Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. This is Chair Dave Hton. I would like to call the regular meeting of the planning commission to order. Please join me now in the pledge of allegiance. One, two, three. Here we go. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands one nation indivisible for all. Thank you. Would city clerk Theresa Purrington please call the role? Commissioner Flores here. Commissioner Khan here. Commissioner Munos Morris here. Vice Chair Tolley here. Chair Hton here. Okay. At this time we will hear any public comment for items that are not on tonight's agenda. Item raised. Items raised are generally referred to staff and if action by the commission is necessary would be scheduled for a future meeting. City clerk, do we have any public comment on non-aggenda items this evening? Yes, we have one Kathy Walker. Okay. Hi, good evening. I wanted to just go back to last the last meeting. Um, one of the commissioners said something about um, the people who live in the neighborhood where the fraternities are should know should have known or should know what what basically they were in for. Um, and I just wanted after talking with some of my neighbors, I just wanted to say a couple things about that. Um, most of I can tell you that none of us who live in the single family neighborhood thought that we would be dealing with full-fledged fraternity parties every weekend. Um, my husband and I raised our children in our home

and they grew up with a lot of other families, other children. Our neighbors were um, Marco and Vanessa Rizzo who owned Cafe Roma. Their children and our children grew up together. our youngest as a freshman in college this year. Um Jeff Gator who was a deputy chief of fire was our neighbor. Um Jan Marks, Steven Marks, a lot of families, over a dozen families. So I'm hoping that we can maybe change the mindset a little bit because it kind of felt like what we hear from fraternity members like you should just move or you don't belong here. And I just wanted us to be a little bit more mindful about how we perceive our neighborhood and the people who live there, especially since the fraternity issue seems like it's going to continue to come up here in the future. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Walker. And I understand we've all been handed a copy of a document which is from Kathy Walker. Is that right? So, just want to enter that into the record, make it known. And that's for the consent items. This is for consent. Okay. Okay. Moving on to the consent calendar. The consent calendar items consist of matters deemed routine and non-controversial by staff, typically acted upon by a single vote. However, if a member of the commission wishes to pull an item for individual consideration, please say so. Now looking to my left, looking to my right, I do not have the wish to pull any item. So um city clerk, do we have any comments on consent items? Yes, we have several. Okay, there are four. Okay, let's line them up. Okay, Garrett Hager, Chris Green, and Mike Holliday.

Do I do it? I did want to note um perhaps at this time we should determine whether or not we even have a quorum to vote on the consent items before we open this up for public comment. Um because only three of you were um involved in the discussion on May 28th. Unless either um Commissioner Mino Mores or Commissioner Toli watched the recording and read the record, we do not have a quorum to vote on the consent calendar. So um if either of you could I did I did read the record and watch the recording. Same. Okay. Thank you. So we do have a quorum to vote on these matters. Thank you for pointing that out. And also um in the way of exparte disclosures, I will just say that I received an email from Mr. Zuckerander, which is for an item that's on the consent calendar tonight. And my response was that there was an invitation to engage in discussion. I referred it back to the public process, which is why we're here tonight and why we had the last meeting. So, anybody else on uh exparte? Yeah, I received the same communication. Okay. Miss Flores, I received an email. I'm not sure who it was from, and I did refer it back to the city. um didn't not think it was appropriate for commissioner to respond on that one. Right. Any anybody on this side? Okay. And um I believe that's it. So um yes, sir. Go ahead. Good evening. My name is Garrett Hagar and I'm a member of the Delta Kai Cow Poly chapter as well as the incoming risk management officer on our executive board. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you this evening and would like to respectfully share my thoughts in opposition to the proceeded revoke of our conditional use permit at 1236 Monavista Place. From a planning and land land use perspective, this location is especially well suited for student housing. It's located in the R4 zone designated to accommodate higher density residential uses and sits directly adjacent to Calpaly's campus. If there's anywhere in the city, it's

appropriate for group living that can be effectively managed, it's here. That's precisely why the conditional use permit process exists. To allow for uses like this while giving the city clear oversight through enforceable conditions is a tool designed to balance flexibility with accountability. Delta Kai is fully committed to upholding that balance. As the incoming risk management officer, my role is specifically focused on making sure our chapter supports the health, safety, and welfare of both our members and the broader neighborhood. We take that responsibility seriously, and we're and we're working with our alumni adviserss to ensure consistent standards year-over-year. The fraternity has spent $10,000 securing the facility from unauthorized entry. On March 15th, however, the sec security components on the property fell short in keeping out unwanted individuals. We take that incident seriously and we will be reviewing our security parameters going forward to ensure that the property is properly secured and measures are being put in place to ensure that that such an incident does not happen again. Rather than revoking the cup, we believe this is an opportunity to strengthen it. If the current conditions need to be revised to be better reflected the city goals or neighborhood concerns, we welcome that conversation. We're not looking to avoid accountability. We're looking to build it into a long a longlasting framework. Removing the CUP would take away a tool that ensures structure, standards, and oversight. Keeping it and improving it where necessary gives the city and the community a clearer path to move forward. Thank you for your time and consideration in considering a path that supports responsible planning and positive collaboration. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Next, Chris Green and then Mike Hollow Holiday and then Kathy Walker. Good evening, Mr. Chair and commissioners. My name is Chris Green and I'm here today as a slow resident and the incoming president of the CowPoly Delta Kai fraternity to respectfully oppose the proposed revocation resolution of our conditional use permit. I will acknowledge that that the concerns raised by neighbors and

city staff are genuine. St. Louis Abyispo is a unique community and we're all striving to balance the needs of long-term residents, students, and the broader public. particularly during a time when issues such as housing, safety, and neighborhood impacts are on the are at the forefront. But revoking Delta Kai's conditional use permit is a severe and permanent step. One that removes the possibility of progress, growth, or accountability through cooperation. Instead of a path forward, it simply shuts the door. Revoking our permit and requiring us to reappeal over modifying the existing permit will cost our organization up to $11,000 which which would need to be covered by our members many of which have summer jobs and jobs while in school to cover rent and tuition. Delta Kai like many organizations has had challenges but we have also taken steps to address concerns and we have expressed a strong willingness to continue improving. Instead of revoking the permit, we would like to find a way to develop the conditional use permit framework in a manner that gives the commissioners comfort in approving the findings. There are more balanced approaches the commission could consider, such as a stronger oer oversight, additional conditions or formal compliance plans that would achieve the city's goals without dismantling a student community that is not only trying to engage but also committed to continuous growth and improvement. We have a chance here to promote responsibility through partnership, not punishment. Let's model a community that holds people accountable while also providing them with opportunities to grow. I respectfully urge you to reject the revocation and pursue a constructive solution. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Green. Next. Good evening, everyone. Hello, commissioners, Mr. Chair. My name is Mike Holiday. I was raised in St. Louis Abyispo. I attended Kalpali and I'm an alumnest member of the Delta Kai fraternity. I'm still a resident of St. Louis Abyispo. My wife and Holly, my

wife Holly and I are longtime active members of the St. Louis Bispo community. I am here to speak in opposition of the revocation of Delta Kai's conditional use permit. First off, I'd like to note the last meeting that our hardworking assistant planner Molly Patino recommended that this commission adopt the draft resolution and modify the CUP to allow continuation. Commissioner Flores, you stated last meeting continuing a continuation might be an option to get more information. Commissioner Khan, you stated that there's a larger problem. I agree. You mentioned a solution about like a fraternity row. You also stated that if you don't know, you don't know if revoking the conditional use permit would solve that problem. Chair Hton, you stated this is an ongoing and complicated problem and we're not going to solve it tonight. Tonight, I'm here to ask you to review whatever processes that are available to this commission to resend your vote to revoke the conditional use permit for 1236 Monavista Place. I believe that that the roughly hour and 15 minute discussion of the last meeting was not adequate to properly review the entire situation and find a better solution than revoking a 27year-old use permit. Commissioner Flores, you mentioned last week that the permit was issued prior to when many of the residents moved into this area. So residents weren't totally clueless. Kpali has been there for over a hundred years. At the last meeting, Commissioner Khan, you mentioned your willingness to be part of a discussion to find a solution on both sides and the fraternity wants to be part of that solution. You also mentioned the need for the fraternity row. in none of us controls what Calpali does as far as creating fraternity row on campus. But absent fraternity row on campus, Monav Vista Place is about to as close to fraternity row as we can have for the foreseeable future. As a pilot, I always get frustrated when I hear somebody complain about airport noise after they move near an airport. Despite being the best neighbors possible, there's always going to be a

cost of living next to an airport, just like living next to any college campus. This is where planning and zoning can help. The Greek system has had a target on its back for many years and in response this uh it is always striving to be a better member of our community. This property has turned 19 individual units which could be all getting potential violations separately into an organized body that has only seen two violations in the last 12 months. Is Greek life perfect? No. Is there room for improvement? Sure. But I believe that the Greek system as a whole is in a much better place year after year. I have seen great improvements from when I was a student. Revoking the conditional use permit would ignore the proc progress this fraternity has made and the framework we're building. We ask instead that you recognize this is a chance to reinforce a sustainable model and one that other student organizations and campal can learn from. Thank you for your time. Perfect. Nice timing. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Holiday. Our final speaker is Kathy Walker. Hello again, Miss Walker. Hello. The last speaker mentioned he was a pilot. I am also a pilot. My husband is also a pilot. Um he's a first responder helicopter pilot and has specifically been kept awake and not able to get adequate rest because of a party at Delta Kai. as he told you last weekend. During the last weekend, you voted unanimously to revoke the permits for Delta Kai and Sigma New and both presidents of the fraternities spoke and promised they understood the impact and that they were committed to doing better. Last weekend, some social media posts were brought to my attention that Delta Kai and Sigma New were having a conjoined Dage, which is a daytime rager or a daytime party. I thought it was a joke at first because of the news of them losing their permits, but more social media posts emerged. I have screenshots on my phone and it turns out they did have a large party. I've given you a copy of the citation they received

