In the aftermath of a community meeting at Sage Collegiate, School Director Sandra Kinne penned a letter to the community, summarizing the discussions. However, the letter was more of a highlight reel, conveniently omitting a few concerns that some community members, myself included, consider rather significant.
For those curious to read only Sandra Kinne’s version of the dialogue, the original letter is available on Sage’s website. In response to this selective disclosure, a group of community members gathered to collaborate to work out a thoughtful response, aiming to articulate the overlooked concerns and contribute to a more comprehensive conversation.
In response to School Director Sandra Kinne’s letter addressed to the Sage Collegiate community, dated November 20, 2023, a collective and comprehensive reply has been meticulously crafted by several concerned community members. The intention is to provide a point-by-point response to the issues, highlighted in Kinne’s original letter.
To distinguish between the official communication and the community’s collective voice, we have maintained a clear separation: Sandra Kinne’s original letter will be presented in white text, while our community’s responses will be in contrasting yellow. All links and images are part of the response from community members.
This response is not just a reaction; it is a thoughtful and organized effort to ensure that all perspectives and concerns are not only acknowledged but also addressed in an open and constructive manner. Join us as we navigate through the intricacies of the dialogue, seeking a shared understanding for the betterment of our school community.
The following communication begins the original letter and our response:
Dear Sage Collegiate community members,
We appreciate those of you who were able to attend our first Town Hall last week. We appreciate the questions, perspectives, and collaboration of those meetings. We had a dozen community members attend the two options, and we look forward to hosting these community town halls quarterly. Our next Community Meeting will take place Tuesday, January 23 at 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. For those that were unable to make this week’s meetings, we wanted to share some updates and answer some frequently asked questions.
Q: What are the current plans and their timeline?
A: The Special Use Permit for the Phase 2 Project received unanimous support from the City Council on October 18th. We anticipate breaking ground in summer 2024. The development of the Phase 2 Project is expected to be completed in fall 2025.
The construction traffic/noise will add yet another layer of challenges for the neighborhood. There has been no discussion of mitigants.
Q: There is already so much traffic on Bedford. An expansion of your school will only worsen it.
We have a campus that can keep all its arrival/dismissal traffic on the campus. With the car loop design of Phase 2, we have added more than 2000 linear feet to support cars on campus during arrival/dismissal. Our Traffic Engineer, with oversight from the City of Las Vegas Traffic Department, conducted a traffic study that was reviewed and approved by the traffic department. You can find those plans with the city. Traffic from our school does, other than from a small number of local residents, does not add to the traffic on Bedford. I encourage you to reach out to the team at Hyde Park Middle School to share concerns about vehicle traffic. Their school has 1600 students and more than 500 cars traversing the neighborhood each day, including on Bedford. We cannot manage other campuses’ traffic.
The discussion related to traffic was a much broader discussion and was not limited to Bedford. No one knows the impact to Bedford as this street was not included in the traffic analysis; although required pursuant to the Title 19 Development Standards.
It is disingenuous to state that an estimated 1,069 vehicles (604 AM, 465 PM) will have no impact. While we understand that every effort will be made to contain the drop-off/pick-up traffic flow within the site parameters; the vehicles must traverse the roadways/intersections to reach the site. We know that +/- 200 children currently enrolled have impacted the traffic within the area of the school, certainly adding another +/- 600 children will as well. Additionally, while there may be issues/concerns with traffic related to Hyde Park Middle School; they are not seeking to increase their student enrollment.
Further, we discussed the fact that the school’s reported current average attendance is +/- 87% therefore we are not seeing the full impact of traffic in the area related to Phase I.
The neighbors were advised that school buses have been approved however there is no date of implementation as of yet. The current queuing does not appear to address school bus activity and once again will be an increase in noise levels.
Several community members voiced concern related to the queuing lanes around the buildings as it relates to the merging to a single lane west of the Phase I building and whether there would be sufficient space to accommodate merging vehicles and the plans do not appear to be consistent with the points of merging.
