic engineer is here if you have any specific questions for him. Yes, please. same question.

Yes, thank you for the question. Uh we did go ahead and take a look at the intersection and as you would expect, uh it's going to be quite minimal. We only expect 3 to 5% increase in the in the amount of traffic we have out there. Uh we figure the level of service is a B in the morning and uh a C in the afternoon actually and we don't expect that uh to change at all. Uh probably the critical movement is probably going to be in the afternoon actually when people are leaving because everyone's going to be leaving at the same time versus when people are coming in in the morning. It's kind of you know one here, one there and as they're coming in and dropping off in the morning. Uh we don't uh expect there to be much of an impact. Okay. So you have reviewed it um in terms of global level of service and

Yes. Okay. A and that's an in-house study that Yeah, it's just an in-house study. I went and just kind of pulled some data together and came up with that through the IT standards. Yes. Right. Right. Okay. Thank you. Any questions?

Uh, no. I I had read it wrong and I thought it said there was going to be a single family dwelling there, but it's not. It had to do with the um the zoning. So, I having caught that, I don't have any questions. Okay. Um, now I don't I don't recall if you indicated this in the report. What are the number what's the number of anticipated students? Um, currently there are 10 anticipated students. However, the conditions allow up to 50 students. Um, if they anticipate going higher than that, we are requiring them to do a modification to the permit. I see. Okay. So the the space has been built out to accommodate up to 50 students currently.

Uh yes, currently um they are not proposing any changes to the site. It should serve about 50 students. Um and if they do anticipate expanding, we will ensure that this site will accommodate those additional students. Um if not, we will put conditions in place to allow for that to happen. Okay. And um is the traffic that's anticipated for the school um is does that differ or how does it differ from traffic for church services in terms of like the the number of vehicles? I think that I will defer to Rick, our traffic engineer on this one.

Uh I did not look at their weekend services and see exactly how many vehicles would be in be there on the weekend. So I didn't really look into that. Um, but overall, uh, they have parking for pretty much every student if they needed to in the parking lot as they were driving in. So, it shouldn't cause any backups getting into the school. Uh, so it would just depend on how they're planning on managing that inside the the school lot if they're planning on doing like a a drop off or or something like that. But, if they needed to, they could actually just actually park every single person in there. But I'm anticipating a number of of students will actually have siblings. So that would actually probably even reduce the number of trips that are going to be generated at that location also.

So there's already traffic coming into that site for services, right? A number of cars that are parking and then coming out at the same time, which is sort of may be similar to the what what we see during the weekday. Yes, I see your point. Yes, it's probably going to be less than that in this case here. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Murphy. Yes. And just to clarify, um on that in-house traffic study, you were considering the maximum number, right? The the 50 students, not not the current plan. That was based off of 50 students. I'm sorry, I missed it. Yes, that was based off of 50 students.

Okay. Thank you. Yes. Okay. Okay. Now, we'll now open it up to public comment. And we do have the applicant. Does the applicant wish to be heard

and please state your name for the record. Hello, my name is James Royals. I'm the president of Pacific Oaks Academy. Live in Camaro here with my wife and our three children. I'd like to say thank you to it was Paul McLaren who first fielded us when we walked into city hall. Uh Serena Gonzalez has been fantastic to work with. Uh Rick Ayos has also been wonderful as well as the rest of the team and staff who we some of who you've seen and some of who we haven't. So thank you very much. Um we're grateful for all of your time and efforts uh for planning for parking for everyone uh to look at this and uh we're grateful for the opportunity to bring our school here to Camrio. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Would anybody else like to be heard from the public? Okay. Does staff have any final comments? I have questions for the Oh, excuse me. Yes, we have questions for the Do you mind coming back up? Thank you.

Commissioner Vandermillan. Okay. One concern is I noticed there's just two classrooms, but a broad range in ages. So what is your teaching model that you can handle the different ages in just two classrooms?

Thank you very much for asking. Uh combined grades is how we plan on handling the handling that model with the space that we have. There are the uh the classrooms in the main building as well as in the modular. So what we've learned through co and through homeschooling is that it's possible to have a small group of students at different levels of learning and subject matter and you can address those students individually while the others are working on private study time and so it's possible to have multiple age ranges within a small space which is still conducive towards uh the academic environment. Does that answer your question?

Answer that one. Um, one of my main concerns is the size of the the playground area. There really isn't room for kids to play. And looking at the parking lot, I don't know if you plan on resurfacing that, but if they get out to where they're running around or doing anything around the parking lot, I can see some trip hazards and things going on there in the condition that it's in. So, how are the children going to get enough physical time during the daytime? Uh thank you for asking that question too. That's been a concern of ours. We want our kids to get dirt underneath their fingernails is kind of how we talk about it. Uh we uh have finished the fence line along Lost Post is to make sure that playing in the parking lot is safe. Uh we want the kids to run around. We've had them uh our children have accompanied us as we've walked the property. We've seen them scooting around. Uh we've seen them playing on the grass. We know that there's safe places where the children can play. Uh and we plan on using those as far as uh resurfacing the uh the parking lot. We've been looking at a slurry seal to make sure that it's uh one cosmetically beautiful as well as restriping of the parking spaces. Um and then also letting the kids run around uh and minimizing any trip passage that there would be.

Okay. I think that yeah, just room for kids to safely play is one of my biggest concerns when I drove through there.