and the conditional use permit for the property that received the citation at 1292 Foothill, which is the Sigma News House. The citation was issued to a fourthyear student of Sigma New member who's likely graduating. so perhaps doesn't care about the negative impacts, but this is part of the problem, the constant turnover, the constant conversations we were having with new fraternity members. Um, I don't know, I I spoke with one of you at a community forum in January um after Alta Alpha Epsilon Pi had their cup re-reviewed and I told you how excited I was because they had been awesome. They hadn't had any parties and we were able to rest and I was having meaningful conversations with them. Unfortunately, shortly after that, they had two backto-back parties. One with 150 people, one with 100 people. So, this is a problem. I mean, these are budding right up next to our neighborhood. And we hear them. We've tried. We've talked with Kalpali. Kalpali is registering these parties. They're they're approving these parties. 200 people. The cup says no more than 44. Last time they were here, they said they understood now that they had cups. You have a copy of the cup in front of you. You can see some of the conditions. They violated it less than two weeks after their pleas last time that they knew what they were getting into and they were sorry. So, please look at their actions before you believe what they say. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Walker. Just to clarify then this doc this document that we we chanted a copy of this is a citation from June 7th for noise. Okay. That's kind of what I thought when I first saw it. Okay. Okay. Are there any more public comments, city clerk? No, not okay. So, uh, we will have discussion on consent. Um, I have hands

raised, but if you want to speak, you have to follow the process. And so, I beg pardon. Um, at this time, no consent item has been pulled from the agenda. So, if that if that needs to happen, that that needs to happen. At this at this time, no consent item has been pulled. I guess I'll um I've already offered to pull the I'll offer once again in in the spirit of if we really want to do this again. Does anybody want to pull the um revocation from the consent agenda? Can I ask for clarification from legal counsel on this? I understood last time that our vote would stand and what we're deciding today isn't to revoke or we can't remake that decision. We can only approve the wording of the um of the conditional use permit of the resolution of the resolution. Yeah. Yes. So the fi the vote the five to zero vote with two members absent on the 28th of May was the final decision of the planning commission. um that is not up for um really discussion or revoting at this point. The vote tonight will just be on the language of those resolutions. The um sort of reconsideration by the planning commission is not is not a legal option available. The um the options would be an appeal to the city council or reapplying for a conditional use permit. Thank you. Thanks for that question. That helps me out as well. So, um, we, um, even if we were to pull this item, I just want to be clear to everybody here, even if we were to pull this item from the consent agenda, we would be limited to discussing the wording of the resolution that's before us, before us, and not to uh, crack open the egg again and and do the whole thing again. Is that correct? That is correct. Yes. Okay. So, hope everybody understands

what that means. and we we were not here to and and this reflects on the written comments that came in as well and the emails. It's not really an option. We it's what we did last time. So So do we have any I can still call for discussion on the consent agenda particularly on the wording of the resolutions that we that you've u put before us since the last meeting and that's in our packet. Do we have any comments on that? I I think what we're saying is that in if we're going to engage in discussion, we should formally pull the item from the consent calendar or otherwise we should just make a motion to continue forward. Is that what I understood? I think we're allowed to discuss the consent agenda without polling items. Is that correct or is that that is not my understanding. Um I would defer to the city clerk but no if if individual items if a commissioner is wishing to discuss individual items or to yeah change the wording which is which is fine that will need to be pulled and then sort of separately voted on from the consent calendar. Okay. So even if we if we wanted to discuss the resolution wording then we would have to pull that item. Correct. I see. Okay. So with that understanding do we have any I'll ask one more time. Do we have any um request to pull anything from the consent agenda? Otherwise, we will entertain a motion. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda, which includes the meeting minutes from the last meeting as well. I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendar. We do have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second the motion. Motion and second. Any further discussion? City clerk, could you please call the role on this? Commissioner Munes Morris, yes. Commissioner Flores, yes. Commissioner Khan, yes. Vice Chair Talling, yes. Chair Hton, yes. Okay, so the consent calendar is

approved and that includes the resolutions that were put before us and that were in the packet and that were publicly published as well. Okay, we are moving on to public hearings. So my preamble to this, any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items in this agenda may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city of St. Louis Abyispo or at or prior to the public hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record and please limit your comments to three minutes. The public hearing before us is the review of the appeal of the community development director decision to approve the fence height exemption application at 1425 Sydney Street. So I'd like to ask each commissioner right now for disclosure of any exparte communications regarding this matter. None to the left. Yeah, I've discussed this with the um applicant. Okay. The applicant at 1425. Correct. Not the uh appellent. Right. Okay. Any on this side? Miss Flores? Yes. I did not speak to anyone, but I drove by the house and looked at the situation. Okay. Commissioner Khan. Yeah. Same. I drove by the house, stopped, looked at the situation. Okay. And I didn't talk to anybody. Okay. And I will add that I also went to the site actually on my bike last night and took a few pictures and looked and kind of cruised around the neighborhood and saw their fences and saw what I could see. So we've all either taken a look through the packet or in person. So okay, that's our disclosures. So um would assistant planner Walter Edel do am I saying that right? Okay. Would you please present the report on this matter?

All right. Good evening, Chair Hton. Me a moment to set the presentation up here. There we go. Well, good evening, uh, Chair Hen and commissioners. This item concerns fences, walls, and hedges around the property at 1425 Sydney Street, which is a residential property between uh Augusta Street and Johnson Avenue. Uh Lacy and Jake Minnik filed a fence height exception application with the planning division requesting exceptions to the city's standards for maximum height of fences, walls, and hedges. Uh the intent was to allow taller fence height on the west side of the property adjacent to 1411 Sydney Street and taller hedge height on the east side adjacent to 1475 Sydney. The application was approved in March allowing fencing at the west side of the property as high as 7 feet which is on top of a short retaining wall and allowing hedges at the east side as tall as 8 ft. The director's decision was appealed by Craig and Allison Brandom who are neighbors and occupants of the property to the east at 1475 Sydney. Objections were raised to allowing taller hedges along this side of the property concerning the shading effects the hedges would have and the impact on views, sunlight, and plant growth in the shaded side setback area. It's this appeal that the commission has asked to consider. And staff notes that the appeal does not raise objection to the exceptions approved on the other side, west side of the property along the west setback adjacent to 1411 Sydney. uh as provided by the city zoning regulations, decisions of the community development director may be appealed to the planning commission. And in this

case, staff is recommending that the commission deny the appeal and uphold the director's decision by adopting the draft resolution that was provided as attachment A to the staff report for this item. So, regarding fences, walls, and hedges, the city zoning regulations set maximum uh height limits for these features. The basic height limit within a sight setback is 6 feet. Where there's a difference in grade between properties and fencing is located on a retaining wall, height limits allow for a maximum height of 6 feet for a fence itself and a maximum combined height of fence and retaining wall of 9 ft total. on the uh east side of the subject property adjacent to the appellance property at 1475 Sydney. A fence runs along the side setback and hedges are planted in front of the fence. Uh there is a short retaining wall about a foot in height that's situated behind the fence. This fence does conform to the maximum 6t uh height standard. And in this case, the fence height is simply measured from the base of the fence on the downhill side because the fence is installed in front of the retaining wall. It is not on top of it. Uh the subject of this appeal is the height to which the hedges in front of the fence will be permitted to grow. The applicants requested an exception to the sixoot height limit to allow the hedges to reach up to 9 ft high. The taller hedge height is intended to enhance privacy screening between the properties uh particularly between the living and dining area of the home and the bedroom window on the neighboring property and between the home's backyard area and the bathroom window at the rear of the neighboring home. So in these uh photos you can see the extent with within which the additional hedge height was requested uh outlined in orange here

between the properties. In the photos outlined in blue are let's call them the sensitive window areas and sort of how they relate to each other as well as how the back window relates to the backyard area of the subject property. In support of their request, the applicants note that there is an overlook situation that's created by a difference in the level of the ground between the properties where the level of the neighboring property is about a foot higher along with an unusually high floor height of the neighboring residents. The existing fencing at 6 feet in height does not adequately mitigate the privacy impact presented by this overlook and an exception was requested to allow the taller edges for enhanced privacy screening. Uh, in the course of reviewing the exception requests, staff was contacted by the neighbors at 1475 Sydney who expressed their concerns about loss of view and natural light on their side of the house, as well as buildup of moisture and growth of mushrooms and mold uh on walls and the planted areas next to the fencing. These concerns were taken into consideration by the director in reaching a decision on this application. In approving the fence height exception, the director set a lower maximum height than what was requested and was cap the hedges at 8 feet rather than nine and limited the extent along which the excess height would be allowed. Uh the modified approval was intended to balance enhance privacy with light and air provided to the neighboring property. So in this slide uh we've depicted the general location of the windows in question on the aerial view on the right hand side. In orange you can see that area where the high hedges were requested. Green shows you the limited area that the director felt was

appropriate uh to enhance screening to u address this this overlook. Uh so the extent of the hedge height was narrowed to focus on that area between the neighboring windows and the area of the overlook into the rear yard. The green Oh yeah, I already covered that. So limiting the extent of the approved exception avoids additional shading on the front half of the west side of the appellant's house uh which is outside the area of concern for overlook and privacy. So, the intention was to have the tall hedges stop more or less at the gate line here or somewhere behind it so that we would take care of the or address the overlook where the windows were but not additionally shade at the side of their house in response to the concern. Because of the difference in ground level between the properties, uh it was thought that an 8 foot hedge would be perceived on the neighboring property as 7 ft in height, which is a minimal increase over the typical 6-ft privacy fence that city standards would normally allow. In their appeal of the director's decision, the appellants note that the existing fencing uh shades the setback area on their property between the fence and the building, and they attribute the death of plantings and growth of mushrooms and mold in the area to the shaded condition. Uh and they also describe an expected decrease in natural light into their home, anticipating that this will make their bathroom colder and darker. Staff notes that depending on the orientation of a site boundary, fencing commonly shades the uh adjacent setback areas between fences and buildings. This is a common situation and a common