With the elimination of the existing driveway on Charleston Boulevard, the projected additional 1,069 trips per day will wholly impact the expected vehicle traffic on Hinson Street. The impact of Phase 2 would be +/- 63% traffic increase on a street utilized as egress for Las Vegas Fire and Rescue (Station 5). This increase in traffic coupled with the Hyde Park Middle School northeast of Station 5 would unavoidably create negative impacts to emergency operations. However, there does not appear to be any discussion of emergency services impact or input from Las Vegas Fire and Rescue. Nor was there any inclusion of emergency vehicles data within the traffic study data. This item could have a direct and meaningful impact to the neighborhood as it could be a life or death situation if emergency services are delayed due to traffic.
In addition, concerns were voiced related to the shared fire access lane currently shown on the plans as emergency vehicles would not be able to reach the Phase 2 building during pick-up/drop-off times. We were advised that a fire lane is being incorporated into the plans; however, this has not been approved by the City and it is unclear if this area would meet the requirements. https://fire.co.clark.nv.us/files/pdfs/105%207%2011%20underground%20mains%20fire%20hydrants%20and%20fire%20access.pdf
Q. I see kids cross Charleston all the time. There are kids always at Green Valley gas station. What are you doing about student safety?
A: I share those concerns. We’re all aware of the recent loss of a Kindergartener at a school last month due to traffic matters. It is awful. We absolutely share student safety concerns. We do not allow students to leave our building without an adult. Our students are not released ‘into the wild’ unsupervised to roam the neighborhood or wreak havoc. All students must be released to an adult, and that will continue to be our policy even with our middle school students. I stop at Green Valley gas station every so often and always make sure to ask the team there if they have had any concerns or issues with our students or families. They’ve yet to report any concerns, for which I am grateful. In our Phase 2, we also have plans to install a fence around our campus. This will provide additional safety measures for our students.
Again, a much broader discussion was had and was focused on the lack of school zones/crossing adjacent to the project site. There are no school zones established related to Sage which seems to be a danger as well as not compliant with Nevada Laws.
School Zones are considered the frontage of school that have access to the adjacent street that is not fenced or blocked off. School Crossing Zones are locations away from the school frontage where school aged pedestrians need to cross the street at non-controlled locations. State Law establishes School Zones at 15 miles per hour and School Crossing Zones at 25 miles per hour.
While we understand that safety protocols are in place for the children, mistakes happen as was the case this month when a 6-year-old walked away from school. There is no perfect plan and with the school being situated directly on Charleston Boulevard; a mistake could be catastrophic. https://www.ktnv.com/news/6-year-old-walked-more-than-a-mile-on-busy-street-after-being-released-from-ccsd-school
While everyone is aware of the recent death of a child at the Somerset Academy’s Losee campus; many are not aware of multitude of incidents of children injured and fatalities that are occurring within a quarter-mile of school campuses as the study completed by the Review Journal showed in October 2022. To suggest that children in the proximity of Charleston Boulevard with an average daily traffic count of +/- 35,000 vehicles with no school zone safety equipment is safe for children is simply irresponsible. https://www.reviewjournal.com/investigations/unreliable-pedestrian-crash-tracking-near-schools-leaves-parents-officials-in-the-dark-2652525
We were advised that fencing of the school property has not been finalized; seeking grants. Fencing does not appear to be incorporated into the Phase 2 plans, nor a requirement of the City although identified as a need in December 2022.
Q: I didn’t hear about any of this from the city. This all happened so quickly. I didn’t have a say.
A: I understand that concern. The city was responsible for sharing information about proposals and hearings. We’ve had a sign in front of our property since July; the meeting was originally scheduled then. The city also sent mailers to the owners of the homes within our school community. Please reach out to the city for those concerns.
The meeting was originally scheduled for July and had to be postponed as the public notices were not mailed to the community. As stated above, the signage notified the community of a meeting that never occurred. Note, many community members again stated they have received no notice(s) related to this project at any point in the process.
