HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD 23 Baypoint; Child Care CenterCITY OF Agenda Item No:
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: C munity De lopment
Prepared by:
A.
City Manager Approvals'
SUBJECT: 23 Baypoint Drive — Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to grant an appeal
(AP12-007) and overturn the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of Use Permit (UP12-022) to
allow 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; Amanda McCarthy,
appellant; Leticia Arvizu/Maria Ramirez, applicant; Heather Ludloff, owner; File No.: AP13-001.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal (AP13-001) and uphold
the Planning Commission's February 26, 2013 decision to overturn the Zoning Administrator's approval of
a Use Permit by adopting the attached Resolution (Attachment 1, Page 9 of this report). The
recommended action would result in the denial of the Use Permit for a large family day care. The
operation of a small family day care (0-8 children) would still be allowed as a permitted use per Zoning
Ordinance Section 14.04.020.
BACKGROUND:
Site Conditions & Operations/Setting:
The project site is located within the Planned Development (PD1562) District, which is specific to the
Baypoint Lagoon Community. The site is part of Baypoint Lagoon subdivision approved in 1989 for 207
attached and detached single-family dwellings and 40 multi -family below market rate units. The subject
property is one of six, two-story single family townhomes located in a cul-de-sac on the north side of
Baypoint Drive. Each residence has a two -car garage and access to 4 guest parking spaces located on
the east side of the cul-de-sac. Maria Ramirez has been operating a large family day care for
approximately 9 children at the 23 Baypoint Drive home since July 2012. 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.
Project Description: The applicant proposes to operate a large family day care (Ramirez Family
Childcare) with up to 14 children maximum on the ground level of the 1,900 square foot single family
townhome at 23 Baypoint Drive. Photos of the daycare interior/exterior are included with the appeal letter
(Attachment 3.1, Page 17 of this report.) The side and rear yards of the property are fenced. The in-
home daycare provides service for both pre-school and school-age children. Proposed 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 adjacent to the 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.
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
File No.: 13
Council Meeting: L / 3 .
Disposition: L,7i
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
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).
Prior Project Planning Review History: A summary of the public hearing history is listed below. Please
refer to the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 5.1 Pages 41- 57 of this report) for a more in-
depth discussion of each hearing.
➢ 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.
➢ October 24, 2012: The Zoning Administrator (ZA) held a public hearing on the proposed project,
and 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.
➢ November 14, 2012: The ZA held the second hearing on the proposed project and conditionally
approved Use Permit UP12-022.
➢ 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.
Planning Commission Review and Action: On February 12, 2013, the Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing on the Use Permit appeal. During the hearing, the appellant, the applicant,
and members of the public all provided public testimony on the proposed project. The Commission
accepted written correspondence from 12 members of the public, as well as two additional letters
distributed at the meeting. Letters of support were submitted by a parent using the daycare, and also
from Community Action Marin, Marin Childcare Council and Canal Community Alliance. Copies of all
written public correspondence on the proposed project received during the Planning Commission review
are included as Attachment 6.1, Pages 59 — 84 of this report. In addition, there were oral comments
provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing. A total of 10 people spoke on the project,
four speakers were in favor of the project, and six speakers were opposed to the project.
Details of the testimony and Planning Commission discussion are available through a video link on the
City of San Rafael website, www.citvofsanrafael.org/meetings. Click on the Planning Commission video
link for the February 12th hearing date. In summary, the public comments in favor of the project indicated
that there was no increase in traffic and there was plenty of on -street parking available in the project
vicinity. Public comments in opposition included concerns about excessive noise, traffic safety, and
parking impacts during drop-off and pick-up. Some speaking in opposition to the project stated that they
supported the concept of in-home daycare, but were concerned about the impact of expanding the
number of children beyond a total of 8 children on the site.
Following closure of the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the project. The
Commissioners were in general agreement that in-home daycare is an important service for families.