occurrence. And the allowed additional hedge height which is outlined here in green is not expected to hinder the growth of landscape plantings in that would be suitable for shaded areas like this setback area. Uh nor would further restricting the hedge height here enhance the viability of the area for sun dependent plantings or have any significant effect on the soil conditions behind the fence. So, let's see. In this slide, the approximate level of a six-foot fence on the neighboring property is indicated in yellow. So, that's intended to show what would be considered a normal situation. If the appellant elected to put up a privacy fence 6 feet high, it would reach to the top of this yellow line. Generally speaking, um the additional allowed hedge height attempt to capture that in green here would rise about uh another foot above that level. These homes windows are positioned above the fence line and the hedges at the approved height could affect roughly the bottom third or bottom half of the window space. Uh this is as I say a common configuration between properties with privacy fencing where bedroom and bathroom windows are often partially oluded from view of neighboring properties. Uh at the approved maximum height, the proposed hedges will only cast shadow to the neighboring windows very late in the day when the sun is already at its lowest and already beginning to drop behind roof and tree lines at the edge of view. As such, the height exception is highly unlikely to have any significant effect on the overall temperature or light level within the bedroom and bathroom or to have a potential to diminish enjoyment of the home. And although the hedges may grow densely, uh the tops of the hedges would still

allow some light and view to filter through and they would present a naturalistic appearance in comparison to visual obstruction of a conventional solid barrier like a typical privacy wall or fence. And so, uh, in summary, given these circumstances, staff maintains that the limited exception that was granted under this application represents an appropriate compromise that in this case provides necessary enhancement of privacy for sensitive areas of each property while preserving more distant views and avoiding excessive shading of neighboring buildings or setback areas. All consistent with the intent and purposes of the city's uh, standards for fences, uh, walls, and hedges. So staff does recommend that the commission deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the director approving a limited height exception under the fence height exception application by adopting the draft resolution provided with the staff report. Alternatively, the committee could continue consideration of the item to a future date with pertinent direction or could uphold the appeal and reverse in part or in hold the decision of the director based on relevant findings of inconsistency with the intent of regulations controlling the height of fences, walls, and hedges. And that concludes my presentation. I thank you for your time. Happy to provide any additional information or answer questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Zel. Okay, questions from the commission of staff. Yes, Menoz Morris. Yes. Uh, a couple of quick questions. I'll maybe ask you to come back to this slide in just a sec second, but could we bring up the the aerial view where you have the yellow lines denoting the property? Um, uh, or actually this one works as well. So, I was maybe this one. Yeah, this one. Thank you. So, I I was trying to figure out just how much direct sunlight hours, how many sunlight hours we're actually talking about. And it seems like roughly speaking, and I

know there's variability with the seasons, right? But the sun is the trajectory is like sort of from the bottom right towards the top left, roughly speaking. And then to the west of this property, as I can see, there's Terrace Hill. So, how many how many hours of direct sun do we have an idea of how many hours of direct sunlight are uh along this uh fence where the the appeal is focused? Um I have to say without a solar study we don't have that type of detailed information but the um the original applicants the Minix at 1425 um would be familiar with that and of course they will be speaking soon and they also have tracked that throughout the day and I think you'll see uh maybe that will so to speak shed some light on on that. Okay. Pun intended shed some light. Um, okay. And actually, you know what? We can actually use the same slide here because I'm I wanted to focus on kind of the bottom left image here. So, I can see you can clearly see that there is uh some vegetation on the appellent's property along the fence here. Uh, has there been any indication or any uh word from the appellent as far as removing this one for to address that fear of mold and mushrooms that was cited on the appeal? Uh, no. No, no such indication. Okay. Just wanted Thank you. Anyone else? This side. This side. Okay. I have a couple of questions. You mentioned um that there was no issue with the west side of 1425. Was that ever an issue or is was there a a um some kind of a variance requested for that on the other side of the house? Um, I could say that the the fencing was examined in response to

a complaint um lodged with our code enforcement division and it did turn out that the height of the fence itself is 7 ft where uh standards would limit that to 6 feet. So it is one foot over the maximum permitted height for the fence on top of a retaining wall. So in that sense there is a problem there and that was addressed by approving within this exception request allowing that fence to be 7 ft high because the total combined height does not exceed 9 ft. Okay. So this turned out to be an issue when you were out looking for the other thing, but in the approval it was said that it was okay as is. I don't know if I said that very well. Um, okay. We I I unless there's anybody else doesn't understand. I think I get what you said there. So uh and then can you clarify how do we measure this? If you measure it from the some of these f I one of the things I noticed there was that a bunch of the houses have two fences one on each property owner's property um and I think on this the other side perhaps there was a double fence situation so do we measure from and there's a term called natural grade which keeps you from like piling up dirt and saying oh that's the work we're going to measure from right so we measure from the property line that the fence is sitting on is Is that right? We measure from the base of the fence. The ground level at the base of the fence. From the ground level. Okay. Yeah. And there is a provision in those standards that account for the possibility of building up a burm or so. So, we're going to look within five feet of that fence to be sure that we um include that burm. If it is under the fence, it will be included. Okay. Uh in the in the overall height. Okay. Fair

enough. And then your diagram here shows that little blue line. That's about a one foot rise in the grade between the two properties. It kind of looked like more than that, but it was a little hard to tell, but if that's what you say it is. Okay. And the fence that we're talking about is on 1425's property, right? Correct. So that would be on the downhill side, if you will. Yeah. Okay. And right now the the hedges that are going to be allowed to go to 8 ft. Is that right? Are those the ones those the light green ones that we saw in your photo that are like 2 feet tall right now? That's correct. Yes. Okay. So, those are going to be allowed to go up to 8t. Okay. And do do all the properties involved here conform to the setback requirements as they currently are? Supposed to be 5T, isn't it? That is the current uh minimum setback standard. I have seen plans for the appellance house that show a five foot setback. Eyeballing it, it it seems less than five, but it does. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And of course, if you go around town, you can find exceptions to everything. And my neighborhood, there's it's a there's a lot of houses that are zero right on the property line, which in some cases actually makes for less trouble. Um, but I won't get into that. Okay. So, um I don't have any other questions for staff. And so, with that, we will go to the public hearing part of this um hearing. So, we will begin by giving 10 minutes to the appellent. And as a reminder, the appellant is entitled up to 10 minutes of public testimony. Uh you don't have to use it all, but you may reserve any portion of that 10 minutes for response. And if you wish to reserve time, please let the city clerk know before you begin. or they will make note if you have time after. Well, I think that makes more sense, doesn't it? After the appellent, the applicant is then entitled to 10 minutes of public testimony. May reserve

any portion of that 10 minutes same as the appellent and just let us know if you want to reserve some of that time. So, with that, we will hear from the appellant. Yes, we would like to reserve some of that time. Um, I want to address something that u Mr. Munos Morris brought up about um the if you're looking at Well, go back one picture. Um we do have a tree in front of our office window um which we have been wanting to take out because of the decrease in natural light. Um even when that window was that tree was very short the uh applicants never did put a window covering on that window to provide their own privacy. Um, and the halfway up our windows, I think most people could agree that they wouldn't want a hedge blocking the entire bottom half of their windows. But, um, I also want to address a couple of other things. Um, we have photos that would prove that, um, the hedge, even at 8 ft, would not largely screen views of the backyard and deck area of the applicant's home. In fact, the proposed hedge does not provide the applicant with any more privacy than they have now. And it's also not just about direct sunlight. It's about allowing natural light into the home. Um, and those are only two windows that actually get natural direct light into our home. Um, also, uh, in the report I read that Brian did, he reports that interference with natural light into our window is likely to be minimal. Um, I made photos where we put up an obstruction that was 18 in high at the bottom of our windows. Um, it's pretty much the entire bottom half of our windows. Uh, Brian also reported that the hedge presents loosely spaced branches and leaves allowing for light and views through them. Um, I think this also proves we think that this also proves that the hedges would not actually uh provide applicants with

improved security or privacy. If somebody wanted to get into their backyard, those hedges are not going to stop them. And I'm addressing that the reason for their application was aesthetics, privacy, and security. Uh when the applicants purchased their home, they were aware of the difference in the height. And yes, that uh retaining wall is more than a foot high. Um, they have the one window that faces our property that faces our windows. And as I said, they have never ever put a window covering on that window to provide themselves with privacy. In fact, most of the time you could walk down our street and see directly into the front window of their home because they choose to leave window coverings pulled to the side and anyone walking down the sidewalk can see into their into their home. Uh the a the applicants have another choice to improve their security and privacy and that would be to build a fence from their garage to the main home. I submitted a photograph that shows that just if this even if it was just a sixft high fence that they built from their garage to their main home, just the top of it shows how much more privacy they would gain by putting a fence between the garage and the home. And it would not have any effect on us, our natural light, our heating bills, our utilities, and our wish to conserve energy. In addressing a aesthetics, again, they want to they want to place a 8ft hedge um to block a fence that they installed. We've asked, you know, why if you didn't want to look at your fence, do you now want to put a eightoot hedge in front of it? Um, we also also ask um that if you approve the hedge um we want you the

