16 ATTACHMENT 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Amy Fluker spoke in support of this project. She believed that Mr. Pfund ran an excellent program and added that her young five-year-old Kindergartner daughter was a student at the academy. She noted that her daughter had gained confidence, focus, and integrity and was much less shy than when she began the program. She noted that her son was in a daycare, and she did not consider this program to be a daycare. She noted that the parking situation at Quarry Lane School was very congested and that he never had a problem finding parking at the applicant's site. Nancy Pfund spoke in support of this project and noted that she was the applicant's mother. She noted that she was a retired elementary and middle school teacher from the Livermore Unified School District and that her son made it a practice to do the right thing. She said her son has made up many new narratives over and over and has been up till the middle of the night creating narratives. She expressed pride in her son's endeavor to follow his dream and make a positive impact on the community; she added that he had a strong spirit and urged the Commission to approve this application. Jack Balch noted that he represented the building owner, Big Valley LP, and believed this use was a good fit for the building. He realized that the City must consider the parking only on the parcel rather than the street parking or adjacent parcels. He noted that the applicant was a tenant in good standing and had always paid his rent on time. He added that he had addressed all of his concerns and he was comfortable with the use. He did not believe there was a parking issue and noted that the applicant would be able to park in the spaces belonging to the other parcels which he also owned. He noted that the hours of operation for pickup occurred during low parking usage times for the other businesses. He noted that he always drove carefully in the area because of the children across the street at the school. He stated that the applicant did not have any outstanding Building Code issues to his knowledge and that the building was up to Code. He believed the applicant was trying to do the right thing as he understood the rules and that he personally found it difficult to make sense of all the City codes and regulations. He understood the City's concerns because of all of the numerous narratives, but believed Mr. Pfund had tried to work with staff as best he could and that staff had brought forward some excellent points. He indicated that he was not an attorney and that the Codes are difficult to understand; that is why there are three or four versions of Mr. Pfund's plan. He encouraged the Commission to approve this application. Mark Preisendorf spoke in support of this project and noted that he worked several units down from the subject site. He noted that by the time he left at five, he was the last car out; that was normally before Mr. Pfund arrived. He noted that the entire parking lot was open and that he was welcome to use their parking spaces. He did not know Mr. Pfund personally but believed that he was a good neighbor. Gerald E. Hodnefield noted that he owned the building next door to the subject site. He did not have any particular problems with the applicant or the use. He expressed concern about the overall parking situation at the site but noted that if most of the students came after hours, he did not anticipate a major problem except that some tenants work until 6:00 p.m. He said that martial arts, gymnastics, and dance studios cause parking problems and that there is already a parking problem next door. He indicated that these business plans change and these businesses EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 13, 2008 Page 12 of 19