While it is correct in that this was a responsibility of the City, it should be noted that the initial Charter School application was denied in part due to “the applicant has provided little evidence of engagement with or support from the proposed local community”. It appears that minimal efforts were made and were focused on those known to support the project. While little to no effort was made with the immediate neighborhood or community members.
Q: I have concerns about the safety and supervision of students, especially in the morning.
A: Students are always supervised; and safety is our primary concern, too. I have spoken with our before/after care partner and will continue to collaborate with them to ensure students are not scaling the wall or tree to peer into yards and will continue to remind scholars about safe behavior in the yard.
Please see response to next item which incorporates comments.
Q: I continue to have things thrown over the wall and into my yard. Who do I talk to?
A: I apologize for this. Until a month ago, I was not aware this was happening. I have had – and will continue to address it- conversations with students and staff. I am working with our facility partners to determine the feasibility of netting to help mitigate the balls and items that go over the wall. If this continues to be a problem, please reach out to me (skinne@sagecollegiate.org). Please note that upon completion of Phase 2, playground areas will be re-aligned.
The items being thrown over the wall is a nuisance, the noise levels during play time and before/after school can be heard inside the homes of the adjoining neighbors. Children climbing hanging trees and walls is of course a safety hazard. Who will be held responsible if a child were to fall into a neighbor’s yard? We discussed the need for additional supervision of the children.
Numerous neighbors have tried to contact the school by phone and were not able to reach anyone.
Sage provided a rendering of adding vinyl fencing atop the existing CMU wall stating that this was an option for privacy with no anticipated impact on noise levels. Sage did note that this idea has not been approved by the City. Aesthetically the vinyl fencing would not be acceptable to the neighbors.
While we understand that the playground area directly adjacent to the neighbors will be relocated during Phase 2, the existing play area (1) will remain and an additional play (2) area will be added. Both play areas appear to be +/- 50’ from the adjoining neighbors. The current noise will simply be moved north impacting additional neighbors and the existing play area will be replaced with 2 lanes of slow-moving vehicle traffic.
Las Vegas, Nevada – Code of Ordinances Title 9 – HEALTH AND SAFETY 9.16.030.C – Enumeration of prohibited noises.
“Yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling or singing on the public streets, particularly betweenthe hours of eleven p.m. and seven a.m., or at any time or place in such a manner or at such a volume as to annoy or disturb the quiet, comfort or repose of any person in any hospital, dwelling, hotel or any other type of residence or of any person in the vicinity.”
Additional Items discussed not contained within the response:
Noise Assessment: Neighbors asked for a metered noise assessment to determine the impact to adjacenthomes. There is no way to establish a baseline for the noise levels in the absence of an analysis. TheFederally established acceptable noise levels are 45db (interior) and 65db (exterior). As discussed handheld meters have been utilized by the neighbors which have exceeded the acceptable levels of noise for residential uses.
Dumpsters: Neighbors were advised that the dumpsters will not be relocated until Phase 2. Neighborsasked if the dumpsters could be relocated to the southeast corner of the site; however, were advised thatthe school could not have a dumpster in their front yard. While we understand the aesthetics concerns, it should not be at the cost of the neighbors for +/- 2 years until Phase 2 is completed. Further, the current location of the dumpsters do not meet the minimum standards:
“Garbage storage areas for properties subject to the standards of this Subchapter shall be screened andodor controlled, and trash pick up shall be scheduled to minimize any impact on protected properties. In addition, trash receptacles shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from any property line of a protected property.”
Proximity Slope: The neighbors voiced concern again that the Phase 2 building does not appear to meet the minimum proximity requirement distance from their properties.
NEPA Studies: The neighbors asked about the absence of NEPA reports as the facility receives Federal Funding; creating a Federal nexus.
The project area is within Ozone Non-Attainment and PM10 (Particulate Matter) Maintenance areas as it relates to air quality; suggesting poor air quality before adding additional vehicles and construction traffic. Further, noise is considered a health consideration as it relates to NEPA.
The purpose of the NEPA review is to ensure environmental standards are met. The neighbors were advised that it was not required by the City.