city to address how they would um make sure that the limit of the hedge stays at 8 ft and how that would be enforced. Um, and then let's see. Um, I even submitted a screenshot from a text between, um, one of the applicants and myself where he says, and I quote, "That type of hedge can get big if not well managed." Um, in conclusion, we feel most people would agree that they wouldn't want a neighbor's hedge to block the bottom half of their windows. Thank you. Okay. So, with that we can move on to the applicant and you are entitled to 10 minutes. Thank you. And I have no wish to reserve time but I do have a slideshow and before the timer starts could could I get my slideshow ready? I just Thank you. Okay. Good evening, Chair Hton and members of the commission. My name is Lacy and my husband's name is Jake and we are the owners and residents of 1425 Sydney Street. Next, after we replaced our driveway, Next slide, please. After we replaced our driveway last summer, we applied for a fence height exception, which the director approved. That decision was subsequently appealed by Allison and Craig Brandom. The purpose of my presentation today is pro to provide you with our rationale for submitting that application as well as facts and evidence that support staff's recommendation to uphold the decision of the director on the basis that it was consistent with city code. Next, starting with our rationale. Next slide, please. Oh, I'm sorry. Back one slide. When we purchased our home six years ago, we master planned a variety of

phased improvements that culminated with the replacement of our driveway and installation of perimeter fences. We wanted to do this so that we could secure our property and so that we could establish privacy between our property and neighboring properties specifically because we live on a steep hill. We also wanted to create an aesthetically appealing view along our driveway which we see from our kitchen, our living room, our dining room, and our beautiful backyard. Next, city code section allows by right fences and hedges within side setbacks up to 6 ft, but it also recognizes that that may not always be appropriate and it establishes a process for obtaining an exception. More specifically, the director can approve over six feet when there are unique site characteristics like topography that necessitate such to achieve privacy and security. Next, we applied for an exception and our application included both sides. I'm focusing on the east side because that's the subject of this appeal. there. We requested a 9- ft hedge for a distance of 65 ft in front of a 6- ft wooden fence. Next, the reason for this request is site topography. On this slide, you see a section from sheet L2 of the plans we drew. On the left you see the finished floor elevation of 1475 Sydney Street where the appellant lives which is 3 feet higher than the finished floor elevation of my house which is in the middle and again 3 ft higher than the finished floor elevation of 1411. This is because each of these homes is built on a raised foundation where the stem walls on the downhill side are

higher than the stem walls on the uphill side to create a flat finished floor. Next, these conditions create the overlook situation that staff described in their agenda report. This photo was submitted by the appellant and was taken from their bathroom window and it clearly demonstrates the impact of a higher finish floor elevation. And as you can see, the 6-ft fence does not provide any privacy. It's there for security. The hedge is proposed for privacy and to balance out the visual impact of their home and their 7 foot block CMU wall. Next, although we requested approval for fences and hedges up to 9 ft on both sides, staff asked us to compromise due to complaints from the appellant. The compromise was limited to the east side where an 8ft hedge for a distance of 40 ft was approved. Next, prior to that approval, the director considered the purpose of the city code, which is to balance concerns for privacy with the provision of light and air to both properties. Next, to demonstrate the effects of the proposed hedge, we constructed story poles. The pink flagging represents the 8ft hedge at a length of 40 ft. On May 4th, we took hourly photos from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. at a camera height of 6 feet to study the effects of shading and privacy on this property. Next, before we begin, this photo shows that the fence is constructed at a height of exactly 6 ft and the hedge is at exactly 8 ft. Next, each photo is timestamped. The first photo is at 8:00 a.m. Next. From then

until at least 100 p.m. Next, both lots are shaded. Next, based on the angle of the sun in the sky and the very large elm tree in the appellent's backyard. Next. Next. Next. At 2:00 and at 3:00. Next, the appellants windows are shaded by the eaves of their house. You also see our house beginning to form a shadow on our driveway. Next, at 4 pm, you see a shadow from the tree in the appellent side setback on their office window and the shadow of our house moving toward theirs. Next, at 5:00 and 6:00, shade from the gable of our house extends up the majority of our fence, and the appellants tree continues to shade their office window. Next. Next. In a departure from our hourly rhythm, we took a photo at 6:30 p.m. This is the only photo in the entire series where the hedge shows any shading. If you look closely, you will see a shadow of the flagging on the Appalance House and the 6T, I'm sorry, and the 8ft CMU block wall. Next, by 7:00, the shade from our house has overtaken any and all potential shading from the hedge. Next, on May 4th, the sun set at 7:51 p.m. And as you can see, by 8:00, there's no shade to discuss. In conclusion, the hedge will not obscure any light from entering the appellants windows. Instead, our house will continue to shade their home as it has been for the last nearly 70 years before the hedge could ever do so. And further, the tree in the appellent side setback shades

their office window from 300 p.m. to sunset. I also want to note that the fence does not block any windows and the hedge barely extends past the bottom 25% of them. We'll return to that next. I mentioned previously for the east side we requested a 9- FFT hedge. It is notable that a 9- ft wooden fence and wall was approved on the west side where topographical constraints are identical. Nevertheless, while processing our application, staff indicated that due to complaints, a compromise was required to limit the additional screening to the area where the windows are located. However, the correspondence submitted by the applicant relating to those windows is misleading and contradictory. Next, to start, the primary bathroom window is a double hung window that operates in two directions. When it's opened from the bottom, the privacy is eliminated. The window is consistently opened from the bottom, which we've documented on numerous occasions, including in this photo. In fact, in three of the five photos submitted by the appellant, the window is open from the bottom. Next, the appellant also submitted a photo of the bathroom window in the fully closed position with the obscured glass on the bottom. As you saw in the story polls, the fence does not block any portion of any window and the hedge only extends up the bottom 25% of the pane of glass despite the fact that their email indicates that our acts have limited their ability to have any views and sunlight. Views of the skyline and distant trees from the upper pane of glass will never be affected. rather views of our private space will be minimized. Next, in their appeal form, the appellant indicated that they

currently have a tree in front of their office window that provides privacy to 1425. However, in an email one day prior, they indicated that we have already installed a 6 foot 6in fence that has diminished our sunlight and because of that, one of our trees will need to be removed. Is the tree staying or is the tree going? I'm not clear. Why should the scope of our appeal be based on neighboring site conditions which are unclear now and subject to change? As you saw in the sto photo with the story polls, the fence does not block the tree. Neither the fence nor the hedge shades the tree before our house does. Therefore, the ability of the tree to photosynthesize is unaffected. On that note, in this photo on the bottom left, you can see our deck and private space where I like to spend a lot of time reading. With our proposal, our hedge would close that gap with no impact to the tree. Next, in conclusion, we are proposing this hedge to provide us with the privacy measures we desire on our property and respectfully request that your commission deny the appeal and uphold the prior decision of the director. Thank you. Wow, we have another perfect finish. Thank you, Miss Minnik. Okay, so um I see the appellant approaching the microphone. So, is this when the reserve time comes into play? Okay. So, how much time do we have in reserve? Whatever it is. 30. 5 minutes. 530. 5:30. Says 5:15. Okay, there we go. Okay. Uh, Miss Brandom, you have the microphone once again. Thank you. I want to remind everyone that those pictures were taken

in May. The Earth does tilt throughout the year. Thank you. Can you Did you hear what I said, though? I have something. Oh, okay. It's for the webcast as well. It's not just for us. Okay. Sorry. So, I want to remind the mission that the pictures were taken in May and the Earth tilts. So, different times of the year, we will have more or less shade. Um, I also want to point out that when we took a picture standing up at our office window, which we don't often do because we just it's an office, you can still see their entire backyard and their deck even if you put in a hedge because I had put up a paper towel to show how high that hedge would affect our windows. And um the planner even says that it would affect the 1.5 ft of the bottom portion of our window um if we chose to. We there. Oh, back one. Back one. Back one. One more. So that is us standing me standing at the window and I can still see into their backyard. And I think if you go back one more, you'll be able to see where the paper towel. And no, I it's so that's the paper towel, but there's another one where I have the paper towel in place right there. And you can see we can still see the entirety of their backyard. So to say that the hedge is for privacy, we don't believe is true. We think that this is for aesthetic purposes as they said at the beginning that it's so that they can not look at their fence and make their driveway um appealable to themselves. I also want to point out that the applicants were well aware of the difference in height in the homes when they purchased the home. Um it's similar to if you want to have a

lot of privacy, don't buy a house next door to a two-story home, right? Um, I also want to um point out that um the applicant said complaints um we only made one uh concerning um email addressing uh the hedge height. Um and the fence that they put in did did kill other plants that we had. Um we had some hibiscus plants there and some other things and we had to just pull them out because they died. We don't want that tree in front of our office window. We have talked to them about us removing it. We my husband and I have discussed we just we don't like it. It's not aesthetically pleasing to us. But it has remained because they still choose not to put a window over a covering over their one window that our window sees into. And it's like I said, not a window that we stand at and and look around. We don't often stand at our windows and look into their backyard. Most of the time I'm standing at the office window because my cat is laying in the sunshine on top of his cat condo. And um as far as the bottom portion of our bathroom window being open, we have to step into a tub in order to see into their backyard. We don't stand in the tub. And sometimes we open the bottom portion of our window to let in air or if I'm using cleaning products and I really need to air out the room or if we've given the dog a bath and it's really steamy in there. But for the most part, we just lower the top half of our window because it is a bathroom and we come in and out of that bathroom and we want privacy. And I think that's all I have for now. Thank you. Okay. Am I able to ask a quick question? Uh, we're still in public comment. Oh,