They also did not feel that the proposed project would impact traffic in the area. However, the
Commission expressed concerns about the impact to properties adjacent to the project site, due to the
site specific constraints including: a) the common wall building construction; and b) the design, location
and amount of the off-street parking on the cul-de-sac. A summary of the comments for which the
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
Commission had consensus is provided as follows:
1. Noise: The design of the towmhomes with common walls creates a situation where the noise from
the proposed daycare could present an undue burden on the adjacent neighbor. Also, due to the
small yard area, the outdoor noise may impact privacy to adjacent yards.
2. Parking impacts: Parking could be a problem due to the configuration of the cul-de-sac parking
design.
3. Compatibility: The Commissioners discussed that while small family day care (0-8 children) is
permitted as of right, a conditional use permit is required for large family day care (9-14 children)
and this means there can be some discretion to determine impacts on surrounding properties.
The Commission acknowledged the need for large family day care, but expressed concern that
the project site was too small to accommodate more than 8 children maximum.
The majority of the Commission found that the appeal had merit and the Commission indicated its
inclination to grant the appeal, overturning the Zoning Administrator's approval. However, given that the
draft Resolution before the Commission was a Resolution to uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval,
the Commission could not take formal action. As a result, the Planning Commission voted 5-0-1
(Commissioner Schaefer abstaining due to a potential conflict of interest) to direct staff to prepare a
Resolution for denial and return to the next meeting (February 26, 2013) for formal action.
The draft Resolution for granting the appeal and overturning the ZA approval returned to the Commission
on February 26, 2013 for consideration. After some minor edits to its findings, the Commission voted 5-0-
2 to adopt Resolution 13-03 (Attachment 4.1, Page 37 of this report), granting the appeal and overturning
the ZA approval of the Use Permit. Commissioner Schaeffer recused himself due to a potential conflict of
interest and Commissioner Belletto abstained since he had just been appointed to the Commission and
was not present at the February 12, 2013 hearing.
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The project was reviewed by the Zoning
Administrator and found to be consistent with General Plan Policy NH -11 (needed neighborhood serving
uses) and General Plan Policy NH -52 (encouraging new businesses that provide needed services), as
well as that the project met the Performance Standards (see Attachment 2, Page 15 of this report), per
Section 14.17.040 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, on appeal, the Planning Commission determined
that while the proposed large family day care use was in accord with several General Plan policies (LU -14
and NH -66), the proposed project was not in accord with Policy NH -49 (Conflicting Uses). The
Commission also determined that the impact of having 14 children at the project site would not be
consistent with Section 14.17.040.C.2 (Outdoor Play Area), 14.17.040.C.3 (Outdoor Activity) and
14.17.040.C.5 (Passenger Loading). See Attachment 4.1, adopted Planning Commission Resolution 13-
03 (Page 37 of this report).
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 care are contained in 14.17.040 (Attachment 2, Page 15 of this report). 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."
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
ANALYSIS: Following the Planning Commission's February 26, 2013 decision to grant the appeal, thus
overturning the Zoning Administrator approval of the conditional use permit, a timely appeal of the
Planning Commission's action was filed. Amanda McCarthy (appellant) has appealed the Planning
Commission's decision, submitting a letter dated March 5, 2013 (Attachment 3.1, Page 17 of this report).
The appellant is the mother of a student at the day care. The appellant's main point is that the "Planning
Commission did not objectively analyze all available information regarding the case when they supported
Appeal Point #1 (from the ZA appeal by a neighbor), that the noise issue has not been fully addressed."
In addition, in granting the appeal of the ZA decision, the appellant feels that the City is not actively
seeking to promote General Plan Policy NH -66, to provide affordable, quality childcare facilities that
support the community:
Below, in bold, are appeal points identified in the appeal letter, as paraphrased and summarized by staff,
followed by a staff response of the Commission's action:
Appeal Point #1: "While there is a common wall adjoining 23 Baypoint Drive and 27 Baypoint
Drive (home of previous ZA appellant, Victoria Pollick); this common wall consists of private
family space, both upstairs and downstairs. No children are allowed in this area (save older
children, one at a time and supervised to use the restroom). A solid door separates this area
which consists of an open kitchen divided by a counter/bar from an area with a couch, loveseat,
and television, or family bedrooms (upstairs). A solid door separates this area from the daycare.
