HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2013-02-12 #2CITY OF
Meeting Date:
Agenda Item:
January 29, 2013
2—
Community Development Department- Planning Division Case Numbers: AP 12-007
P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184 Project Planner: Caron Parker (415) 485-4094
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 23 Baypoint Drive: Appeal of Zoning Administrator approval (November 14, 2012) of
Use Permit (UPI2-022)allowing the operation of a licensed large family day care (9-14
children maximum) in a two-story single family townhome; APN: 009-362-20; Planned
Development (PD1562) Zoning District; Heather Ludloff, owner; Leticia Arvizu, applicant;
Victoria Pollick, appellant; File No.: AP12-007.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project proposes to operate a large family day care (Ramirez Family Childcare) in the two-story
single family home at 23 Baypoint Drive (see Exhibit 1: Project Vicinity Map). Proposed hours of
operation are Monday through Friday, 6:00 am — 6:00 pm. The first drop off is proposed to be no earlier
than 6:30 am. Clients would utilize on -street parking only for drop-off. No use of the cul-de-sac parking
spaces is proposed. As of the printing of this staff report, the daycare currently has a total of 13 children.
Please note that no Use Permit is required to operate a daycare with 8 children or less.
This matter was reviewed by the Zoning Administrator (ZA) on two occasions, October 24, 2012 and
November 14, 2012. At the first hearing, the application was presented, public comments were accepted
and the Zoning Administrator continued to allow neighbors an opportunity to tour the day care. The
issues raised by neighbors during the public hearing included concerns about parking, traffic safety, and
noise, and incompatibility of the proposed use in a single family attached home.
On November 14„ 2012, the ZA conducted the continued public hearing, concluding that the proposed
use satisfied the requirements for approval pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.17.040
(Performance Standard; Family Day Care Home, Large), which allows day care for between 9-14
children to locate in residential neighborhoods. The ZA determined that the potential noise impacts and
activities associated with the large family day care in this specific project location do not rise to a level
that is incompatible with existing residential uses and activities that can be expected in a residential area.
As such, the ZA determined the proposed project would not be materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity (see Exhibit 3: Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes).
On November 21, 2012, Victoria Pollick (resident at 27 Baypoint Drive) filed a timely appeal (see Exhibit
5) of the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of the project, citing concerns about noise,
questioning the applicant's ability to adhere to use permit conditions of approval, and questioning
whether the operation has approval of the City of San Rafael Fire Department. The City has a long
standing policy to encourage family home day care facilities as a means to provide much needed day
care. In recognition of this, the City has specific Performance Standards in the Zoning Ordinance (see
Exhibit 4) for which family day care uses are to be evaluated. These performance standards were
developed based on typical issues that arise from home day care facilities. This project was reviewed by
against those standards and determined to be in compliance. Other than comments received as a result
of the public hearing notices, no Code Enforcement complaints have been filed for the Ramirez Childcare
facility since it began operation at 23 Bay point Drive in July 2012.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: AP12-007
RECOMMENDATION
Page 2
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Draft Resolution (Exhibit 2) denying
the appeal (AP12-007) and upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of Use Permit UP12-022
allowing the operation of a large family day care (9-14 children maximum) at the single family townhome
at 23 Baypoint Drive.
PROPERTYFACTS
Address/Location:
23 Baypoint Drive
Parcel Number:
009-362-20
Property Size:
Approx. 6,600 sq. ft.
Neighborhood:
Baypoint Lagoon
Site Description/Setting:
The subject property is one of 6 single family townhomes located in a cul-de-sac on the north side of
Baypoint Drive. The residence has a two -car garage and access to 4 guest parking spaces located on
the east side of the cul-de-sac. The residence at 23 Baypoint shares a common wall with the adjacent
single family townhome at 27 Baypoint Drive. The immediate surrounding neighborhood is developed
with single family homes and is within walking distance to Pickleweed Park on Canal Street.
BACKGROUND
July 9, 2012: Maria Ramirez, operator of Ramirez Day Care, and her daughter, Leticia Arvizu (acting as
the project applicant) submitted a Use Permit application (UP12-022) to operate a large family day care
for 9-14 children at 23 Baypoint Drive. The applicant has operated the Ramirez Family Childcare since
1994 in another residential location, and re -located to the property at 23 Baypoint Drive in June 2102.
The daycare began operations in July 2012, after passing the required Fire Inspection.
October 24, 2012: The Zoning Administrator (ZA) held a public hearing on the proposed project.
Present at the hearing was Maria Ramirez and Leticia Arvizu. Staff present was Caron Parker,
Associate Planner and Acting Zoning Administrator. Members of the public included 6 residents from the
neighborhood (Tommie Weldon, Karen Thomas, Rita Lakin, Starr Taber, Gloria Gasperor, and Grant
Miller). The applicant described the proposed day care use and specific daily operations, stating that she
is currently caring for 9 children, and that the number/ages of the children fluctuates based on school
schedules and parent work schedules.
Site Characteristics
General Plan Designation I
-Zoning Designation
Existing Land -Use
Project Site:
MDR: Medium Density
Residential
Planned Development
(PD 1562)
Single -Family
Residential
North:
MDR
PD 1562
SFR
South:
MDR
PD 1562
SFR
East:
MDR
PD 1562
SFR
West:
MDR
PD 1562
SFR
Site Description/Setting:
The subject property is one of 6 single family townhomes located in a cul-de-sac on the north side of
Baypoint Drive. The residence has a two -car garage and access to 4 guest parking spaces located on
the east side of the cul-de-sac. The residence at 23 Baypoint shares a common wall with the adjacent
single family townhome at 27 Baypoint Drive. The immediate surrounding neighborhood is developed
with single family homes and is within walking distance to Pickleweed Park on Canal Street.
BACKGROUND
July 9, 2012: Maria Ramirez, operator of Ramirez Day Care, and her daughter, Leticia Arvizu (acting as
the project applicant) submitted a Use Permit application (UP12-022) to operate a large family day care
for 9-14 children at 23 Baypoint Drive. The applicant has operated the Ramirez Family Childcare since
1994 in another residential location, and re -located to the property at 23 Baypoint Drive in June 2102.
The daycare began operations in July 2012, after passing the required Fire Inspection.
October 24, 2012: The Zoning Administrator (ZA) held a public hearing on the proposed project.
Present at the hearing was Maria Ramirez and Leticia Arvizu. Staff present was Caron Parker,
Associate Planner and Acting Zoning Administrator. Members of the public included 6 residents from the
neighborhood (Tommie Weldon, Karen Thomas, Rita Lakin, Starr Taber, Gloria Gasperor, and Grant
Miller). The applicant described the proposed day care use and specific daily operations, stating that she
is currently caring for 9 children, and that the number/ages of the children fluctuates based on school
schedules and parent work schedules.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: AP12-007 Page 3
The ZA indicated that staff had received 7 letters of opposition expressing concern about the impact of
having 9-14 children at the 23 Baypoint Drive residence. No letters of support were received. The
neighborhood HOA (Baypoint Lagoon Association) did not submit comments on the proposed project.
The ZA opened the hearing to public comment. The main concerns expressed were related to potential
parking problems, traffic safety for loading and unloading children, impact of noise on adjacent residents
due to small yards and a shared common wall between 23 Baypoint Drive and 27 Baypoint Drive. There
were also concerns about general traffic safety on Baypoint Drive such as speeding, blind curves, and
the use of the guest spaces in the cul-de-sac for client parking. The applicant indicated that they would
direct clients to park on the street, and they have advised all clients in writing (English and Spanish) that
no parking is allowed in the cul-de-sac guest spaces. A copy of this document is available in the
planning case file. The applicant offered to lead tours of the facility and encouraged neighbors to call the
daycare to report any problems with parking and/or noise.
The ZA indicated that while the City understood concerns about potential problems, the proposed day
care facility meets all performance standards identified in Zoning Ordinance Section 14.17.040. The ZA
stated that the City's Public Works Department had reviewed the proposed project, accepting the
proposed passenger loading plan (pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.17.040.C.5), and did not
identify any traffic hazards posed by the proposed day care business. Traffic safety along Baypoint Drive
identified by residents was not subject to consideration as part of the Use Permit review process since it
is an issue occurring on a public street and not directly relating to the proposed day care use. Clients
using the Ramirez Family Day Care would use the same caution when parking and exiting their vehicles
as the existing residents on Baypoint Drive and in the cul-de-sac. The ZA advised all concerned
residents to submit their concerns about the traffic concerns along Baypoint Drive to the City's Traffic
Coordinating Committee (TCC) for formal consideration and review. The ZA indicated that restrictions on
parking in the cul-de-sac would be added as a condition of project approval.
In order to allow neighbors an opportunity to visit the daycare and talk with the operator, the ZA did not
take action on the project and continued the project to a date certain, November 14, 2012 at 10:00 am.
November 14, 2012: The Zoning Administrator held the second hearing on the proposed project.
Present at the hearing was the project applicant, Leticia Arvizu and Maria Ramirez. Members of the
public included Tommie Weldon and Rita Lakin. The residents in attendance did not report any
complaints about noise from the daycare since the October 24, 2012 ZA hearing. Neighbors did not
present information on the outcome of the TCC meeting. The ZA indicated that 2 additional letters of
opposition were received (total of 9). The letters reiterated concerns about the proposed day care not
being suitable for the area due to noise to adjacent properties and traffic safety. Both Rita Lakin and
Tommie Weldon reiterated their concerns about noise and that a cul-de-sac with townhomes was not an
appropriate location for a large family day care with potentially 14 children. They both indicated that the
space is better suited for 8 children. In addition, both Lakin and Weldon raised concerns again about
traffic safety and the blind turn near the cul-de-sac driveway. The applicant reiterated their agreement to
direct clients to use on -street parking for drop-off and pick-up instead of the guest spaces. The ZA
closed the public hearing and conditionally approved Use Permit UP12-022 (see Exhibit 3).
November. 21, 2012: Victoria Pollick (resident at 27 Baypoint Drive) filed a timely appeal of the Zoning
Administrator's conditional approval of the project, citing: 1) noise issues were not fully addressed; 2)
noise and vibration are a problem because 23 Baypoint Drive and 27 Baypoint Drive share a common
wall; 3) questions the applicant's ability to adhere to use permit conditions of approval because the
current childcare is already operating with 9 children, which exceeds the limit allowed without an
approved use permit; and 4) whether the operation has approval of the City of San Rafael Fire
Department.
With respect to the traffic safety issued raised by residents, the TCC reviewed the concerns expressed
by neighbors at the TCC meeting on November 6, 2012 and recommended the following: "to keep
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: AP12-007 Page 4
vehicles on the right side of the roadway, the committee recommends installation of approximately 150
feet of a double yellow center line stripe along the curve section of Baypoint Drive." This
recommendation is independent of the proposed project and would not be included as part of the Use
Permit conditions of approval. The issue of traffic safety was not included as a point of appeal.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes to operate a large family day care (Ramirez Family Childcare) with up to 14
children maximum in the 1,900 square foot single family townhome at 23 Baypoint Drive. The side and
rear yard of the property is fenced. The in-home daycare provides service for both pre-school and
school-age children. Business hours proposed are from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm. Childcare would be offered
from 6:30 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday. The daily schedule includes both indoor and outdoor
activities. Outdoor activities are scheduled twice a day, between 11:00 am to noon and again between
1:30 pm to 2:30 pm. The outdoor play area is located in the area of the property fronting along Baypoint
Drive, not along the side yard or rear yard space of the adjacent property at 19 Baypoint Drive.