okay. Um, but um I give up my extra time. Yeah. Well, okay. Go ahead then. Sorry, just a quick question. So, putting the privacy u issue aside, there's been a lot of talk about sunlight, which I totally understand. I mean, as depending on your orientation, right, you're always struggling to get a lot of light. It seems you're have a very large tree in your backyard that casts a very big shade on their property. So, could they make the same argument of your tree and require request that you remove it? The tree was there when they bought the home and it's a tree. Um, we have maintained that tree over the years in including um trimming it back a lot. Um, you know, if the city wants to let us pull out an elm tree, by all means, let's do it because it's a lot of money to upkeep it. Well, I mean I mean there's there's no seniority, I guess, right? In in in when it comes to sunlight, I guess. So, I'm saying if the argument is sunlight, could could they make a requirement of your property and would you be okay with that? They can ask. Absolutely. However, that tree does not shade their property. If you look back at her, we we went through a whole series of photos that showed a shaded backyard, right? Our backyard, not their backyard. Both both of them, right? in the morning hours. Well, in the morning. And that is their garage. Yeah. Property, right? But it's their garage. It's not the home. But yeah, they could ask if if we'd be willing to trim back the tree or get out get rid of the tree. That's kind of extreme, but you know, the tree was there when we bought the home. The tree was there when they bought the home. Um so yeah. Okay. Yeah. Never hurts to ask. Okay. Um do we have any public comment on this matter? City clerk have no additional speaker cards. No speaker

cards. Okay. So with that I will close the public comment period. Okay. Do we have any additional questions of staff at this time on this matter? Commissioner Tullley. Yeah. I have a question for staff. Is there speaking about trees? Is there a restriction with the city about tree height in sight setbacks? Not to my knowledge, no. Okay. So, in theory, the Minox could pull this idea of a 7 foot hedge and plant trees in the sides in their in front of their fence which would grow even taller than seven feet. Right. Is that what we're getting at? Is that is that possible? To the point where they present a tangible visible obstruction as defined in the fence height standards. Yes. Okay. Maybe I'll I'll ask the out or the appellant on that. Thanks. Okay. Other questions of staff from the commission? Seeing none, so it's time for discussion amongst us and the next step for us would be actually to entertain a motion. But I I would like to have discussion. So any discussion on this that are not questions of staff or the appellent? Any thoughts left? Right. Start on this side. Um sure I can I can provide some thoughts. Um, I I think that one of the founding tenants in in US kind of governance and and city management is that we all have the right to develop our land in a way that's according to our taste, aesthetics, and within the

guidelines that are set forth in the different rules that the city applies to to our properties. Um, and with that in mind, I wouldn't want my neighbor telling me how to uh develop my uh house again within the allowable uh framework. Um, so this idea of, you know, requesting that, you know, privacy things go up instead of the the choice the the the choices that the applicants uh made, um, I I would find it unfair just like I wouldn't want to tell somebody else how to develop their land or how to do their backyard. I wouldn't want somebody to tell me uh provided I'm not, you know, doing something egregious. So, uh, with that, I would be in favor of denying the appeal. Okay. Anything else on this side, Commissioner Tully? Yeah, I just wanted to make clear that I don't think either the applicant or the appellent made made um apparent which is the appellant which is here before us with she had her arm raised. So that side of the house is seemingly an unusable side of the house. Correct me if I'm wrong. But the min side of the house is obviously usable. That's where the driveway that's the full access to the back yard. So I just for my fellow commissioners I just think that that's something to consider is that you know the appellance sideyard is essentially a setback a 5ft setback maybe 5 foot of unusable space. Um she said she pulled out some flowers. I don't know what flowers could could survive there, but we do have a tree there. Um, which she also stated is for privacy that provides her privacy, which is ironic. Um, but anyway, that's that's

just what something I just wanted to just comments bring to light. Okay. And going to this side, Commissioner Khan. Um, I think the mimics uh request for a hedge along that side of 8t high is reasonable. I think it's attractive and it's kind of wispy and I don't really have a problem with it. Um, so I intend to support the denial of the appeal. Commissioner Flores, do you have any comment? I really have no further comment other than uh agreeing with my other fellow commissioners that I believe the rules are being followed and Okay. Thank you. So, I'll make my comment and I have to just start by I mean this is the place where we try to figure out how we all live together, right? And how we enforce our rules and how we deal with exceptions to those rules. And so it's kind of our public square to debate these things. That said, I feel like this one has been handled adequately by the planning commission staff and that the uh that the granting of the the 8-oot hedge was was reasonable. In fact, uh I I kind of have to wonder why we're here. I mean, I know you have the right to appeal, but um I am unpersuaded by the arguments of the appellant and I am completely persuaded by the arguments of the applicant and when I and I'm a civil engineer and I've done worked on lots of houses. I've had several houses. I've built fences and the arguments about the the the the lighting and uh the shading and the harm. I mean, and um, Ms. Brandom, in in showing the taped piece that you had on the window, you seem to be arguing for a higher hedge because

you were pointing out that, well, at 8 ft, it's not going to be enough uh, to ensure privacy for the backyard. And so, I don't know if it's within our power, but I think that you should be able to have a 9- foot hedge there. And so, if if that if I could tack that on, I would. Uh, I don't know if that's allowed or not. So, I don't want to cause a neighborhood war here or anything. It looks like I we we all got to walk out of this room and somehow be happy and get along. The the trend here clearly is to deny the appeal. And I think that's what's likely to happen. We'll have a vote here in just a moment when we have a motion. But those are my thoughts about that. My other I have a few other thoughts, too. Privacy glass, which you have on the lower half of your double hel window, that's a really nice solution. the uh observations about that kind of dead space in the in the setback. That's something that I have noticed in neighborhoods and that's why I think zero setback actually makes makes a nice uh way to go, but we're not talking about that today. Um also, you make comments about they don't pull their shades and so on. That's not up to us to decide when and how they decide to pull their shades. It's really not our problem. And then there's uh the matter of direct versus indirect light. And this is something I've been uh involved in lighting designs and and daylighting designs and indirect light that's filtered through a hedge is actually quite pleasant. And whereas direct light especially on the west side and you you mentioned something about energy uh efficiency that happens to be my my profession that all you're going to get there you're not going to get substantial solar gain that's going to reduce your heating loads uh on that side on that west side. what you might get is extra sun that's going to cause you to need air conditioning if anything. So, I'm unpersuaded by any of that and I'm prepared to entertain a motion to uh entertain a motion from the commission for whatever it might be. I'll make a motion to um uphold the director's decision and deny this

appeal. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I had one question I was trying to ask first. I forgot to. The appalent um appalent asked how the height limit would be enforced and I thought that was a good question. Is that code compliance because I have pitis forms in my yard. I've lived there over 40 years. They are way taller than 99 feet and I just had them lowered. But um that's a code enforcement issue, right? Yes. Um most likely the city would not be um actively monitoring the situation and the first uh order of uh would be agreement between the neighbors to keep a reasonable height. If it egregiously appears to exceed the height and there's a complaint then code enforcement would pursue that that complaint. Thank you. Sorry. I know that we have a motion and you're waiting. Oh, we do have a uh did you second or no? I will second the motion. You will second. We have a motion and a second to deny the appeal. And uh Commissioner, I just I wanted to note something because I was reminded by your comments. Um I just wanted to know for the record that we did receive a number of uh communications about this item mostly I would say and enthusiastic support including you had mentioned a double fence earlier uh during the deliberation and I think it's the neighbor to the west on the other side of the applicant's house. uh one of their letters mentioned they're removing their own fence in favor of just the one fence. Um and so anyway, I just wanted to note that there was a lot of uh there were several letters of support as well that were received. Yeah, thank you for noting that. Uh I noticed those all. We read all the correspondence that comes in to us. So, okay. So, uh any other comments? We have a motion and a second. Uh discussion before we take a vote. Okay. Um hearing none, let's have a roll

call vote. City clerk, vice chair to and this is for the motion to deny the appeal. Yes. Commissioner Flores, yes. Commissioner Khan, yes. Commissioner Munoz Morris, yes. Chair Hton, yes. Okay, that motion passes and we are moving on. The next item before us is the review the proposed project located at 3450 Broad Street. So on this one, I will again ask that of the commissioner disclose any exparte communications that you may have had regarding this u item. Commissioner Flores, I drove by and walked the site and did not speak to anyone. Okay. None. Okay. I also did the same. Okay. Anyone? Okay. And I don't think that uh going to the site and viewing the site has to be disclosed even really. I mean, we've been doing that just to kind of say that we did. I know. Okay. All right. So, it's neither uh prohibited nor required. Okay. So, would associate planner Hannah Han please provide the staff report on this item? Um, good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Hannah Han and I'll be presenting on the last hearing item for tonight. The review is for a new um school and daycare campus at 3450 Broad Street for Slow Classical Academy. for this project. Uh staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the draft resolution to approve the project uh which consists of four accompanying

applications. A moderate development review, a PD amendment, uh a conditional use permit and a tree removal application along with exceptions related to the creek setback and open space easement. The project site is located at 3450 Broad Street and is a developed property with an office building and various supporting site improvements um that is now referred to as the Acacia Creek Business Park. The property is located in the CS zone with uh special considerations and PD overlays. Special considerations still applicable to the site include its location along uh highway 22 uh uh 227 uh which is Broad Street and concerns related to um circulations along with um a portion of Acroia Creek uh running through the site. And lastly, the PD overlay was specifically approved to allow a large office use for this project. Uh Sloka is requesting to establish a um elementary school and daycare which would include infant care through 8th grade. This new campus is intended to consolidate their current operations at three separate locations in the city, which include um a K through 8th grade school on uh Grand Street at Grand Avenue, uh a daycare at the Grand and Slack intersection, and staff offices on Santa Barbara to accommodate uh the new uses. Uh various building, site, and sign improvements are also proposed. and the project includes four accompanying applications to cover the overall project scope. Uh the moderate development review and PD amendment applications would allow for both the changes in use and property. Since the PD overlay is specific to allowing the large office use, an amendment um is required to