We Yes. Um uh we would high vis another way we could do it is high visibility uh stansions and we could uh so that in the corner of the parking lot that could be reserved for play when uh the demand for parking is significantly less with 10 students coming from a handful of families. We could make it so that there's a space visibly reserved um in the corner of the property on the uh so that the kids can play there and there's there's no through traffic that goes through there. So they'd be safe to go through the breezeway uh through the the walkway into the I believe it's the eastern portion of the property uh which is not pictured here but to the right and up. uh if we were to block off basically where the border is with high visibility stansions, then the kids could play there safely without any cars coming into park. And we also don't anticipate any traffic during the day other than pickup and drop off.

And is the planned fenced area the same area as where the fencing goes right now? Where the uh it's a longlost poses road. So the the sidewalk that's there um the the plan fencing is a long lost poses. so that if a whiffle ball was, you know, went bouncing off into the road, the kids couldn't go through there. And that was also uh a response to the police department of just making sure that there was also safety there from the other side of the house.

Well, there's um currently there's a fenced area to the attached to the east side of the main building, which was indicated I thought on something that I read through that that was a fenced play area. Is that going to be that same size or is that going to be larger? I misunderstood. Uh that's still there. That'll stay there. Uh that'll stay there because that's a very small area.

Correct. Uh so, um we uh the kids could play there. It'd be small. I think for um what we have in mind, we would love uh to have the opportunity for the children to experience Southern California and the the natural hikes or the hikes that we have in the area and the and the trail heads. So, uh, we can use the area that we have for daily playgrounds, but we would also like to, uh, use, uh, Kayakas Creek wershed and other places where there's trails where the kids can go and and get that dirt underneath their their fingertips. So even if during the school day there seems like there's limited place we could work into our curriculum into our liberal arts curriculum the opportunity to go to Sycamore Canyon Trail Leo Coreo State Park so that they're going outside and it's something that we can do with a smaller student body.

And did I see that fifth grade is the oldest that you're going or are you going above fifth grade? We uh we have one sixth grader right now uh on the boy side of the house. Um or we have one sixth grade boy. Uh and that's currently our uh our oldest that we have. Okay, that's all the questions that I have. Thank you. I can happy to say questions for the applicant. Thank you.

Great. Thank you for your time. Any other member of the public wish to address the commission? Okay. We did receive one comment electronically opposing the application based on traffic safety issues which we we've discussed. Okay. I'll close public comment. Any discussion from the commission? Not for me. Okay. Is there a motion? I'll move that we uh make a motion to approve the project. Is there a second? Second.

Okay. Great. We have a a motion to approve. Can you please call a vote? A resol uh resolution number PC 2025-8, a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Camaro approving a request from Pacific Oaks Academy for a conditional use permit to establish a private school on the site of an existing church located at 2280 Antonio Avenue in the single family residential R1 zone, further described as CUP-438. Commissioner Vanderm, yes. Commissioner Murphy, yes. Commissioner Edsil, yes. Vice Chair Davidson,

yes. Chair Lemon, yes. Okay. And the motion passes. Okay. So, those are all of our items. Uh, now moving on to the director's report.

Thank you, chair. Uh commissioners, couple items for you tonight. Um the first is on July 1st, the city launched its new land management system utilizing the open gov software. So the system is a completely online process. Um the city's rapidly kind of moving forward into current practices and it's streamlined the city's permit um and entitlement applications. It's provided an efficient online experience for folks. We've heard some um some positive feedback on a successful launch so far. Um we're hearing about like significant time savings already and um folks appreciate the convenience of applying for a permit from the comfort of your home um not based on city's business hours. So um that's been a successful experience and um if any of you need to pull a permit uh we invite you to use our new system. Um the the second item I have for you tonight, uh which I've already alluded to, is um on July 9th, the city council authorized a contract approving, um a comprehensive general plan update. Our land use element hasn't been updated since 2003 and um could use a a fair amount of cleanup and probably some new visioning. So, uh we're excited to engage in that. Um the contract includes a comprehensive outreach program um that staff's really um excited to um to move forward with and it'll guide the future uh vision for the future of the city. Uh the planning commission will play a vital role in this process. So we'll um stay in communication as as the project launches and moves forward um and set up sessions with the planning commission as well.

And that's for the land use element. This is for the comprehensive. It's going to be a comprehensive plan. So, it's going to be um we may not update all of the elements like the housing element is is pretty much set. Um this body has already recommended the safety element. We anticipate that going to council and probably relatively few changes if any to that. But we want a consistent formatting. We want all to be a part of a package. Jen, we're even talking about um creative ways to engage with the plan rather than um via just kind of a um a book style or um a PDF. Maybe something that's more interactive um and and online. So, great. What's anticipated a role of the commission?

Um uh important feedback body. Um I'd say we're going to have a series of um study sessions. Uh we're going to be discussing alternatives um land use alternatives uh with the body and it' be a great place for um public feedback as well. Thank you. Um and then finally uh for the next planning commission meeting, we don't have any items trending so we'll um likely be cancelling that meeting. Great. Thank you. That concludes my report. The director? No. Thank you.

Okay. Any commission comments? I just gonna say I know I read one positive comment on the permit system. I just can't remember if I read it on Leisure Village or if I read it on Next Door. So, but it was a very positive comment that they enjoyed going through the process on that. Yeah. And let me see. Was it this month that we have three meetings scheduled or is that like next month? September. We have three meetings scheduled. September. Okay. One of the meetings, however, is the day after Labor Day, and we don't have any items trending for that one either. So, okay. Um, the commission may be able to enjoy an extended weekend.

Thank you. Just want to give my thanks to all of you and this was a a long meeting. I appreciate all of the reports as always and uh answering all of our our questions and supporting us through the meeting. Okay. So, with that, we'll adjourn. And thank you.