Employees include Maria Ramirez and one assistant. The number of children at the day care can
fluctuate throughout the day, based on client need and ages of the children enrolled. There are no
proposed additions to the existing building footprint and no significant interior modifications. Mrs.
Ramirez has been licensed by the State of California to operate a day care facility since 1994 (License #
214005252), and has operated at 23 Baypoint Drive since July 2012. The current State License allows
up to 14 children with the following age breakdown: 4 (infants), 2 (school age) and 8 (2-5 year olds).
ANALYSIS
San Rafael General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The proposed large family day care use, as conditioned, is in accordance with the applicable policies of
the City of San Rafael General Plan 2020, including Land Use Element Policies LU -14 (Land Use
Compatibility), LU -19 (Childcare) and LU -23 (Land Use Map and Categories) and Neighborhoods
Element Policies NH -49 (Conflicting Uses) and NH -66 (Childcare). Specific language for each
general plan policy is listed below:
➢ LU -14 (Land Use Compatibility): Design new development in mixed residential and
commercial areas to minimize potential nuisance effects and to enhance their surroundings.
➢ LU -19 (Childcare): Plan for and encourage the development of new and the retention of existing
childcare centers to meet neighborhood and citywide childcare needs. In conjunction with the
school districts, encourage continuation of childcare programs at school sites because of their
suitability for such uses and convenient locations in residential neighborhoods.
➢ LU -23 (Land Use Map and Categories) Residential, open space/conservation, parks/
playgrounds, schools, churches, plant nurseries, group day care and large day care facilities. In
medium and high density neighborhoods, hotels/motels, clubs and similar uses may be allowed.
➢ NH -49 (Conflicting Uses): Businesses locating adjacent to residential areas shall be designed to
minimize nuisance impacts.
➢ NH -66 (Childcare) Provide more affordable, quality, childcare facilities that support the
community.
Child care facilities, especially in the home setting, are encouraged in order to meet day care needs and
provide affordable opportunities for child care (LU -19 and NH -66). Large family day care facilities are
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: AP12-007 Page 5
allowed in the residential land use designations (LU -23), and specifically listed in General Plan Exhibit 11
as a possible land use, subject to the performance standards. Performance standards have been
developed in the Zoning Ordinance to minimize potential nuisance effect of home day care facilities in
order that proposed large day care facilities are able to be consistent with Policies LU -14 and NH -49.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Chapter 4 - Residential District
The project site is zoned Planned Development (PD1562). The site is part of a subdivision approved in
1989 for 207 single-family dwellings and 40 multi -family below market rate units. There are no conditions
of approval in the PD precluding the operation of a large family daycare in the single family units. In fact,
pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.04.040, day care (for between 9-14 children) is allowed all
residential zoning districts, including Planned Development districts, subject to Zoning Administrator
approval of a Use Permit. In addition, the proposed project would be subject to the Performance
Standards stipulated in Zoning Ordinance Section 14.167.040 (See Exhibit 4).
Chapter 14.17 — Performance Standards
The Zoning Ordinance includes performance standards that provide criteria for issuing administrative use
permits and certain other use permits for more routine uses. The Performance Standards for large family
day cares are contained in 14.17.040 (Exhibit 4). The performance standards are intended to explicitly
describe the required location, configuration, design, amenities and operation of specified uses. The
performance standards also mitigate potential adverse impacts on the neighborhood and maintain
harmonious uses in the area. The performance standards are consistent with the goals and policies of
the General Plan.
As stated in 14.17.040.A, the purpose of the performance standards for "family day care home, large" is
to "allow large family day care homes for children to locate in residential neighborhoods. Large family day
care homes for children give children a home environment conducive to safe and healthy development.
The standards regulate potential traffic and noise impacts related to the operation of large family day
care homes to ensure that these uses do not adversely impact the adjacent neighborhood." Section
14.17.040. B states that "performance standards for large family day care homes apply in all residential
zoning districts and other districts which permit residential uses. Compliance with performance standards
shall be reviewed through the administrative use permit process." The standards are contained in
14.17.040.C, and listed in Table 1 below:
Table 1: Performance Standards — Family Day Care Home, Large
Standard
Analysis
1. Fences and Walls. For purposes of noise
The proposed large family day care is located
abatement, a six foot (6) high solid fence shall be
in an existing single family home with an
constructed on rear and side yards. Fences may
existing fence in place along the Baypoint Drive
not exceed the fence height limit within the
frontage and the side yard. There are no
required front yard. All fences shall provide for
changes proposed to the color or design of the
safety with controlled points of entry. Materials,
existing 6 foot high fence between 23 Baypoint
textures and colors and design of the fence or wall
Drive and 19 Baypoint Drive. The fence is
shall be compatible with on-site development and
designed with a latch to control entry from the
adjacent properties.
front yard.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: AP12-007
Standard I Analvsis
2. Outdoor Play Area. For purposes of controlling
noise and maintaining the privacy of neighbors,
any stationary play equipment shall not be located
in required side yards.
3. Outdoor Activity. For the purposes of noise
abatement, outdoor activities may only be
conducted between the hours of seven a.m. (7:00
a.m.) to nine p.m. (9:00 p.m.).
4. Parking. On-site parking for large family day
care homes shall not be required except for that
required for the residential use. A minimum of two
(2) spaces is required in all cases.
5. Passenger Loading. A passenger loading plan
approved by the city traffic engineer shall be
required.
6. Lighting. Passenger loading areas shall be
illuminated to the satisfaction of the police
department. The lighting shall be directed away
from adjacent properties and shall be of
comparable intensity compatible with the
neighborhood.
7. State and Other Licensing. All family day care
facilities shall be state licensed and shall be
Page 6
No stationary play equipment is proposed in
the required side yard. The outdoor play area
is located on the portion of the lot fronting along
Baypoint Drive and consists of small push toys
and toddler -sized plastic movable play toys.
The day care is proposing outdoor play for two
hours a day; once in the morning (11:30 am to
noon) and once in the afternoon (1:30 pm to
2:30 pm). As such, the proposed hours are
within the limits stipulated.
The existing home has a two -car garage,
thereby meeting the requirement for 2 spaces.
At the request of neighbors, daycare clients will
utilize on -street parking for drop-off and pick -
The proposed passenger loading plan (on -
street parking along Baypoint Drive) was
reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic
Division.
No additional lighting was proposed as part of
the project. The existing lighting on site will not
be altered.
The subject home day care facility has a valid
license from the State of California Community
operated according to all applicable state and local I Care Licensing Department (License
regulations.
#214005252). This is the Department that
holds regulatory authority over licensing day
cares.
On November 14, 2012, the Zoning Administrator conditionally approved the project, finding that the
proposed project met all required Performance Standards.
Appeal of Zoning Administrator Use Permit approval on November 14, 2012
An appeal of the Zoning Administrator action was filed by Victoria Pollick, a resident at 27 Baypoint
Drive, directly adjacent to the project site (and sharing a common wall). The appeal letter (Exhibit 5, with
attachments Exhibit 5a and Exhibit 5b) cites four (4) appeal points. The appeal points are quoted directly
(or paraphrased as best as possible by staff) below. Each appeal point is followed by staff's response:
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: AP12-007 Page 7
Appeal Point #1: We believe the noise issue has not been fully addressed.
Staff Response: The potential impacts from noise on the project site were addressed in the Zoning
Administrator Findings (see Exhibit 3, pages 4-6). Specifically, the Zoning Administrator determined
that: 1) the noise from the operation of an in home day care facility would not be excessive relative to
the amount of time (2 hours/day) the children will spend outdoors; 2) the outdoor play area at 23
Baypoint Drive fronts onto the public street (Baypoint Drive) and this will help minimize noise impacts
to the adjacent properties at 19 Baypoint and 27 Baypoint because the outdoor play area is not
adjacent to the recreational spaces for these adjacent properties. Also, outdoor playtime will also
include walks to the local park; 3) most of the playtime for the children consist of indoor time with
supervised playtime and naptime. The ZA determined that while some increased noise is certainly
expected from the day care use, the intermittent nature of the noise would not cause undue hardship
on residents in the area. Further, the nature of the daily daytime activities at 23 Baypoint Drive (i.e.,
activity in and out of a residence, audible indoor voices heard from the street, the sound of children
playing) is typical of what could be expected in most residential areas in the City. The project
proposes outdoor activities twice a day, between 11:00 am to 12:00 noon and again between 1:30
pm to 2:30 pm. These hours are well within the limits on outdoor activity (between 7:00 am to 9:00
pm) pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.17.040.C.3. The day care facility has been in
operation since July 2012 and no noise complaints have been reported to the City's Code
Enforcement Division.
Appeal Point #2: l live in the attached residence at 27 Baypoint Drive and my letter to the
owner of the unit, copy attached, is proof that the noise and vibration is a problem.
Staff Response: The letter referenced above was included with the appeal letter (see Exhibit 5a).
The letter specifically states: "They close the door in a manner loud enough to vibrate the building
between 6:30 and 7:30 in the morning which starts my day earlier than / would like." This point
relates to the noise issue already raised in the appeal letter and addressed in staff's response to
Appeal Point #1 above. With respect to the common wall issue, the floor plan designates the
childcare area on the lower floor at the front portion of the house, farthest away from the common
wall.
Appeal Point #3: We also question the ability of the Seekers of the permit as to whether they
will follow the rules set forth for their operations (i.e., they admit at the November 14t" hearing
to functioning as a 9 child day care center prior to issue of the permit.
Staff Response: The applicant (Maria Ramirez) submitted an application for a Use Permit on July 9,
2012 and the Community Development Department then began the review process. At the same
time, Mrs. Ramirez learned she would also need a business license (for operation of a daycare
business with more than 8 children). However, the business license could not be issued until the Use
Permit review was approved. The site passed the required Fire Inspection on July 11, 2012 and
received State license approval on July 24, 2012. At this time, Mrs. Ramirez informed the.
Community Development Department that she was prepared to begin accepting clients, many of
whom were also clients from her previous location. It does happen that sometimes a business owner
has signed a lease or is already operating before they are told a use permit is required. In these
circumstances, the City's practice is to allow the business to operate while the Use Permit application
is processed. Staff does caution the applicant that continued operation of the business is subject to
staff review, comments received at the public hearing, use permit approval, and implementation of all
required conditions of approval. Also, the approval decision is subject to a 5 -day appeal period. It
should be noted that Mrs. Ramirez has been licensed by the State of California to operate a day care
facility since 1994 (License # 214005252). In addition, the applicant did secure the proper Fire
Inspection required by the State of California in order to start operations (See Exhibit 7). The
Business License application is on file and pending final approval of the Use Permit.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: AP12-007
Page 8
Appeal Point #4: 1 also enclose a communication between one of my neighbors and the fire
department that would seem to leave open the condition of approval by the San Rafael Fire
Department.
Staff Response: The communication referenced above, dated November 18, 2012, is attached as
Exhibit 5b. It is an e-mail from a neighbor to the City of San Rafael Fire Department asking if fire
sprinklers would be required to operate a daycare at the residence. The Fire Department responded
that depending on the number of children and age of building, sprinklers may be required and that
the day care provided should contact the Fire Department to schedule an inspection.