change the use of the property to the proposed school and daycare. Um, in terms of the building improvements, there is an approximate uh 4,300 foot addition that would be interior to the building footprint. Uh, that is uh specifically a second story for the um library mezzanine and also uh offices. Uh there would also be tenant improvements to create the various uh classrooms, offices, uh gym and uh other supporting spaces. And lastly, there would be a facade refresh of the exterior of that building with new colors and finishes. In terms of the site improvements, um the outdoor uh there would be a new outdoor field and activity area where the north parking lot is currently located and uh the south parking lot would be redesigned to provide new access and circulation improvements. And overall there would be uh landscaping upgrades throughout the site. And in terms of uh sign improvements, a new sign program would be established um for SLO as the new tenant. Uh as part of these overall improvements to the property, uh the applicant is also requesting for a creek setback exception to allow for mechanical equipment to encroach into certain portions of the creek setback and also to provide fencing in the open space easement. And as required for the C uh CS zone, uh a CUP is required to establish the school and daycare uses. The school would provide uh both full-time and hybrid programs. And so students u may may be able to attend class five days a week as a full-time student or u through a hybrid program. They would alternate between um inclass attendance and also um at home learning. And so that would

result in a staggered uh class schedule that would um result in a maximum of 37 uh72 students on campus at any one time. And lastly, a tree removal application is required to remove the 20 trees to accommodate their new outdoor field, various recreational areas and decks for um to uh decks that would serve as outdoor classroom areas. Uh to replace uh the 20 tree removals, they are proposing uh 45 replacement trees um in the places where they would be removed. Um so in outdoor field along Sacramento and throughout the south parking uh south parking area and provided here is the proposed uh site plan and floor plan. Uh so starting at the top of the screen you'll see the new outdoor uh learning area which would replace the uh parking lot that's currently there. And inside the actual building, there would be uh tenant improvements to create the various spaces for the school and the daycare. And shown on uh both sides of the floor plan are the second story offices and the library. Um which results in the 43 uh00t addition that would again be internal to it um the existing building form. And shown here is a sheet from the landscaping plans uh that shows specific uh site improvements um specifically fencing. Uh one of the improvements is that the site would include uh fencing on the perimeter with a portion of it running along the bike path um within the uh open space eastman.

And here is um an enlarged version of that um site plan that shows it on a side of the building that would um have the mechanical equipment which is represented by the uh rectangular um sort of a rectangle with um with green circles inside. So here um towards the left of the screen is where the creek would be located and then you'll see a the 10-ft bike path which is represented by um sort of that white strip and the uh orange line would delineate where the um open space easement would end and fencing would be between the bike path um and the actual building. And also the green um the green line represents the quick setback. And so you'll see there that um mechanical equipment would encroach into the creek setback and uh certain minor portions which is a part of their uh one of their project requests. And shown here are the tree removal uh plans for the tree removal. So the trees that are represented with little um excess would be removed. And so they are primarily located um in the north parking lot area and along Sacramento. Uh of the 40 existing trees, 20 of them would be removed uh with the remaining 20 to be protected. And then shown here um are the 45 replacements which would um prim would go back primarily in the areas where they would be removed. So again, around the new outdoor field along Sacramento and then throughout the uh south parking lot. Um as part of staff's review, uh we did find it to be consistent with the general plan. Um as required for an

amendment to the large PD, um the large office PD, any changes in use must be consistent with the general plan. And since the uh since the project is located in the services and manufacturing land use designation, um it is intended for a wide range of services that would meet the needs of the city. And some listed appropriate uses include public and quasi public uses um such as the proposed school and daycare. Um and therefore the project would be consistent with the land use designation as well as um advance specific land use goals uh related to supporting uh education throughout the city. Uh the project was also evaluated for consistency with the community design guidelines and the ARC had found that those um improvements uh were consistent with those design guidelines uh as they were limited to uh limited changes to their overall building form and the facade refresh um included a muted uh color palette along with uh complimentary uh color materials. Um it also would introduce um new outdoor spaces um landscaping upgrades and additional trees to the property as well. Um in addition, it would establish an appropriate sign program uh for this tenant space uh throughout uh both the building and the site. In regards to the creek setback exception, um staff also finds that the exception would be supportable. Um as proposed, it would be uh minor encroachments at specific portions of the current creek setback and uh the equipment would be installed in areas where um where there has been a previous disturbance and therefore would not have value as riparian habitat. Um, it should also be noted that the

original site development included a quick setback exception to accommodate the bike path and also required an open space easement to ensure the protection of the pertinent creek habitat which is um on the north side of the bike path instead of um on the south side where the existing building and the site improvements are located. And so the new equipment would be located between the bike path and the building and would comply with the open space easement. And so um condition number 10 would also detail that the exception is limited to um this new uh mechanical equipment as well. Um in regards to the fencing request in the open space easement, uh the ARC had also uh reviewed and supported the open um open fencing requests um as required in the open space easement agreement. They found that um it would be appropriate for open space preservation as it would provide a separation and protection between the different uses. Um as part of the project approval, uh condition uh 11 would specifically detail uh this minimal exception and also the subsequent uh responsibilities of the applicant if the uh fencing were ever required to be removed or relocated for any future improvements by the city. Uh the tree reg uh the tree removals and comp compensatory plantings were also um reviewed by the tree committee and found to be consistent with the tree regulations. They supported the changes as they would be relatively large replacements ranging from 20in to 60inch box replacements uh with the plantings in areas where trees uh would be removed

and result in more um larger and more visually prominent trees in maturity. um the specific plantings that would be um that would be uh planted in the open space easement were also reviewed for consistency with the agreements as well. Um and lastly uh last uh staff would also like to note that condition 18 also requires that the project provide the 45 uh tree replacements as proposed. In regards to the school and daycare use, they were also evaluated for consistency with their zoning regulations. Uh the project site is not located within a thousand feet of a cannabis retailer or a site with hazardous materials or conditions. Um would comply with the um airport line use plan and also the city's noise uh ordinance as well. Um, as part of this application, uh, the SLOA is looking to provide a reduced amount of, uh, recreational open space for grades 1 through eight. Um, as the site can can only, um, accommodate a 20,000 square foot outdoor field. Um, they are looking to provide separate areas for, uh, preschool and kindergarten children and, uh, with the remaining portion of it for grades one through eight. uh which would result in about 140 square feet of both indoor and outdoor recreational uh space per grades one through eight student. And lastly, uh the project was conditioned um as condition 15 and 16 to require a u pickup and drop off plan um as well as uh carpool matching services in coordination with the conditions of the um final transportation impact study recommendations.

[Music] uh to ensure that the project uh addresses um any concerns related to its location and the circulation of the site. A transportation impact study or TIS was conducted. Uh the evaluation was based on the sequent guidelines as well as uh local transportation policy and covered four main aspects. Uh the first being VMT uh second uh site and circulation safety. third uh parking demand and management and lastly off-site multimodal um transportation operations. Uh the findings uh support that the project would be exempt from squa and consistent with our local policy with recommendations to prepare the site uh for the school use. Uh the uh findings informed uh various project conditions, specifically conditions number uh 28 through 34, which would require that the applicant uh pay into um transportation impact fees programs for both the city and the county. Um construct various um off-site improvements such as a sidewalk along the property to the media itself. um as well as a passenger passenger loading area uh pedestrian crosswalk um upgrades and um uh signage and markings uh to indicate uh the school as well. In addition, there would be a variety of um school access and parking management uh strategies that would uh result in a revised um revised design of the south parking lot. And uh one of the main uh conditions is that the applicant would be would be implementing a monitoring program to ensure that all of these conditions are meeting their intended effectiveness.

And so the school would be uh monitored for the first year of occupancy to ensure that um all of these all of these um uh improvements are are um resulting in safe and uh safe behaviors. And if there is um any need to correct any concerns, uh there would be the opportunity to do so um as part of the the second year. And lastly, one of the uh conditions also mentions potential improvements to the Sacramento and Capoleio intersection um as needed. Um and I just wanted to pull a uh figure that is from the transportation study that would summarize the various improvements uh to prepare to prepare the site. And so starting from uh the left side, you'll see that there would be markings um on the street that indicate um the school crossing um green markings to um uh increased visibility of the bike lane. Um additional signage for um the crosswalk and um using to pedestrians. And then uh towards the right side of uh this image here where you see the vacant lot um additional sidewalk would be constructed um in that area. And then provided here is another image from the transportation study uh that shows you the various uh on-site improvements. So starting from the right side of the screen and moving left, you'll see that vehicles would be entering from the Sacramento side and coming into the property going at a westbound um orientation to leave. And so um I also wanted to note that in the blue area

um that would be where the new passenger loading would be uh located. So there could be loading that occurs on the street on Sacramento as well as um in the parking lot at specific areas um uh towards the middle of the site. And as part of the project review, uh staff finds that the project would be exempt uh from SQUA under section 15332 as it is consistent with the applicable policies in the general plan and zoning regulations, is on a site with um less than 5 acres in size, is surrounded by uh urban uses. um is not a habitat for a special set of species and would not result in significant effects related to traffic noise, air quality or water quality as condition and would continue to be served by all required utilities and public services. And so with that, um staff recommends that the planning commission adopt a draft resolution to approve the project. Um that concludes the and uh that concludes my presentation. And I also just wanted to mention that I am also joined by uh two staff members from the transportation division. So next to me is uh Justin Wong. He is one of our transportation planner engineers. And in the audience is Adam Fukushima, our active transportation manager for any questions. Thank you, Miss Han. Okay, questions of staff by the commission. Um yes, Commissioner Muros Morris. Sorry, I'm I'm active today. Next time I'm going to start on this side, so I'll just keep flip-floping, but go right ahead. Sorry. Did you have I'm happy to let you get there. Okay. Maybe it's just a quick one and I'm happy that you and your colleagu are here because my question was primarily

focused on vehicles. Um it seems like drop off is like 7:45 through 9:00 a.m. and then about 2:25 through 5:00 pm for pickup. I think with the staggered which is a a broad time and it's a lot of vehicles and I I saw that you at least you addressed that it's a it's kind of a one-way access right through Sacramento. So um because I was I had concerns about the the exit towards abroad as well. Um but I mean that's that's that's really I guess my I don't know that I have a a targeted question but just really like how actually I I do have a question actually. So again concerned with the with the volume of vehicles and then you mentioned that you know they could be revalued reevaluated a year down the road something like that once the school's up and running I think it becomes a lot harder to be like oh hey you know we made a mistake here we're going to make these changes so what what would that look like exactly if we say we move forward tonight a year down the road we've realized that hopefully not but let's say there's you know issues with uh volumes of vehicles or you know something like that What what what could we do I guess at that point? uh to address your questions about um post-operational concerns. If let's say for the first year um there are concerns regarding safety or perhaps there are um issues with where parents um end up coming in and dropping off their students. Perhaps they're not adhering to the strategies. Um uh staff would as a kind of first measure staff would work with the applicant uh let them know that we have a series of concerns based on the results and um based on the results of that um monitoring program for the first year and there would be a list of

recommendations uh to help correct that behavior. And so in year two uh it would be an opportunity for them to um address correct uh those issues. Um and if let's say there there is you know still subsequent um concerns that um are not addressed or cannot be addressed uh staff has the discretion to bring back um this approval for re-evaluation. Um so very similar to the fraternity re-reviews that you that you have been seeing. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. I I was just wondering I I think I'm not so much concerned as you know is my commute going to be impacted by a couple cars pulling out but the safety around right the vehicles coming in and out the speed of broad and it being so close. So um thank you for addressing that and then I'll open it up to others. Sorry, I I would like al I would also like to add that um we do have a we did look at queuing impacts, potential queuing impacts for the drop off hours and we do have a 300 ft uh drop off space on street as well as some uh street on Sacramento Street as well as some uh strategies to help facilitate an efficient drop off including like one way through the parking lot as well as some on-site drop off spaces within the lot and um yeah. Okay, thanks. Okay, I'm going to go to this side now. We'll flip-flop I commend the design team and the staff because you've addressed a lot of issues here. I think that's been very thorough. I have two concerns. One is the reduced recreational space. Um and you're including indoor recreational space. Fine. But the standard or the amount is 430 square ft and combined outdoor and

indoor for grades 1 through eight's only 140 square ft. That's a large significant difference. And even the kindergarten is 275. So maybe staff has some input into why such a large discrepancy would be acceptable. You could answer that question and I have one more. Yes. Um so the discrepancy is really um based on the site and so um in terms of outdoor spaces there are two main outdoor spaces that the school would be um you know could be revising which is uh the north end or the south uh parking lots. And so the south parking lot uh would provide the um 88 parking spaces and the project would uh be required to provide 85. And so it's a surplus of simply um just three spaces. So, um it's there's not a lot um that the applicant um can really provide in terms of recreational space. And um I do want to uh make note that the creeks um Acia Creek runs through a good bit of the site as well, which also takes away from the possibility of of having more land to utilize. Okay. My other concern was um bicycle spaces. There's 14 on the site and I believe it says it it meets what's expected. But is there a separate standard for public schools because I see a lot more bike parking at public schools and I guess this one would have less bicycle traffic because people are coming longer distances but 14 seem very few for the size of students and staff. I think I can address that. Uh Adam Fukushima, active transportation manager. Uh we don't have a standard for bicycle um parking for schools because we normally don't design schools. What we did was I worked with Luke Schwarz,

our transportation manager, and looked at the um FHWA guidelines. And u what we came up with was was the 14 that um that you see in the staff report based off of the um the enrollment numbers. What's HWA? You meant FHWA Federal Highway Administration. Sorry. Okay. Is that both of your or all of your questions for now? Okay. Commissioner Khan, Mr. Totally. Okay. So, we now have time. Well, I have a couple questions as usual. The mechanical equipment, I assume that's air conditioning type of condensers. So, there'll be fans and those boxes that sit there and hum. Okay. Yes. I also was concerned about pickup and drop off. uh and concern about the exit on to broad because that's a basically a freeway sometimes there and so if uh I know that's been looked at but um I was worried about that too but I I guess we'll hear more about that. We're we're not near any cannabis retailers with this project. Are we close enough to any of the cannabis zones particularly the one on Broad Street to even be a factor? I think the answer is no. Uh the retailers um there are two currently in the city. It's Megan's um Well, I'm aware of that, but I'm asking about the zone where cannabis is is allowed. In other words, would this school then prevent a cannabis uh retailer from going into the cannabis zone near the school because the school got there first? Oh, yes. Um so, for cannabis retailers, um the storefronts are allowed in uh two specific zones. It's the CR and the CS zone. Um and so um the one your the cannabis um overlay zone that you're referring to that's essentially next door to this project site is the manufacturing zone. So retailers wouldn't be allowed to be um in that zone anyways. I was thinking about the Broad Street one. The one that's over by Taste. Oh

that that that is a significant uh diff distance away. So it would be that's like quarter half mile or something. Yeah. Okay. That's kind of what I thought. Just wanted to make sure. And is there any has there been any thought about uh using Damon Garcia as recreation space because it's kind of across the street although it's a tough street to cross right there. You'd have to go down to uh where Sacramento crosses over by the credit union probably. Ryan I see the somebody's nodding out there. So maybe we'll hear about that in public in the applicant uh presentation. So but is is there anything to talk about there? Oh um yes. Um, so I believe I'll defer to the applicant team to speak more about it. Okay. But they do have um off-site programs where they do take the students to kind of a variety of different outdoor um outdoor spaces um for different activities. And so um that is a part of their um their usual program. Okay. But in terms of the recreational space, that's part of the uh CUP, we'd be looking at simply just the on-site availability. Okay. And then the bike path, is that existing? Yes. I've never I' thought I'd ridden every bike path around here. So, and Sacramento needs some help, too, because that's where we had that terrible accident. Uh was it a year or two ago? A couple people were walking on that corner and um high speed and a couple people died there. So, we're u I think anything that actually calms things down on Sacramento and maybe even on Broad, although that's a tall order, uh is going to be helpful. So, with that, uh, no more questions and we'll hear now from the applicant presentation. That's up to 10 minutes. So, do we have an applicant presentation? We do. Good evening, planning commissioners. I'm Tim Rhonda with SDG Architects representing the applicant, and I want to give you just a little bit of context to start out here. The St. Louis Abyispo Classical Academy, SLOCKA, is a private non sectarian school serving over 400

students from infant through high school. This project is proposed to accommodate infant through 8th grades as the high school students meet at another campus. Sloka has been serving families on the central coast for almost 20 years um at their current campus at the St. Louis Coastal Unified School District's Old Pac School site on the corner of Grand Avenue and Slack Street with preschool and infant care across the street at four houses owned by the Kalpali Corporation. Well, this has been quite a journey for SLOA and um they have been searching for a permanent school site for the past 12 years. It's very very difficult needle in a hay stack. Um and frankly, we have now run out of time as their current leases are set to expire at the end of the 202526 school year. Fortunately, Sloka came across this building at 3450 Broad Street that seemed to meet their challenging program requirements. And Slok is in the pro process of purchasing the building. Sloken needs to move into this new facility in just over a year. And to meet this tight timeline, we've already submitted construction drawings to the city for concurrent review and are currently working through the final plan check comments with the hope of obtaining a construction permit by the end of the month. So, um, some of the comments that have been mentioned, we would love to have more outdoor space, but in 12 years of looking, this facility gets us most of the way there, and we have to work with what we have. So, at this time, I'd like to have Brian Ridley, the project design architect, on our team, review the exterior building and site improvements with you. And we also have our landscape architect, Rob Madd with Bos Landscape Architects. He can answer questions about the outdoor play areas and landscaping. And also Susie Thu, the

SLOK ahead of school is available to answer any school operational questions. Thank you, Brian. All right. Good evening everybody. Thank you so much for taking the time to uh talk with us tonight and consider our project. I'm Brian Ridley, the design architect for the project and also a Sloka parent of 12 years. Um I'll just very quickly highlight a few of the elements of our design approach. Um so as we had to work with a large existing commercial facility where we're focusing our design efforts on incremental incremental excuse me and meaningful change uh changes. So the building exterior receives a fresh coat of paint in a crisp color scheme. Um there are some heavy angled awnings that will be swapped out for lighter horizontal shapes which let light deeper into the classrooms and shade patios for outdoor class areas. And uh substantially um into the question about outdoor space, the northern parking lot is being completely transformed into a vibrant and lush outdoor space for play and learning for the youngest to the oldest of the students. And so some of that differential in uh we'll say quantity of outdoor space I think is substantially um buffeted by the quality of that space. Um so the work that uh Robay's office um Bosski landscape architecture has put together I think is a a really striking use of the outdoor space. Very creative. um not just for play but for outdoor learning uh and socializing. So um I think that standard of uh quantitative space usually speaks more towards uh just kind of field area. Um we're pleased um our visit to the ARC that they unanimously made a recommendation uh of approval for our exterior design updates and the site design and also that the tree committee was complimentary to the project and the robust compensatory tree planting plan. Um, as I think you can see through the conditions, the project's been thoroughly uh conditioned to guide the project. Uh, we've gone through a very collaborative process with community

development led up by Hannah. Uh, thank you very much. And, um, the additional data collection and reporting that's in the conditions regarding uh, traffic patterns, drop off, pickup, etc. Um, you know, includes that opportunity. Um I believe it speaks to the time period between two months and six months as sort of the time for that um analysis to take place and provides an opportunity for improvements if they are needed. Uh certainly the school is prepared to alter pickup and drop off patterns to ensure quick access safety and egress. Um and we also have the school uh which is a little bit different. Uh we have a large dedicated safety team that helps manage that process. So, as um families are arriving, they're greeted um at their vehicles to help kids get out of the car and into the campus uh in a timely fashion. Um the site organization also was uh something we worked very closely on with the um TIS uh with the consultant and so we've taken all of their recommendations. they're represented in the conditions, but everything that they've recommended in terms of improving drop off and pickup um processes have been incorporated into the project. And so we're confident um in getting that to work well. Um as far as uh Damon Garcia, just to touch on that real quickly, um we have looked at that in the past as an opportunity um for using their fields, but um it's restricted to game use, not practices. um and the times historically just have not worked out with um how the school uh when the school needs them. Um so we have several other relationships um and we're always on the lookout for for additional ones in terms of places to do practices um and sports and certainly the fields that we're able to provide at the campus do offer some opportunities particularly for the younger kids um that they can practice uh on site for outdoor sports and then the gym itself provides great