In researching this with the Fire Department, City records show that the project site at 23 Baypoint
Drive was subject to a Fire Department pre -inspection prior to opening the daycare. The City's Fire
Division determined that sprinklers would not be required and a Fire Permit for the site was approved
and issued on July 9, 2012. This permit was issued prior to the e-mail communication between the
neighbor and the Fire Department.
Staff has commented on all appeal point included in the formal appeal letter dated, November 21, 2012.
However, the appellant also attached an additional letter with the appeal letter (see Exhibit 6). This letter
was written by the adjacent neighbor, Deborah Vandervoort, 19 Baypoint Drive, and addressed to the
property owner, Heather Ludloff. Ms. Vandervoort's letter states that she works from home and the
proposed day care is noisy and disruptive. Staff has addressed the concerns about noise in Appeal
Response #1.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed minor interior alterations at 23 Baypoint Drive are exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15301a (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA
Guidelines.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING 1 CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of this appeal to the Planning Commission has been conducted in accordance with noticing
requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. Notice of the public hearing for the
project was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the site, the
appropriate neighborhood group (Baypoint Lagoon Association, Spinnaker Point HOA, and Canal Area
Property and Business Owner's Association), and all interested parties (including those in attendance at
the Zoning Administrator hearing) at least 15 calendar days prior to the date of the public hearing.
In response to the public hearing notice for the Zoning Administrator hearing, Planning staff received a
total of 9 letters of opposition to the project. The main points raised in the letters are as follows: 1) the
proposed project would create too much noise in the small cul-de-sac, as well as impact the adjacent
property sharing a common wall; 2) the proposed project would impact privacy in the yard area of
adjacent properties; 3) the number of children served (9-14) is too many for the location; 4) the proposed
use would lead to a devaluation of property values; and 5) the project would cause an unacceptable
increase in traffic in the area.
In response to the Public Notice for the Planning Commission hearing on the appeal, staff has received
three letters to date. Craig Schwan and Mary Arcadi (24 Baypoint Drive) detailed impacts they observed
during the past few months of the day care operation, including excessive parked vehicles, cars parked
illegally in the red zone, increased noise from children, and dangers to children due to decreased traffic
visibility. Two additional letters were received from Starr Taber (31 Baypoint Drive) and David Rassas
(27 Baypoint Drive). Both reiterated their concerns about noise and use incompatibility (as previously
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: AP12-007
Page 9
expressed in comment letters during the Zoning Administrator review). Based on the points raised, these
3 comment letters do not identify any issues that are not in compliance with the Performance Standards
per Zoning Ordinance Section 14.17.040. Further, the concerns raised are addressed by staff as part of
our response to the appeal points on pages 6 through 8 of this staff report.
Copies all written correspondence received at the time of the staff report reproduction are attached to
this report as Exhibit 8. Any correspondence received after the staff report is copied and distributed will
be forwarded to the Commission under separate cover.
CONCLUSION
The Zoning Administrator has reviewed the project in accordance with the established performance
standards for large family day care uses. As discussed throughout, the project complies with the
performance standards. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission deny the appeal.
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of the project (staff
recommendation);
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of the project with modifications,
changes or additional conditions of approval;
3. Uphold the appeal and deny the project, reversing the decision of the Zoning Administrator and
direct staff to return with a revised Resolution; or
4. Continue the matter to allow the applicant, appellant and/or staff to address any comments or
concerns of the Planning Commission.
0:1;11:311 f -`i
1. Project Vicinity Map
2. Draft Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding Staff's Conditional Approval
3. Zoning Administrator hearing approval minutes, November 14, 2012
4. Copy of the Zoning Ordinance Performance Standards for Large Family Day Care, Section
14.17.040
5. Letter of Appeal from Victoria Pollick, dated November 21, 2012
5a. Letter from Victoria Pollick to heather Ludloff (property owner), dated November 19, 2012.
5b. E-mail correspondence from Russell Roane (39 Baypoint Drive) to John Lippitt, San Rafael Deputy
Fire Marshall, dated November 18, 2012.
6. Letter from adjacent neighbor, Deborah Vandervoort, dated November 19, 2012
7. Fire Safety Inspection Report, July 11, 2012.
8. Public Correspondence Received
23 Baypoint Drive - Project Vicinity Map
i
��r Yy�• 1:1 r. YM L�:-��
PD (1562y
-_ -j,�
•.�`ar..t ir.. `.•i._
ti -&
SCALE 1 :361
20 0 20 40 60
FEET
EXHIBIT i
Monday, January 07, 2013 11:21 AM
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL
(AP12-007) AND UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF A USE PERMTI (UP 12-022) TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A
LICENSED LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE (9-14 CHILDREN MAXIMUM) IN A TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOME LOCATED AT 23 BAYPOINT DRIVE
APN: 009-362-20
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2012, Maria Ramirez, operator of Ramirez Day Care, and her daughter,
Leticia Arvizu (acting as the project applicant) submitted a Use Permit application (UPI2-022)to operate
a licensed large family day care for 9-14 children in the two-story single family townhome at 23 Baypoint
Drive; and
WHEREAS, the proposed large family day care home was proposed to operate between the
hours of 6:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Use Permit application was reviewed by the Land Development,
Traffic Engineering, Fire Prevention and Building Divisions of the City of San Rafael and was
recommended for approval subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, the applications were deemed complete for processing on August 9, 2012; and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2012, the Zoning Administrator (ZA) held a duly noticed public
hearing on the proposed Use Permit, accepting all oral and written public testimony. Six members of the
public were present at the hearing, raising a number of concerns and issues about the proposed day care
use; and
WHEREAS, following the closure of the public hearing, the ZA continued the matter to
November 14, 2012 to allow neighbors an opportunity to visit the daycare and talk with the applicant;
and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2012, the Zoning Administrator conducted the continued public
hearing, accepting all oral and written public testimony. At the end of the hearing, the ZA conditionally
approved the Use permit (UP12-022) allowing the operation of a licensed large family day care for 9-14
children in the two-story single family home at 23 Baypoint Drive, finding that the proposed project was
consistent with all Performance Standards pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.17.040 (Performance
Standards, Family Day Care Home, Large); and
WHEREAS, notice of this decision, including transmittal of the meeting minutes and findings
and conditions of approval were mailed and/or e-mailed to the applicant, the property owner, and all
residents in attendance at the Zoning Administrator hearing; and
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2012, Victoria Pollick, (adjacent resident at 27 Baypoint Drive)
filed a timely appeal (AP12-007) of the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of Use Permit
UP12-022, pursuant to Chapter 28 (Appeals) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, citing: 1) noise issues were
not fully addressed; 2) noise and vibration are a problem because 23 Baypoint Drive and 27 Baypoint
Drive share a common wall; 3) questions the applicant's ability to adhere to use permit conditions of
approval because the current childcare is already operating with 9 children, which exceeds the limit
Exhibit 2
Filo No, AP12-007
allowed without an approved use permit; and 4) whether the operation has approval of the City of San
Rafael Fire Department; and;
WHEREAS, on January 29, 2013, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly -noticed
public hearing to consider the Appeal (AP12-007), accepted and considered all oral and written public
testimony and the written report of Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the appeal and the scope of the project, the Planning Commission
has confirmed that the project is Categorically Exempt, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which
this decision is based is the Community Development Department; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby denies the
Appeal (12-007) and reaffirms the November 14, 2012 Zoning Administator decision, conditionally
approving a Use Permit (UP12-022) to allow the operation of a licensed large family day care for 9-14
children at 23 Baypoint Drive. The Planning Commission affirms and incorporates herein the findings
and Zoning Administrator action approving the project (cited below) and makes the following findings
related to the appeal points. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the points of the appeal
cannot be supported for the following reasons:
Appeal Point #1: We believe the noise issue has not been fully addressed
The potential impacts from noise on the project site were addressed in the Zoning Administrator
Findings. Specifically, the Zoning Administrator (ZA) determined that: 1) the noise from the
operation of a large family day care would not be excessive relative to the amount of time the
children will spend outdoors (2 hours/day, split between morning and afternoon); 2) the outdoor
play area at 23 Baypoint Drive fronts onto the street (Baypoint Drive), thereby helping to minimize
noise impacts to the adjacent properties at 19 Baypoint Drive and 27 Baypoint Drive because the
outdoor play area is not adjacent to the recreational spaces for these adjacent properties. Also,
outdoor playtime will include walks to the local parks; and 3) most of the playtime for the children
consist of indoor time with supervised structured group activities and naptime. The ZA determined
that while some increased noise is certainly expected from the day care use, the intermittent nature of
the noise would not cause undue hardship on residents in the area. Further, the nature of the daily
daytime activities at 23 Baypoint Drive (i.e., people going in and out of a residence) is typical of
what could be expected in most residential areas in the City. The project proposes outdoor activities
twice a day, between 11:00 am to 12:00 noon and again between 1:30 pm to 2:30 pm. These hours
are well within the limits on outdoor activity (between 7:00 am to 9:00 pm) pursuant to Zoning
Ordinance Section 14.17.040.C.3. The day care facility has been in operation since July 2012 and no
noise complaints have been reported to the City's Code Enforcement Division.
Appeal Point #2: I live in the attached residence at 27 Baypoint Drive and my letter to the owner
of the unit, copy attached, is proof that the noise and vibration is a problem.
The letter referenced above was included with the appeal letter (see Exhibit 5a). The letter
specifically states: "They close the door in a manner loud enough to vibrate the building between
6:30 and 7:30 in the morning which starts my day earlier than I would like. " This point relates to
the noise issue already raised in the appeal letter and addressed in staff s response to Appeal Point #1
above.
2 Exhibit 2
File No. AP12-007
Appeal Point 43: We also question the ability of the Seekers of the permit as to whether they will
follow the rules set forth for their operations (i.e., they admit at the November 14'* hearing to
functioning as a 9 child day care center prior to issue of the permit.
The applicant (Maria Ramirez) submitted an application for a Use Permit on July 9, 2012 and the
Community Development Department then began the review process. At the same time, Mrs.
Ramirez learned she would also need a business license (for operation of a daycare business with
more than 8 children). However, the business license could not be issued until the Use Permit review
was approved. The site passed the required Fire Inspection on July 11, 2012 and received State
license approval to operate a large family day care on July 24, 2012. At this time, Mrs. Ramirez
informed the Community Development Department that she was prepared to begin accepting clients,
many of whom were also clients from her previous location. It does happen that sometimes a
business owner has signed a lease or is already operating before they discover a use permit is
required, and even before a use permit is approved. In these circumstances, the City's practice is to
allow the business to operate while the use permit application is processed. Staff does caution the
applicant that continued operation of the business is subject to staff review, comments received at the
public hearing, use permit approval, and implementation of all required conditions of approval.
Also, the approval decision is subject to a 5 -day appeal period. It should be noted that Mrs. Ramirez
has been licensed by the State of California to operate a day care facility since 1994 (License #
214005252). In addition, the applicant did secure the proper Fire Inspection required by the State of
California in order to start operations. The Business License application is on file and pending final
approval of the Use Permit.
Appeal Point #4: 1 also enclose a communication between one of my neighbors and the fire
department that would seem to leave open the condition of approval by the San Rafael Fire
Department.
The communication referenced above, dated November 18, 2012, is attached as Exhibit 5b. City
records show that the project site at 23 Baypoint Drive was subject to a City of San Rafael Fire
Department pre -inspection prior to opening the daycare. The City's Fire Division determined that no
sprinklers would be required and a Fire Permit for the site was issued on July 9, 2012. The residence
was inspected on July 11, 2012 and the proposed daycare use was signed off by the Fire Department.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the time within which to seek judicial review of this
decision is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission reaffirms the approval of the Use
Permit (UP 12-022), based on the following findings:
Use Permit Findings
(UP12-022)
A. The proposed large family day care use, as conditioned, is in accordance with the City of San Rafael
General Plan 2020, the objectives of Title 14 of the City of San Rafael Municipal Code (the Zoning
Ordinance), and the purposes of the Planned Development (PD1562) Zoning District in which the
site is located in that: 1) the child care service use is consistent with General Plan Policies LU -14
(Land Use Compatibility), LU -19 (Childcare), LU -23 (Land Use Map and Categories), NH -49
(Conflicting Uses), and NH -66 (Childcare). Child care facilities, especially in the home setting, are
encouraged in order to meet day care needs and provide affordable opportunities for child care (LU -
19 and NH -66). Large day care facilities are allowed in the residential land use designations (LU -
Exhibit 2
F=ile No. AP12-007
23), and specifically listed in General Plan Exhibit 11 as a possible land use, subject to the
performance standards. Performance standards have been developed in the Zoning Ordinance to
minimize potential nuisance effect of large family home day care facilities in order that the facilities
are able to be consistent with Policies LU -14 and NH -49; 2) large family day care is a conditionally
allowable use in the Planned Development Zoning District; and 3) the proposed large family day care
meets the performance standards per Zoning Ordinance Section 14.17.040, including a license from
the State of California (License #214005252). Refer to Pages 4-6 of the Planning Commission staff
report for more detailed analysis.
B. The proposed large family day care use, as conditioned, would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of 23
Baypoint Drive, or to the general welfare of the City of San Rafael in that: 1) the proposed project is
a conditionally allowed use under the Zoning Ordinance; 2) the proposed project does not proposed
any exterior changes to the building or expansion to the building; 3) the proposed project has been
reviewed by appropriate City Departments and appropriate HOA; 4) the proposed passenger loading
plan was approved by the Traffic Division. Resident concerns expressed about traffic safety along
Baypoint Drive were not specifically associated with the proposed daycare use, but related to general
traffic concerns in the existing neighborhood. As such, the ZA instructed residents to coordinate with
the City's Traffic Coordinating Committee (TCC) to address traffic safety concerns; 5) the day care
use would comply with the City's established performance standard contained in Section 14.17.040
of the Zoning Ordinance; and 6) conditions of approval have been applied to minimize potential
impacts identified by concerned neighbors, including COA #3, which prohibits parking in the cul-de-
sac area and guest parking spaces, and COA #6 which requires a Use Permit amendment (with a
public notice and hearing) for any future large family day care facility proposed at 23 Baypoint
Drive.
Residents raised concerns about noise from the child care facility; however the Zoning Administrator
determined that the added noise was not excessive relative to the amount of time the children will
spend outdoors (2 hours/day). In addition, the house at 23 Baypoint Drive faces the street and the
outdoor play area fronts on the street side of Baypoint Drive. This will minimize noise impacts to the
adjacent property at 19 Baypoint and 27 Baypoint because the outdoor play area is not adjacent to the
recreational spaces for these adjacent properties. The ZA understood the concerns expressed by the
adjacent property owners, particularly with respect to the impact of potentially having 14 children on
site. The applicant has indicated that it is rare that the day care would have 14 children on site all day
long, and that the number and age of the children will fluctuate based on client need. The applicant
also stated that the day care operation is structured such that children would be supervised with
ample activities and nap time, most of which occur indoors. The applicant indicated that children
would be walked to nearby local parks and that the children would not be running and screaming
outside for prolonged periods of time. The ZA determined that while some increased noise is
certainly expected from the day care use, the intermittent nature of the noise would not cause undue
hardship on residents in the area. Further, the day care facility is required to operate within the use
permit conditions of approval. If the use permit conditions are violated, the City can pursue
enforcement action, fines and ultimately and revocation of the use permit.
The proposed use does comply with all performance standards stipulated in Zoning Ordinance
Section 14.17.040 which are specifically established to minimize potential impacts of large family
day care facilities on surrounding properties. While the proposed use is located in a cul-de-sac area,
the residence at 23 Baypoint Drive is in an optimal location (first house on the cul-de-sac, facing the
street) to minimize impacts on neighbors recreational space. Again, the outdoor play area fronts on
Baypoint Drive which is adjacent to the front yard of the adjacent property at 19 Baypoint Drive, not
the rear recreational space. Residents stated at the Zoning Administrator hearing that they moved to
Exhibit 2
File No. AP12-007
the cul-de-sac because it was quiet and had no children. However, this is not something that can be
guaranteed in perpetuity. The Zoning Ordinance does allow large family day care with a conditional
use permit in all residential zoning districts and does not restrict the type of residence (single family
or multi -family) nor the street configuration. For example, large family day care facilities are
conditionally permitted in multi -family zoning districts (i.e., apartments), which arguable could have
less land area than a single family lot configuration.
It is determined that the subject large family day care proposing to operate at the 23 Baypoint Drive
residence is within the parameters of what is required per Zoning Ordinance Section 14.17.040.
Further, the potential noise impacts and activities associated with the large family day care in this
specific project location do not rise to a level that is incompatible with existing residential uses and
activities that can typically be expected in a residential area. As such, the proposed project would
not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
C. The proposed child care service (as conditioned) complies with each of the applicable provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance because it has been reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and Planning
Commission and found to be a conditionally allowable use in the Planned Development Zoning
District pursuant to Zoning Code Section 14.04.020. Further, the proposed project would meet the
applicable requirements under the Performance Standards for Large Family Day Care in Section
14.17.040 of the Zoning Ordinance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael
reaffirms the approval of the Use Permit (UP12-022)subject to the following conditions of approval:
Use Permit
Conditions of Approval (UP12-022)
1. This Use Permit (UP12-022) approves a large family day care facility for up to a maximum of 14
children. Hours of operation for the daycare shall be 6:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday.
Drop off shall begin no earlier than 6:30 am. Outdoor playtime is limited to 1 hour in the morning
(generally between 11:00 am — 12:00 am) and 1 hour in the afternoon (generally between 1:30 pm —
2:30 pm). Any increase in the hours of operation or increase in the amount of outdoor playtime
would require an amendment to Use Permit UP 12-022.
2. The subject property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the floor plans and
parking/loading plans submitted and stamped Approved November 14, 2012 and shall be the same as
required for issuance of a building permit (if necessary), subject to the listed conditions of approval.
3. The applicant shall inform clients in writing (printed in both English and Spanish, or any appropriate
language required by the client) that the approved parking and loading plan is located along Baypoint
Drive and no client parking is allowed in the garage driveway apron, the cul-de-sac, or guest parking
spaces in the cul-de-sac. A copy of the parking and loading plan instructions to clients shall be
forwarded to the Planning Division.
4. No accessory structure over 80 square feet is allowed in the side yard of the property. No stationary
play equipment shall be located in required side yards.
5. Outdoor activities may only be conducted between the hours of 7:00 am to 6:30 pm.
Exhibit 2
File No. AP 12-007
6. Any new child care service other than the existing approved Ramirez Family Childcare at 23
Baypoint Drive would require an amendment to this Use Permit (UP12-022). Such an
amendment review shall be done at the Zoning Administrator level, with required public
notice.
7. All requirements of the San Rafael Municipal Code and of the implementing zone classification of
Planned Development (PD1562) for the subject property must be complied with unless set forth in
the permit and by the conditions of approval.
Continued validity of this use permit shall be contingent on approval by the San Rafael Fire
Department. Any changes resulting from requirements of the San Rafael Fire Department shall. be
submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to
commencement of operations.
9. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the
Community Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the
Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision making
body, the Zoning Administrator.
10. The applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the City, County, State, and other
responsible agencies.
11. This Use Permit (UP12-022)is only valid as long as the facility maintains a valid license from the
State of California as a Large Family Day Care Home. The day care is currently approved by the
State of California under Facility # 214005252.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission meeting
held on the 29"' day of January, 2013.
Moved by Commissioner
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
ATTEST:
Paul A. Jensen, Secretary
and seconded by
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
Larry Paul, Chair
Exhibit 2
File No. AP12-007
REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
November 14, 2012
Minutes and Action
23 Baypoint Drive - Request for a Use Permit to allow a large family day care
use (9-14 children) in an existing single family townhome residence at 23
Baypoint Drive; APN # 009-362-20; Planned Development (PD 1562) Zoning
District; Heather Ludloff, owner; Leticia Arvizu, applicant; File No: UPI 2-022.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a 1,900 square foot single family townhome located in a cul-de-sac on the
north side of Baypoint Drive. The residence has a two -car garage and access to 4 guest parking
spaces located on the east side of the cul-de-sac. The proposed facility has been reviewed by the
State of California and has received a licensed to care for up to 14 children (License #
2142005252). Mrs. Ramirez has been licensed by the State of California to operate a day care
facility since 1994.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Required Entitlements.-
Pursuant
ntitlements:Pursuant to the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.04.020, a Conditional Use Permit
at the Zoning Administrator level is required for a "large family day care" use (defined as 9-14
children). The applicant requests approval of UP12-022 to allow the operation of a daycare for up
to 14 children. .
Proposed Project.-
The
roject:The proposed project would be the operation of the Ramirez Family Day Care, an in-home child
care service for both pre-school and school-age children. Childcare would be offered from 6:30
am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday. Employees include Maria Ramirez and one assistant.
Currently Ms. Ramirez provides in-home child care to 9 children. That number fluctuates based
on client need. There are no proposed additions to the existing building footprint or height.
There are no significant interior modifications.
Development Standards:
Large Family Day Care is subject to Performance Standards in Section 14.17.040 of the San
Rafael Zoning Ordinance. The specific purpose of the performance standard is to "provide
criteria for issuing administrative use permits and certain other use permits. The performance
standards listed in this section are intended to explicitly describe the required location,
configuration, design, amenities and operation of specified uses. The performance standards also
mitigate potential adverse impacts on the neighborhood and maintain harmonious uses in the
area. The performance standards are consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan. "
The standards in Section 14.17.040.0 state the following: 1) a 6 foot high noise abatement fence
is required in the side and rear yards area; (2) outdoor stationary play equipment may not be
located in required side yards; (3) outdoor activities may only be conducted between the hours of
7:00 am to 9:00 pm; (4) no on-site parking required, except that the residence must have a
minimum of 2 spaces; (5) passenger loading plan must be approved by the City Traffic Engineer;
EXHIBIT 3
23 Baypoint Drive
Re: UP 12-022
Hearing Date: November 14, 2012
(6) passenger loading must be illuminated to the satisfaction of the police department; and (7) all
family day care facilities shall be licensed.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an environmental review is
required to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project. It has been determined
this project is exempt per Article 19 Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301 Existing Facilities
Class 1 whereas the proposed project: 1) entails interior alterations only; 2) the project has been
reviewed by appropriate City Departments and non -City agencies who have determined that the
proposed project would have no significant impact; and 3) the subject property is located in a
mature, fully -developed subdivision where no listed species (threatened or endangered) have been
identified (See Exhibit 38 of the San Rafael General Plan 2020).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were two public hearings held for the proposed project:
October 24, 2012
The Zoning Administrator (ZA) opened the public hearing at 10:20 A.M. Present at the hearing
was the project applicant, Leticia Arvizu, daughter of the day care owner, Maria Ramirez, Ms.