opportunity for indoor court sports like volleyball and basketball. Um, so I think what I'd like to do certainly I don't know that we need to reserve time for any kind sort of rebuttal but I certainly want to uh reserve any time for questions um that you may have and any conversation that we can have. Um so we remain available to answer those and um thank you for your time and we certainly look forward to making the dream of a permanent home for SLOA a reality here. So, I don't know if anyone else from the project team wants to jump in, but you get your 10 minutes to present and then we can ask questions of you, which is not on your time. Perfect. So, that's how it works. Thank you. All right. That's it. That's it. Okay. Questions of the applicant from the commission. And this time, I'll I'll start with Mr. Khan. Okay. I think we already hit some of these talking to staff. Okay. Do we have public comment, city clerk? Yes, we have two public speakers, Ezra Marorrow and Stephanie Ridley. Okay, come on up and have your say. Good evening. I'm Ezra Maro. I reside in Royal Grande and I have twin daughters that just finished third grade at SLOA and they've been going there since uh uh the second half of preschool, so four and a half years. And we moved down here during COVID to be close to family and we feel extremely blessed to find SLOCKO. I mean, we love it. I'm a homeschooled dad, so my kids are in the hybrid program. They go to school Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. And I do homeschool Tuesday, Thursday, and then of course on the weekends. And uh it's a really wonderful school. Parents come from and people come from all around the county to come to slow and to SLOA. So, you know, it's I get over here all the time. Otherwise, I wouldn't come over here if it wasn't for the school, you know. But we really love the school. We

appreciate the school a lot. The staff is great. The parent, it's heavily parent involved. Uh the kids are awesome. I mean, it's it's a really wonderful school. And we're excited to have more space and a new space and opportunity for the kids to grow into and for the schools to grow into. And we feel really blessed to be a part of it. And we think it definitely blesses uh St. Bispo and the county for sure with the population of students that and parents that it brings to the area. So, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Marorrow. Okay, next. Hello, I'm Stephanie Ridley. Uh, my family is a Sloka family and I'm also a Sloka teacher. I grew up in Santa Maria, attended Kpali where I got my teaching credential and met my husband and um moved away to LA for a little while to teach down there. Um, we got married, we had a kid, and when we were deciding where we wanted to to raise our family, we said, "It's St. Louis. It's where we want to go back to. It's what feels like home to us." And so, we were able to do that about 18 years ago. Um, we made the move to SLOA about 12 years ago. We were looking for a hybrid experience so that we could slow down a little bit in the rush of life. Um, going to school every day was my daughter was having some like OCD tendencies and it was really too much for her as she was going. And we also wanted just to be able to soak in this education that seeps in the history and classical literature. Um our oldest was starting third grade, the middle one was in kinder and the baby was just about to be born. Um when we started our hybrid experience at Sloka, um they're now the oldest graduated Sloka High School and is just finished her sophomore year at Biola University. The middle one is a junior at Sloka High School and the youngest, the little one, but he's not as little anymore, um is actually coming into seventh grade and gets to me in my inschool classroom as well as our homeschool classroom um next year. So, we're both actually really looking forward to that. Um like other

families at SLOA, we're just a regular family with regular kids who knew that something outside of the traditional school system was really best for our family. We were not running away from anything. We loved the neighborhood school that we were at. um we were just looking for something different. We were moving to something different. Um and one thing that I love about SLOA is that our it's our dedication to financial aid and keeping tuition as low as is possibly sustainable for the school and then also our full-time program and all of those things make it possible for regular families to to attend this private school. Um it's important for the entire community of St. Louis Abyispo that the school is able to continue to grow and thrive. And as we mentioned, right, our we're we're losing our current location. We have to find another location. And in our 12 years of looking, this is the first truly possible place that we have found. Um, and SLOA allows for different modes of education and those are really important that we have those exist in our community. Um, different types of education let different students thrive and that's just an important thing that we keep open here on the central coast. Um we are fortunate to have had SLOA for nearly 20 years now and we're looking forward to having many more decades of it to come. Um we please see the value and the need for SLOA in this community and understand the financial limitations that the school naturally has as well as it expands and grows to serve even more of the community here in St. Louis Abyspo County. Thank you. You have six seconds left. want to keep our streak going here. Okay. All right. So, we have heard from the public. I will There is no more cards, right? So, I'll now close public comment on this matter. So, we now have time for discussion and moving towards a motion on this matter. Mr. Khan, I visited the site as I said earlier and

I'm I'm really excited about this uh facility there. I think it fits it well. Um, I think it's really neat that we're bringing in the school another option for the community. So, I'm pleased with it. But all my kids went to Los Ranchos and and the regular system, but this seems like a good one. Um, my one concern is is the traffic. Um, so you go through the off of Sacramento and you turn into the parking lot. You go through the parking lot, you do drop off or you do drop off on Sacramento. Um, and then if you take the parking lot, you have to turn right onto Broad Street. Um, so I did that today and there is a way you could cheat to go left if you didn't have much traffic, but I, you know, that was an illegal move, but I didn't do it. But I am concerned about traffic backing up. Um, I've been a public works director for many of the cities in the central coast and what we used to call the beginning of schools 23 minutes of chaos. Um, you know, everyone's seen it and uh, it's it's it's a mess. So, I don't have a solution. I read your traffic report. It seems comprehensive and um well written. I would just urge you to watch the students, see if there are problems, be adaptable, and you know, work with the police department or whoever else you need to work with. But certainly that would be my biggest concern about this project is is school drop off as my comments. Thank you, Miss Flores. I have nothing Mr. Yo, Morris. Sure. I'll keep my streak going as well and speak on everything, I guess. Okay. Um, I'll try to keep it brief. I just want to say that I'm glad to see that we have more choices for education, but also for daycare um for our community. Uh, as a parent of a soon to be Pacheco kindergarten student, um, I recognize how hard it is to get, uh, just daycare

in general, but also quality daycare. So, I'm I'm excited to see that and having been taking my daughter to a different private school that is also next to two prominent roads. Um, I know that it's doable. So, again, my my comments are more around just wanting to be very safe and mindful of the children and the staff. Um, and that just I'm sure it'll work out. So, um, yeah, I'm I'm optimistic for you guys. Looks Mr. Toy, do you have any comment? Oh, okay. I have a few comments. First of all, I'm in support of this. This looks great. It's a big project. I feel like the heavy lifting has been largely done by staff, by the planning, by the architects, the landscapers, and the transportation study and so on. Uh we're consistent with the general plan. We are going to amend the the PD overlay. That all seems good. We're compatible with the zoning. Treat committee said thumbs up. ARC said thumbs up. Um it's close to the new growth, which is something I want to point out. We've got Regetti happening and I I know people that live there that have kids and I'm a product of both private and public schools and I support the uh possibility of alternatives and it's uh so it just seems like a great situation. When I moved here 12 years ago, we were looking at schools and we decided the public schools were were were great for our kids, but we did actually look at Slow Classical Academy and and I'm I'm glad that those sorts of things are out there. So, uh, the resolution contains 49 conditions. It seems quite comprehensive in addressing, uh, I already said the pickup and drop off. I think that's probably a lot of our main concern here, right? I had one question about the Broad Street, um, special planning area or whatever that's called. So there's talk about a broad street going on a diet and for those of you who aren't transportation planners that means we somehow shrink the right of way for cars and have more rightway for

protected bikeway. Is that part of Broad Street contemplated to have anything resembling a diet? Uh I I think we've mostly been talking about orchid back down to South Street. So uh do we have any is are things gonna Yeah, come on up and I'll just keep talking till you get there. Uh what do what do you know about that? Yes. So there is a project called the south broad complete streets project uh that will look at uh contemplating um center medians and uh upgrades to um to bike lanes. No talk yet about a road diet yet just because the capacity is so high there. But looking at u ways to improve access across a broad street for pedestrians, possibility of another beacon or a signal along the way as well too. Would that maybe mean like a hawk signal right around in that mid block? Yeah. Yeah. The cars got the freeway speeds in there and it's pretty it's pretty um rough. So, okay. And with that, I will entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. Any discussion before we vote? City clerk, would you please call the role? Vice Chair Tully, yes. Commissioner Khan, yes. Commissioner Flores, yes. Commissioner Munos Morris, yes. Chair Hton, oh yes. Okay, that motion passes. Good work you guys. Okay. Okay, we are down near the end here. We are time to staff update and agenda forecast. So, Rachel Cohen, would you take us through that? Yes, I will. Chair Hton. So, we have um planning commission scheduled for the 25th of this month and we have two items. One is another re-review of a fraternity Oh, goody. at 720 Foothill

and the second item is a review of or revocation of a a PD overlay in the downtown. Revocation. Yes, revocation. That seems to be a active word around here lately. a little different in in the sense in that they just want to remove that PD overlay that's uh currently applied to several properties. Okay. Is this so we can complete the uptown uh project? Uh no, I don't think so. It's it's that was kind of a joke. Yeah. Sounds like a Bruno Mar song. The uptown project. No, we had this great presentation uh last time about the vision for that part of Okay. Now, all right. So, um thank you for that. Uh, look down the road and the next regular meeting of the planning commission is scheduled for June 25th at 6:00 p.m. in the council chambers at city hall, 990 Palm Street, St. Louis. Bispo, I'm going to get to use this hammer here. We are adjourned.