Arvizu was also acting as a Spanish translator for Ms. Ramirez. Members of the public included
the following 6 residents from the neighborhood and adjacent properties: Tommie Weldon,
Karen Thomas, Rita Lakin, Starr Taber, Gloria Gasperor, and Grant Miller. A copy of the sign -in
sheet is available in the project file. Staff at the meeting was Caron Parker, Associate Planner,
acting as the Zoning Administrator, The ZA explained the proposed project and the need for a
use permit. The applicant described the proposed day care use and specific daily operations,
stating that there are currently 9 clients using the day care. The number of clients fluctuates and
the number of children at the day care changes during the day based on school schedules and
parent work schedules.
The ZA indicated that staff had received 7 letters of opposition expressing concern about the
impact of having 9-14 children at the 23 Baypoint Drive residence. No letters of support were
received. The neighborhood HOA (Baypoint Lagoon Association) did not submit comments on
the proposed project. The ZA opened the hearing to public comment. All members of the public
spoke in turn and expressed similar concerns as those expressed in the letters of opposition
mailed into the City. The main concerns expressed were related to potential parking problems,
traffic safety for loading and unloading children, impact of noise on adjacent residents due to
small yards and shared common walls. There were also concerns about general traffic safety on
Baypoint Drive such as speeding, blind curves, and the use of the guest spaces in the cul-de-sac
for client parking. The applicant indicated that they would direct clients to park on the street, and
they have advised all clients in writing (English and Spanish) that no parking is allowed in the
cul-de-sac guest spaces. The applicant offered to lead tours of the facility and encouraged
neighbors to call the daycare to report any problems with parking and/or noise.
The ZA indicated that while the City understood concerns about potential problems, the proposed
day care facility meets all performance standards identified in Zoning Ordinance Section
14.17.040. The ZA indicated that restrictions on cul-de-sac parking would be added as a
condition of project approval. The City's Public Works Department reviewed the proposed
2 SRZA Minutes 11,14.12
23 Baypoint Drive
Re: UP12-022
Hearing Date: November 14, 2012
project and did not uncover any traffic hazards. As such, the ZA considered traffic safety along
Baypoint Drive as a separate issue from the proposed project being reviewed. With respect to
traffic safety on Baypoint Drive, the ZA advised the residents that there is a Traffic Coordinating
Committee (TCC) through the City's Public Works Department (DPW) and that the TCC
coordinates with neighbors to resolve local traffic problems. The ZA suggested that the residents
could coordinate with the TCC to identify possible traffic hazards in the area. There is no
evidence that the proposed day care use would create a traffic hazard. Clients using the Ramirez
Family Day Care would use the same caution when parking and exiting their vehicles as the
existing residents on Baypoint Drive and in the cul-de-sac.
Due to concerns and questions from neighbors, the ZA continued the project to a date certain,
November 14, 2012 at 10:00 am.
The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing at 11:45 AM.
November 14 2012
The Zoning Administrator (ZA) opened the public hearing at 10:00 A.M. Present at the hearing
was the project applicant, Leticia Arvizu, daughter of the day care owner, Maria Ramirez, Ms.
Arvizu was also acting as a Spanish translator for Ms. Ramirez. Members of the public included
Tommie Weldon and Rita Lakin. A sign -in sheet is available in the project file. Staff at the
meeting was Caron Parker, Associate Planner, acting as the Zoning Administrator. The ZA asked
for an update from the applicants and residents in attendance as to what has happened since the
last hearing. Ms. Weldon indicated she sent an e-mail to the City's Traffic Coordinating
Committee (TCC) with her concerns about traffic safety. The TCC meeting was on November 6,
2012 and Ms. Weldon has not received any information about what happened at the meeting. She
indicated she would follow up on this after the ZA hearing. The ZA asked if there were any
complaints about the daycare operations since the last hearing. No complaints were reported to
the day care operator and staff received no complaints. The ZA indicated that there were a total
of 9 letters of opposition received about the project (this includes the 7 letters discussed at the
previous hearing). Both Rita Lakin and Tommie Weldon reiterated their concerns about noise and
that a cul-de-sac with townhomes was not an appropriate location for a large family day care with
potentially 14 children. They both indicated that the space is better suited for 8 children. In
addition, both Lakin and Weldon raised concerns again about traffic safety and the blind turn near
the cul-de-sac driveway. The ZA pointed out that the guest spaces in the cul-de-sac would be an
optimal place for drop off to the day care facility. This option was eliminated due to neighbor
opposition and concern about the use of the guest spaces. The applicant agreed to direct clients to
use on -street parking for drop-off and pick-up instead of the guest spaces.
The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing at 11:00 AM.
The Zoning Administrator has reviewed the application and found it to be in substantial
conformance with the City of San Rafael's Municipal Code property development standards for
the Planned Development (PD 1562) Zoning District, all applicable policies of the San Rafael
General Plan 2020, and the Zoning Ordinance Performance Standards in Section 14.17.040, based
on Staff's project review, site inspections, and on the review and recommendation for approval by
appropriate City departments and non -City agencies. While the Zoning Administrator understood
neighbor concerns, the determination was made that on balance, the proposed use would be
largely compatible with the surrounding uses in the cul-de-sac and neighborhood at large.
3 SRZA Minutes 11.14.12
23 Baypoint Drive
Re: UPI 2-022
Hearing Date: November 14, 2012
The Zoning Administrator stated that a copy of the meeting minutes, which incorporate the
findings and the conditions of approval, would be mailed to the applicant, property owner, and
interested parties who attended the hearing or sent in comment letters. In addition, copies would
be available to the public for review at the Planning Division counter upon request. The Zoning
Administrator stated that a project of this nature has an appeal period of five (5) working days
upon the approval or denial of the project.
ACTION TAKEN
The Zoning Administrator, at the meeting of Wednesday, November 14, 2012, granted approval
of Use Permit UP12-022 subject to conditions of approval. The decision shall be final at 5:00
P.M. on Wednesday, November 21, 2012, pending no appeals are filed with the City of San
Rafael Planning Division by that date.
FINDINGS (Use Permit UP12-022
A. That the proposed use is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of the zoning
ordinance, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located;
B. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity, or to the general welfare of the city;
C. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance.
(Ord. 1625 § 1 (part), 1992).
A. The proposed large family day care use, as conditioned, is in accordance with the City of San
Rafael General Plan 2020, the objectives of Title 14 of the City of San Rafael Municipal
Code (the Zoning Ordinance), and the purposes of the Planned Development (PD1562)
Zoning District in which the site is located because: 1) the child care service use is consistent
with General Plan Policy NH -11 (needed neighborhood serving uses) and General Plan
Policy NH -52 (encouraging new businesses that provide needed services), 2) large family day
care is a conditionally allowable use in the Planned Development zoning district; and 3) the
proposed large family day care meets the performance standards per Section 14.17.040 of the
Zoning Ordinance, including a license from the State of California (license #214005252).
B. The proposed large family day care use, as conditioned, would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity of 23 Baypoint Drive, or to the general welfare of the City of San Rafael because: 1)
the proposed project is a conditionally allowed use under the zoning code; 2) the proposed
project does not proposed any exterior changes to the building or expansion to the building;
3) the proposed project has been reviewed by appropriate City Departments and appropriate
HOA; 4) the proposed passenger loading plan was approved by the Traffic Division. Resident
concerns expressed about traffic safety along Baypoint Drive were not specifically associated
with the proposed daycare use, but related to traffic in general. As such, the ZA instructed
residents to coordinate with the City's Traffic Coordinating Committee (TCC) to address
traffic safety concerns; and 5) conditions of approval have been applied to minimize potential
impacts identified by concerned neighbors, including COA #3, which prohibits parking in the
cul-de-sac area and guest parking spaces, and COA #6 which requires a Use Permit
4 SRZA Minutes 11.14.12
23 Baypoint Drive
Re: UP 12-022
Hearing Date: November 14, 2012
.amendment (with a public notice and hearing) for any future large family day care facility
proposed at 23 Baypoint Drive.
Residents raised concerns about noise from the child care facility; however the Zoning
Administrator determined that the added noise was not excessive relative to the amount of
time the children will spend outdoors (2 hours/day). In addition, the house at 23 Baypoint
Drive faces the street and the outdoor play area fronts on the street side of Baypoint Drive.
This will minimize noise impacts to the adjacent property at 19 Baypoint and 27 Baypoint
because the outdoor play area is not adjacent to the recreational spaces for these adjacent
properties. The ZA understood the concerns expressed by the adjacent property owners,
particularly with respect to the impact of potentially having 14 children on site. The applicant
has indicated that it is rare that the day care would have 14 children on site all day long, and
that the number and age of the children will fluctuate based on client need. The applicant
also stated that the day care operation is structured such that children would be supervised
with ample activities, most of which occur indoors. The applicant indicated that children
would be .walked to nearby local parks and that the children would not be running and
screaming outside for prolonged periods of time. The ZA.determined that while some
increased noise is certainly expected from the day care use, the intermittent nature of the
noise would not cause undue hardship on residents in the area. The day care facility has been
in operation since July 2012 and no complaints have been reported to City staff. Further, the
day care facility is required to operate within the use permit conditions of approval. If the use
permit conditions are violated, the City can pursue enforcement action, fines and ultimately
and revocation of the use permit.
The proposed use does comply with all performance standards in place in Zoning Ordinance
Section 14.17.040 which are specifically established to minimize potential impacts of large
family day care facilities. While the proposed use is located in a cul-de-sac area, the residence
at 23 Bayoint Drive is in an optimal location (first house on the cul-de-sac, facing the street)
to minimize impacts on neighbors recreational space. Again, the outdoor play area fronts on
Baypoint Drive which is adjacent to the front yard of the adjacent property at 19 Baypoint
Drive, not the rear recreational space. Residents stated at the hearing that they moved to the
cul-de-sac because it was quiet and had no children. However, this is not something that can
be guaranteed in perpetuity. The Zoning Ordinance does allow large family day care with a
conditional use permit in all residential zoning districts and does not restrict the type of
residence (single family or multi -family) nor the street configuration. For example, large
family day care facilities are conditionally permitted in multi -family zoning districts (i,e.,
apartments), which arguable could have less land area than a single family lot configuration.
The ZA has made the determination that the Ramirez Family Day Care is proposing to
operate within the parameters of what is required per Zoning Ordinance Section 14.17.040.
The ZA has determined that the potential noise impacts and activities associated with the
large family day care in this specific project location do not rise to a level that is incompatible
with existing residential uses and activities that can be expected in a residential area. As
such, the ZA determined the proposed project would not be materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity.
C. The proposed child care service (as conditioned) complies with each of the applicable
provisions of the zoning ordinance because it has been reviewed by the Zoning Administrator
and found to be a conditionally allowable use in the Planned Development Zoning District
pursuant to Zoning Code Section 14.04.020. Further, the proposed project would meet the
5 SRZA Minutes 11.14.12
23 Baypoint Drive
Re: UP12-022
Hearing Date: November 14, 2012
applicable requirements under the Performance Standards for Large Family Day Care in
Section 14.17.040 of the Zoning Ordinance,
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
1. This Use Permit (UP12-022) approves a large family day care facility for up to a maximum
of 14 children. Hours of operation for drop off and pick up shall be between the hours of
6:30 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Outdoor playtime is limited to l hour in the
morning (generally between 11:00 am — 12:00 am) and 1 hour in the afternoon (generally
between 1:30 pm — 2:30 pm). Any increase in the hours of operation or increase in the
amount of outdoor playtime would require an amendment to Use Permit UP12-022.
2. The subject property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the floor plans and
parking/loading plans submitted and stamped Approved November 14, 2012 and shall be the
same as required for issuance of a building permit (if necessary), subject to the listed
conditions of approval.
3. The applicant shall inform clients in writing (printed in both English and Spanish, or any
appropriate language required by the client) that the approved parking and loading plan is
located along Baypoint Drive and no client parking is allowed in the garage driveway apron,
the cul-de-sac, or guest parking spaces in the cul-de-sac. A copy of the parking and loading
plan instructions to clients shall be forwarded to the Planning Division.
4. No accessory structure over 80 square feet is allowed in the side yard of the property. No
stationary play equipment shall be located in required side yards.
5. Outdoor activities may only be conducted between the hours of 7:00 am to 6:30 pm.
6. Any new child care service other than the existing approved Ramirez Child Care
Services at 23 Baypoint Drive would require an amendment to Use Permit UP12-022.
Such an amendment review shall be done at the Zoning Administrator level, with
required public notice.
7. All requirements of the San Rafael Municipal Code and of the implementing zone
classification of Planned Development (PD 1562) for the subject property must be complied
with unless set forth in the permit and by the conditions of approval.
8. The approval of this permit shall be contingent on approval by the San Rafael Fire
Department. Any changes resulting from requirements of the San Rafael Fire Department
shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior
to commencement of construction.
9. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the
Community Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor
6 SRZA Minutes 11.14.12
23 Baypoint Drive
Re: UP12-022
Hearing Date: November 14, 2012
by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original
decision making body, the Zoning Administrator.
10. The applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the City, County, State, and
other responsible agencies.
11. This Use Permit (UP12-022) is only valid as long as the facility maintains a valid license
from the State of California as a Family Day Care Home. The day care is currently approved
by the State of California under Facility # 214005252.
Use Permit UP12-022 is conditionally approved and shall become valid after a five (5)
working day appeal period at 5:00 P.M. on Wednesday, November 21, 2012 pending no
appeals are filed with the City of San Rafael Planning Division.
Caron Parker, Acting Zoning Administrator
cc: Heather Ludloff, property owner
Tommie Weldon 11 Baypoint Dr
Karen Thomas 135 Baypoint Dr
Rita Lakin 35 Baypoint Dr
Starr Taber 31 Baypoint Dr
Gloria Gasperor 5 Avocet Court
Grant Miller 31 Baypoint Dr
Peter Lee 9 Turnstone Dr
Deborah Vandervoort 19 Baypoint Dr
Dennis Pasquini 27 Dowitcher Way
D. Rassas 27 Baypoint Dr
Victoria Pollick 27 Baypoint Dr
.Maria Ramirez and Leticia Arvizu, applicants, 23 Baypoint Drive
Date
7 SRZA Minutes 11.14.12
14.17.020
ity development department for an extension the
a rtization period. The application shall be ade in
writi in a form approved by the communi develop-
ment di ctor, and shall be accompanied by e required
processing e. Any application shall be in de prior to the
expiration of\director
ion period, u ess the commu-
nity developdetermin that good cause
exists for the the app cation.
4. With(45) d s following receipt of
a completed aan tension of the amortiza-
tion period, thecommunit evelopment director shall
hold a public hearing on application, after giving
notice to all property ow ers w in three hundred (300)
feet of the property. Tht ommunit development director
shall consider the evi nce and testi m ny presented at the
public hearing, an shall thereafter t, nt or deny an
extension. In ren ring its decision, the co unity devel-
opment director hall determine whether the nconform-
ing property r dwelling unit has been provi with a
reasonable ortization period commensurate wr the
investme involved. If the community develop m t
director eter-mines that the amortization period i no
reaso ble, he/she shall prescribe an amortizatio erlod
tha s commensurate with the investment inv ed. The
Iden shall be on the applicant for the tension to
est lish that the extension should be ar ted. No more
than a ingle extension may be grante .
5. aking its determination the application for
an extension, the community dev opment director shall
consider the fo'lpwi
a) The owne '
property improveme
conforming animal ]
b) The present
dwelling /rmaini
modate th
c) Theproperty i
nt in any dwelling unit or
to accommodate the non -
depreciated value of the
ty imp vements made to accom-
iing anirrX keeping;
useful life o he dwelling unit or
made to acco odate the non --
conform g animal keeping;
d) The secondary effects of the an' a eeping on
the ealth, safety and welfare of su unding operties
if e amortization period is exte ed;
e) Any other competent vidence relevant to e
etermination of a
me rate with the
6. copy of tl
decision shVines
7. An
five (5)
s decision, in
14.28 of the
(San Rafael 10-99)
sonab amortization period com-.
ve ent involved.
mmunity development director's
by regular mail to the applicant.
person may appeal the community
decision to the city council, within
fter the community development
-,o the
with the provision of
Tunic al Code.
452
Declaration of Public Nuisan . The city council
declares to be a public nuisanc an_10
y lot where the non-
conforming animal keeping i operating and where the
amortization period as a no onforming use has expired,
and (a) no permit require by this title has been obtained
or (b) no application fo an extension of the amortization
period is on file or ha been granted. (Ord. 1740 §§ 2-5,
1999; Ord. 1625 §` (part), 1992).
14.17.040 Family day care horde, Iarge.
A. Purpose. These standards allow large family day
care homes for children to locate in residential neighbor-
hoods. Large family day care homes for children give
children a home environment conducive to safe and
healthy development. The standards regulate potential
traffic and noise impacts related to the operation of large
family day care homes to ensure that these uses do not
adversely impact the adjacent neighborhood.
B. Applicability. Performance standards for large
family day care homes apply in all residential zoning
districts and other districts which permit residential uses.
Compliance with performance standards shall be reviewed
through the administrative use permit process.
C. Standards.
1. Fences and Walls. For purposes of noise abate-
ment, a six foot (6') high solid fence shall be constructed
on rear and side yards. Fences may not exceed the fence
height limit within the required front yard. All fences
shall provide for safety with controlled points of entry.
Materials, textures and colors and design of the fence or
wall shall be compatible with on-site development and
adjacent properties.
2. Outdoor Play Area. For purposes of controlling
noise and maintaining the privacy of neighbors, any
stationary play equipment shall not be located in required
side yards.
3. Outdoor Activity. For the purposes of noise
abatement, outdoor activities may only be conducted
between the hours of seven a.m. (7:00 a.m.) to nine p.m.
(9:00 p.m.).
4. Parking. On-site parking for large family day
care homes shall not be required except for that required
for' the residential use. A minimum of two (2) spaces is
required in all cases.
5. Passenger Loading. A passenger loading plan
approved by the city traffic engineer shall be required.
6. Lighting. Passenger loading areas shall be illumi-
nated to the satisfaction of the police department. The
lighting shall be directed away from adjacent properties
and shall be of comparable intensity compatible with the
neighborhood.
EXHIBIT 4
7. State and Other Licensing. All family day care
facilities shall be state licensed and shall be operated
according to all applicable state and local regulations.
(Ord. 1625 § 1 (part), 1992).
14. .050 Offices and financial institutions in
the Fourth Street etail core and
the West End lage.
A. P oses. The purpo of these standards is to
promote an ac .ve retail en ronment on the ground floor
in downtown's tail ter. In the Fourth Street retail
core (4SRC) and t West End Village (WEV), office
and banking use are owed on the rear ground floor,
second floor nd above, nd the street level uses are
intended t provide a conti ous interesting pedestrian
enviro ent supportive of re '1 uses. The following
sta ands allow office and bankinb uses to hay a pres-
ce on downtown's retail streets pro 'ded th„9 any street
frontage use is customer -service relate open to the
public.
In addition, to foster a pedestrian- Tented s eetscape,
of es and financial institutions ' the 4SRC an WEV
distriN should be designed co lstent with the down wn
design b 'delines.
B. A licability. P rformance standards for offices
and financial stitu '.ns at ground level, street frontage
locations shall a y in the 4SRC and the WEV.
Performanc to ards for offices and financial insti-
tutions shall a admin ered through the administrative
use permprocess.
Exi mg street -level offic and financial institutions
in Xe 4SRC and WEV Distri as of January 1, 1991
all be grandfathered in at their e ' ting locations for the
purposes of these performance stand s. All new offs s
and financial institutions at street level eet fron be in
the 4SRC and WEV Districts shall co ly ith the
following standards..
C. Standards. New office and finan al ins 'tutions
street level, street frontage locations all compl ith
Me lowing:
1. he customer service s e footage of a general
office use d/or the square f tage of the customer -ori-
ented retail b king ng
'ons of a financial institution
is permitted on . stre frontage in the 4SRC and WEV
districts if it meets following criteria:
a. There is s',n cant customer turnover;
b. There i a subst tial volume of pedestrian traf-
fic;
C. W' dows and signs ar riented toward pedestri-
ans;
d. Activities are provided whic an be considered
part of a multistop trip; and
14.17.040
e. Non -customer -oriented square otage r the use
is located on the rear groundAlevend floor or
above.
2. Exterior design of newfices and
financial institutions should mai=oriented
treetscape as specified in,!t>6 downtown desig Quide-
li s. (Ord. 1694 § 1 (ERA) (part), 1996: Ord. 1 3 §
1
(pX), 1994: Ord. 25 § 1 (part), 1992).
14.17 '0”) Fortunetelling.
A. P ose. Performance standards for fortunetelling
ensure p lice partment review and background investi-
gations of prospe tive fortunetelling businesses, consiste
with Municipal C e Chapter 8.12. Police depart nt
review is required in a interest of public health, afety
and welfare due to pote 'al criminal activities, ' eluding
theft by fraud, deceit, fa a pretenses, tric or device
which may be associated wl such busin ses.
B. Applicability. Perform ce stan ds for fortune-
telling shall apply in any district 'n ich fortunetelling
is a conditional use. Compliance 'th performance stan-
dards shall be reviewed throucy, th administrative use
rocess
.
7t P.Standards.
1. Police Departm t Permit. Re\anyosed
approval
by the p ice departm t is required for for -
2. Oper 'o . The proposed fortunetelling op ation
shall conform > all of the provisions of the mum ipal
code pertai 'ng to ch uses (Municipal Code Secti s
8.12.050 rough 8.12. 60, inclusive) to the satisfaction
of the n Rafael police epartment.
3. Parking. Fortunetelling uses shall provide parking
consistent with Chapter 14.18, Parking Standards; For-
tunetelling uses shall be considered equivalent to a per -
452 -1 (San Rafael 10-99)
Victoria P®Ilick
27 0ayp®int ®rive
Saiz Rafael CA 94901-8404
November 212012
City of San Rafael
Planning Commission
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael CA 94901
Commissioner:
o This letter is a request for an appeal hearing in the matter of allowing use of 23 Baypoint
drive as a Large Family Day Care (Permit # UP12-022) center.
o A check for the $300 (Three hundred dollar) fee required for this appeal is enclosed.
o We believe that the noise issue has not been fully addressed.
of live in the attached residence at 22 Baypoint Drive and my letter to the owner of the unit,
copy attached, is proof that the noise and vibration is a problem.
o My neighbor Deborah Vandervoort who works from home also feels the noise is an issue.
Her letter on the issue of the effect to the quality of her work is also attached.
c We also question the ability of *he Seekers of the permit as to whether they will fnllow the
rules set forth for their operation.( i.e. they admit at the Nov 14 hearing to functioning as a 9
child day care center prior to issue of the permit.
of also enclose a communication between one of my neighbors and the fire inspector that
would seem to leave open the condition of approval by the San Rafael Fire Department.
Your attention to this at er is appreciated!
I ECEIVED
Victoria Pollic
NOV 21 MIZ
EXH UT 5
Victoria Pollick
27 Baypoint Drive
San Rafael CA 94901-8404
Heather Ludoff
931 5th Street
Sonoma CA 94901
November 19 2012
Heather:
oAfter numerous conversations inperson and by phone, I write this letter to complain about
noise your renter makes depriving me of sleep and tranquility.
o They close the door in a manner loud enough to vibrate the building between 6:30 and 7:30
in the morning which starts my day earlier than I would like.
o If II take a day off for any reason the activities next door disturb whatever I am doing.
o It is all against the CC&Rs of our development.
o Your renter's application for a permit for an up to 14 children day care center makes me
understand the reason for the noise but doesn't make it acceptable.
I also question their ability to follow any conditions that are agreed to in their permit because
at the hearing for the permit they acknowledged having (9) nine clients with who knows how
many children already in care at the location where they are limited to (8) eight until they get
the permit.
o A copy of this letter is being sent with an appeal to review the decision to issue the permit.
o Any help or suggestions on how to keep this operations noise and vibration limited would be
helpful.
P e se elp!
•c I -c RECEIVED
Nov 21 2012
EXHIBIT Ga
FW: Fire Inspection 23 Baypoint drive
From: John Uppift<john.lippia@cityofsanrafael.o...
To: joancroane@att.net
Page 1 of 1
Mon, November 19, 2012 9:27:47 AM
Hi Russ,
Regarding Day Care Centers, the City has a process for permitting and inspecting in accordance with the Calrfomia Fire Code. Based on the age and number of children, an automatic
fire sprinkler system may be required for the facility
Please have the day care provider get in touch with us, so we assist them to ensure the facility is code compliant
Respectfully,
Deputy Fire Marshal
415.485.5067 desk
415.261.7333 cell
40
From: Roane Russell [mailto:7oancroane@att.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 201217:08
To: Are
Subject. Fire Inspection 23 Baypoint drive
Fire Inspector:
I have been notified that you are required to inspect 23 Baypoint Drive prior to the issuance of a day
care permit for this location.
I wish to point out that this is an unsprinklered residence attached to 27 Baypoint over which the orerators
of the day care would have no control. Wouldn't the children safety and the change in occupancy require the
building to be upgraded to the current code as to sprinklers before the permit could be issued?
Russ Roane
39 Baypoint Drive
RECEIVED
NOV 212012
PLANNING
EXHIBIT 5b
Deborah Vandervoort
19 Baypoint Drive
San Rafael, CA 94901
Heather Ludloff
9315th Street
Sonoma, CA 95476
November 19, 2012
Dear Heather,
We met a while back, before you rented your house to Ms. Ramirez. As you may
recall, I'm a writer and work from my home, which is next door to your house. In
fact, my home office looks out to the side and front yards of your house.
In the past three months, I've noticed that Ms. Ramirez is running a daycare center
out of your house. I'm sure you're already aware of this. What I'm sure you're not
aware of is the level of noise and disruption this is causing me. When the children
are outside, it is especially noticeable, and I have to turn my music on to cover their
noise—more noise to cover noise. Not exactly an ideal work environment. I can hear
babies crying inside the home as well.
Personally, I feel that running a daycare center in an area such as Baypoint Lagoons,
where the houses are so close together and in some cases, even share a common
wall, is not appropriate. Our privacy, our peace and quiet, all the reasons we live in
this area are compromised.
In light of this fact, I would greatly appreciate your talking to your tenants about the
noise problem that is the result of their running a daycare center out of your house.
Did you know this was what they had planned to do? Perhaps you did, and since
you're no longer in the area, didn't realize the impact it would have on neighboring
properties. Well, in all honesty, it's not good.
I would greatly appreciate your addressing this noise issue with your tenants.
Sincerely,
CA, Al^j ,
Deborah Vandervoort
RECEIVED
cc: Stephanie Charles, Baypoint Lagoons HOA
NOV 21 2012
EXHIBIT 6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRE SAFETY INSPECTION REQUEST
see tnstruottons on reverse.
RECEIVED
JUN 2012
AGENCY CONTACT'S NA41E
TELEPHONE NUMBER
REQUEST PATE
PROGRA II
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING
( 650 )266-8843
00/20/12
CCF109
EVALUATOR'S NAME
REQUESTING AGENGY FACILITY NUMBER
REQUEST CODE
UNCOVERED - D205
214005252
1A
CODES
I. ORIGINAL A. FIRE CLEARANCE
2RENEWAL D. LIFE SAFE TY
LICENSING DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
3. CAPACITY CHANGE
AGENCY COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING
1. OWNERSHIP CHANGE
NAMEAND 801 TRAEGtiER AVENUE SUITE 100
5. ADDRESS CHANGE
ADDRESS SAN BRUNO, CA 94066
8, NAME CHANGE
FAX # 650-2668847 I
1. OTHER
AMBULATORY NON AMBULATORY
BEDRIDDEN
TOTAL CAPACITY
CAPACITY
PREVIOUS CAPACITY PACITY
PREVIOUS CAPACITY
CAPACITY
PREVIOUS CAPACITY
14
0
_
14
FACILITY NAME _._ �� �_
LICENSE CATEGORY
RAMIREZ, MARIA C.
FAMILY DAY CARE
STREET AQDRESS (Actual Location)
NUN48ER OF BUILDINGS
23 BAYPOINT DRIVE
1
CITY
RESTRAINT
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901
NONE
FACILITY CONTACT nwno
MARIA C RAMIREZ (415) 717-5096 LESS THAN 24HOURS
PLEASE SPECIFY PART OF THE HOUSE THAT IS UNSUITABLE FOR CHILD CARE
rs
To. 13E pDMPL)iTED 0'( INS .ECTING-AUTMORITY
CLEARAN EIDENIAL CRE
FIRE SAN RAFAEL FIRE DEPARTMENT CODES
AUTHORITY FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU T 1,,FIRE CLEARANCE GRANTED
NAME AND 2. FIRE CLEARANCE DENIED
ADDRESS 1400 5TH STREET A. EXITS
I SAN RAFAEL, CA 04015 1 1
INSPE TOR'S NAIdE (Typed o1 Printed) ' TELEPHONE NUMBER
INSPECTION DATE INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE
EXPLAIN DENIAL OR LIST SPECIAL CONDITIONS
S. CONSTRUCTION
EXHIBIT 7
i
i
I
C. FIRE ALARM
D. SPRINKLERS
E, HOUSEKEEPING
NUMBER
OCCUR NCYCLASS
SPECIAL HAZARD
G. OTHER
EXHIBIT 7
i
i
I
11 Baypoint Drive
San Rafael. CA 94901
August 15, 2012
Caron Parker
Planning Department
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Dear Caron,
This letter concerns the application for a daycare center at #23 Baypoint Drive, San Rafael. I
recognize the need for daycare centers to assist working parents and it is with discomfort that I
oppose this application at this particular address, especially since Ms. Ramirez, the applicant and
proposed licensee, appears to be well-qualified. My objection to approval is the increased noise
and traffic levels that would occur during the operation of the center. The center would be in a
cul de sac, an inappropriate location considering the density of the townhouses in this particular
section of Baypoint Lagoons, most with shared contiguous walls.
The center would operate between 7AM and 5:30 PM, with some children arriving perhaps as
early as 6:30 AM, hours of outside play are programmed between 12:30-1:30 PM, perhaps again
at 4:30-5:30 PM during free play. The riding toys pictured in photographs accompanying the
application would cause quite a clatter when ridden over the hard -surfaced bricks which pave the
side yard, disturbing the quiet atmosphere in this residential neighborhood. Also; there is no
assurance that outside play hours would not be extended beyond the times allotted in the
application.
The application states that Ms. Ramirez' other centers seldom served more than seven children at
one time. It is impossible to guarantee that this center's population will resemble her previous
experience. Stronger demand in this community could push daily attendance to the allowed
maximum of fourteen. Conveyance of children to and from the center would impact traffic on
Baypoint Drive and would likely effect ingress and egress for cul de sac residents.
Children deserve an environment in which they can be free to move and make a certain amount
of noise. #23 Baypoint Drive is not the location for optimum activity for this young population.
I hope the Planning Department will seriously weigh resident neighbors' concerns about the
location of this proposed child care facility.
Sincerely yours,
Tommie S. Weldon
EXHIBIT 8-1
STARR TABER
31 BAYPOINT DRIVE
SAN RAFAEL, CA.
94901
Caron Parker
Planning Department
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, Ca.
94901
Dear Caron,
8/12/12
�p.'
It has been a couple of weeks since I met with you in the culdesac in front of
#23 Baypoint Drive. At that time I voiced my concern regarding the proposed daycare
center at that address. Since I live at #31 Baypoint, at the back of the culdesac, I am
extremely concerned about traffic, noise, debris, toys left out and general disruption of
the lives of those that live in the area. We already have a major parking problem and this
will be exacerbated as well.
We live in the Baypoint area to enjoy the quiet scene of the lagoons and enjoy the
wildlife and tranquil beauty of the bay. None of us expected to have a daycare center
imposed on our neighborhood. It is not appropriate!
I hope the Planning Department will take into consideration the opinions of those
neighbors who will be impacted a great deal by the daycare center.
Sincerely,
Starr Taber
EXHIBIT 8-2
Gmail - (no subject)
01 Page 1 of 1
i Peter Lee <peterelee63@gmail.com>
(no subject)
1 message
Peter Lee <peterelee63@gmail.com> Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 11:40 AM
To: Peter Lee <peterelee63@gmail.com>
Community Development Department
Planning Division
City of San Rafael, CA. 94901
RE: Public Hearing, Project: 23 Baypoint Drive File # UP 12-022
While recognizing the need for day care facilities, I am opposed to
the scope and size of the application (9-14) children. I also find it
unrealistic that there will be no on -street parking as parents are
want to review and attend the care activities and participate at times
with the care providers and their children. As a neighbor, I am aware
of the small back yards on these properties and find the proposed
number of the attendees would-be,constrained by limited space. I
would favor a care facility, serving 4.6 children as more acceptible.
Respectfully,
Peter E. Lee
9 Turnstone Drive
San Rafael, CA. 94901
a�:1
'CT - 9
Ca -, Ir�LRl71'' nes
t V,` ` Of' t4Lz r17
, e,,A t
EXHIBIT 8-3
https://mail.google.com/mai1/?ui=2&ik=9fb7b 12fa7&view=pt&
(L1)- 0, p [P� 0 0 "() (,Q I c (' b K) . S;- e -
� A dNcl dA AE
`ted //1 / I
OC7, 7
nn
EXHIBIT 8-4
Deborah Vandervoort
19 Baypoint Drive
San Rafael, CA 94901
Community Development Department
Planning Division City of San Rafael
P.O. Box 15160 .
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
October 17, 2012
' ' F71'VED
22012
To Whom It May Concern: PLANNING
I am writing to protest the operation of a licensed large family day care at 23
Baypoint Drive.
I live right next door and my home office window overlooks the back and side yard
of this single-family home. While I can appreciate the desire to open a home-based
business, I don't feel that opening a daycare center in a townhouse division where
all of the homes are in such close proximity is appropriate, or in the least bit
considerate.
Furthermore, I am a writer. I work out of my home and appreciate the quietness and
solitude that this affords me.
A daycare center with 9-14 children arriving as early as 6am and leaving as late as
bpm will no doubt add a level of noise and traffic that up until now has been non-
existent.
I strongly urge you to deny the application for this daycare center.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
/Av/
Deborah Va dery ort
EXHIBIT 8-5
aoI
..i'
,Q ='
October 22, 2012
Zoning Administrator
City of San Rafael
/1/0 U c z-
Re: Application # UP12-022
Permit to allow large family day care
23 Baypoint Drive
San Rafael
Dear Sir/Madam:
We wish to present our objection to subject application as not appropriate for
business in residential cul-de-sac.
23 Baypoint is not "single family home" as the application states. It is a
Townhome sharing common wall and common backyard fence with our home.
These Townhomes are small and in close proximity to each other; certainly not
designed to house a large family day care, which would impact our quality of life.
Please consider this before making your decision.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Sinc rely,
D Rassas
27 Baypoint Drive
San Rafael
OCT 2� g012
PLANNING
EXHIBIT 6-6
Caron Parker
From: Deborah Vandervoort[deborahvandervoort@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 9:46 AM
To: Caron Parker
Subject: Proposed daycare center at 23 Baypoint Drive
Dear Caron,
I sent a letter a few days ago, and hopefully the planning division received it.
Just in case, it is late, I'm writing to express my concern over the potential
daycare center under
consideration next door to my house (19 Baypoint Drive). I am a freelance
writer
and my home office faces directly onto the backyard of #23 where I can already
see multiple play structures, cribs, toys, etc. I am worried that the
screaming,
yelling, and laughing that normally occurs with large groups of children will
most definitely interfere with my ability to work. I need peace and quiet when
I
write, and I don't foresee that happening should this daycare center come to be
approved.
I am also concerned about the impact of traffic, parking,problems, and noise
that a daycare center will most certainly bring to our peaceful neighborhood.
And finally, I am worried about the probable devaluation of properties in the
immediate area. Had I known two years ago when I purchased my home that a
daycare center would be in operation next door, I would have bought elsewhere.
Please let me know when the hearing for this proposed daycare center is
scheduled.
Thank you so much!
Best,
Deborah Vandervoort
1 EXHIBIT 8-7
PLANNING DIVISION -PUBLIC HEARING October 24, 2012
RE; 23 BAYPOINT DRIVE
Requesting permit to license day care 9-14 children
I live in this same cul-de-sac at 35 Baypoint Drive. I am a retired person and crave the
quiet of where I live.
These are not 2 -story single homes, but townhouses with adjoining walls and yards. We
are all in very close proximity with each other and I do not think 9 to 14 children
spending their days in that house is a good idea.
I Flo not mind a few children being there, but the number they want will change the
quality of life here.
I think the people who share the wall with them on either side should have their say in
this matter, because they are directly affected by this intrusion.
Thank you.
Rita Lakin
35 Baypoint Drive
San Rafael 94901
4855228
EXHIBIT 8-8
November 9, 2012
Caron Parker
Associate Planner &
Acting Zoning Administrator
City of San Rafael
Re: Application # UP12-022
Permit to allow large family day care
23 Baypoint Drive
San Rafael
Dear Ms. Parker:
RECEIVED
NOV ,92012
PLANNING
Please accept this letter as objection to application for Large Family Day Care at
23 Baypoint Drive in San Rafael.
Living at 27 Baypoint Drive, I share a wall and backyard fence with this property.
This property is not suitable to accommodate 14 children, plus workers. The
noise and traffic affects my well-being.
In a recent tragedy at a day care center resulting in an infant's death (see
attached), I ask the question; what qualifications do these workers have to run a
Large Family Day Care?
Please consider these points before making a decision.
EXHIBIT 8-9
San Rafael day care workere -ested in connection with infant's deatr Page 1 of 1
San Rafael day care workers arrested in
connection with infant's death
Posted: marinij.com
Three caregivers at a Terra Linda day care center were arrested on suspicion of involuntary
manslaughter late Monday after a coroner's report concluded an infant in their care died of
accidental suffocation in bedding.
The 4 -month-old baby boy died Oct. 23 of "asphyxia due to suffocation, due to obstruction of
the external airway by bedding," according to a statement issued by San Rafael police. The
manner of death was ruled accidental.
"Based on this finding, and the totality of the police investigation, there was probable cause
to arrest the three caregivers for involuntary manslaughter."
After the coroner's finding late Monday afternoon, police at the close of business Monday
arrested Claudia Gil, 44, owner of the Magic Place Children's Center, 1055 Las Ovejas Ave.;
Sandra Del Socoro Alvarado Mendez, 49; and Lorena Huitron Jiminez, 28, all of Richmond.
They were booked at Marin County Jail with bail set at $75,00o each.
The incident occurred at 3:33 p.m. Oct. 23, when San Rafael police received a 911 call
reporting an infant not breathing at the day care center. Gil, in an earlier interview, had told
the Independent Journal that about six children and two adults, including her, were present
at the center that day.
Paramedics responded immediately, treating the baby and transporting him to Kaiser
Permanente Medical Center in Terra Linda, police said. He died at the hospital.
Since then the case has been investigated by the Marin County Sheriff s Office Coroner
Division, which conducted a forensic examination and autopsy of the infant, as well as San
Rafael police detectives and the state Community Care Licensing Division.
Gil earlier said the day care center has been in operation for eight years. The state
Community Care Licensing Division's website lists the day care center as a licensed facility
with a 24 -child capacity.
http://cpf. cleanprint.neticpflcpf?action=print&type=filePrint&key=Marin-Independent-Jou... 11/8/2012
January 10, 2013
City of San Rafael
Community Development Department
Planning Division
P.O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
Project: 23 Baypoint Drive — Appeal of Zoning for a Day Care Use Permit (UP12-022)
To Whom It May Concern,
Qw
JAN 14 2013
pLANN/NG
We, the undersigned are the immediate next door neighbors of the property in question, and are writing
to the Planning Division to object to the continued operation of a large family day care center run by a
renter of this small two-story single family home in the Baypoint Lagoons residential neighborhood.
When we were initially informed of the intended commercial use in this home in our neighborhood, we
made the decision to wait and see the impacts of the proposed day care operation before directing any
objection to the City of San Rafael.
After experiencing the day care center in operation over the last several months, we have noted the
following degradation to our previously quiet and peaceful section of the Baypoint Lagoons residential
neighborhood:
1) Excessive parked vehicles and increased drop off / pick up vehicular traffic activity, both in the
common parking area in front of the home housing the day care center and on the surrounding
streets including in front of our home, with parked vehicles sometimes blocking our driveway.
2) Cars being parked illegally in red zone areas in front of our house.
3) Increased noise from multiple screaming children in the back yard of the day care center all day
long and from families when delivering or picking up their children, negatively impacting the
quiet nature of our neighborhood.
4) Poor traffic visibility creating a danger where children are routinely running and playing while
being dropped off or picked at a dangerous bend in Baypoint Drive at the entrance of the day
care center where driver visibility is limited during the height of heavy commute hours.
A large day care center is a commercial venture and not appropriate for a residential neighborhood. Due
to the disruptions and negative impact to our residential community, we object to the continued
operation of this center and urge the Planning Commission to terminate the license for this operation.
Sincere ,
Craig Schwan
(415) 748-0735
Owners and Residents of
24 Baypoint Drive, San Rafael, CA 94901
EXHIBIT 8-10
Page 1 of 1
Caron Parker
From: David N [sfndr@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 10:23 PM
To: Caron Parker
Subject: Use. Permit UP12-022 of large family day care (9-14 children maximum) - 23 Baypoint Drive San
Rafael
Dear Ms. Parker
I am David Rassas, the property owner, at 27 Baypoint Drive San Rafael.
Our home is butted,(shares the same walls) with the subject property, 23 Baypoint drive San Rafael
My family and I wish to present our objection to zoning permit, extending the use to maximum 14
Children. We have already witnessed strong noise factor with the present number of Children.
Extending the use permit to maximum of 14 will aggravate this further and cause significant noise
increase depriving us from the peaceful enjoyment of our home.
We're in not objecting to the continuation of the day-care, we wish them much success. We however do
object to the increased noise factor that know will be coming due to the added children.
Baypoint homes as attached units where not deigned with that use in mind.
We're appealing to your sense of reason in understand our concerns.
We are greaful to your understaning,
David Rassas
1/23/2013 EXHIBIT 8-11
Caron Parker
From:
Rrats550 [rrats550@aol.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 9:31 AM
To:
Caron Parker
Cc:
t.s.weldon@comcast.net; rlakejojo@aol.com
Subject: #23 BAYPOINT HEARING
1/22/2013
Dear Caron,
Page 1 of 1
Since I will not be able to attend the hearing on the 29th, I am writing to you again in hopes that our
case will be reviewed in a more favorable light.
In discussing the issues with many neighbors and friends, I have not heard any positive reactions to
the proposed daycare center; not one! People are amazed that such a business could be allowed to
operate in our neighborhood and in such close quarters to other homes, one having a shared wall and
contiguous yard.
I am definitely aware of noise emanating from #23 Baypoint when I am out in my yard, which happens
to share a fence with my neighbor, Vikki Pollick. We do not appreciate having to listen to a lot of
little voices and occasional screaming. We all chose Baypoint because of the tranquil setting and the
enjoyment of having wildlife in the protected lagoon which happens to be in my backyard. I have NEVER
been bothered by noise coming from a neighbor's house. There is a big difference between the chirping
of birds and the sounds of diving pelicans in contrast to human sounds which can be very irritating.
The coming and going of parents and kids starting at 6:30 a.m. is another subject for discussion. Even
though these parents are parking in the street in order to drop off their kids, it makes for an accident
waiting to happen. Having lived in this area for more than ten years, I am very aware of just how
dangerous this corner is. One has to be extra careful entering our culdesac as it is very common for
people to speed around this particular corner. We have had lots of near misses and some fender
benders. Fortunately there have been no fatalities so far.
Please please please reconsider and keep in mind all the reasons that have been noted.
Sincerely,
Starr Taber
31 Baypoint Drive
1/23/2013 EXHIBIT 8-12