This children's area is separated from this common wall by approximately 30 feet and a closed
door." (see floor plan submitted with appeal letter, Page 22 of this report).
Response: The Planning Commission's decision was based on their review of the ZA minutes (page 49
of this report), site visits and analysis of the proposed project's consistency with applicable General Plan
2020 policies and conformance with Zoning Ordinance regulations, as presented in the February 12,
2013 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 5.1, Page 41 of this report).
After hearing public testimony, discussing the project and asking questions of the applicant to clarify daily
operational details, the Commission determined that the noise from a proposed day care with up to 14
children could create more noise impacts to the adjacent neighbor due to the common wall construction.
The Commission heard testimony from the appellant (adjacent common wall neighbor at 27 Baypoint)
that noise and vibrations from activities at the daycare were disruptive. The Commission ultimately voted
(5-0-2, with Commissioners Belletto and Schaefer abstaining) to adopt a resolution granting the appeal of
the Zoning Administrator decision and thus overturning the ZA's approval. As part of the Planning
Commission appeal, the appellant (Amanda McCarthy), submitted a noise study (see appeal letter, Page
30 of this report). The noise study showed measured noise levels below the intermittent noise limit
threshold (60 dBA) per the Noise Ordinance (SRMC Chapter 13). This information was not available at
the time of the Planning Commission review; however, the noise ordinance standard is just one of many
factors used to determine overall project impacts. In this instance, the Commission determined that the
noise from the daycare activities throughout the day, five days a week qualified as a nuisance to adjacent
property owners despite the actual measured noise levels.
Appeal Point #2: "The side yard is not and has never been used as a play area. The play area is
divided from the side yard that is used by the family to grow vegetables and relax. Therefore, the
play area has a 10 -foot wide buffer that is not used for play that is adjacent to a neighbor's yard
(19 Baypoint Drive)."
Response: Planning Commission Finding #1 and #2 in Resolution 13-03 determined that the outdoor
activities of the daycare would have a negative impact on the outdoor recreational spaces for the adjacent
neighbors. This is due to the design of the townhomes in the project vicinity (cul-de-sac with small yards),
and the close proximity of the side yard to the outdoor play area for the daycare. The Commission
recognized that the outdoor playtime was limited for only 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour in the
afternoon, but determined that the noise from the daycare activities would impact the neighbors on a daily
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT l Page: 5
basis. As such, The Commission determined that this type of noise impact is not typical of the type of
noise expected on a small cul-de-sac street with attached townhomes.
Appeal Point #3: " It should be noted that at maximum, should 14 children be present in one day,
an increase of 28 car trips would be documented. This would be spaced out over the entire day, as
shown in the typical daily log of the day (appeal letter, Page 25 of this report). Based on the
existing neighborhood use of the roadway, this is not expected to be a significant, not substantial,
nor noticeable increase in traffic. In addition, there is ample street parking such that parents are
able to park on each side of the "driveway" at any time. Parents do not enter the driveway that
provides access to each of the home, garages, and guest spaces."
Response: Planning Commission Finding #2 in Resolution 13-03 determined that the loading and
unloading of potentially 14 children near the small cul-de-sac presented a safety concern for the children
because of limited visibility for vehicle backup in the driveway and potential conflict of vehicles exiting
onto the common driveway in the cul-de- sac.
Appeal Point #4: " In terms of suitability for a large family day care .... for the majority of the day,
no more than seven children are present on the premises. Any additional children up to the
maximum of 14 children include school-age children who are quietly doing homework, reading, or
sleeping (ages typically are 5-12)."
Response: Planning Commission Finding #3 in Resolution 13-03 determined that the proposed large
family daycare use would be detrimental to properties in the project vicinity. The Planning Commission
determined that small family day care (0-8 children) was a more appropriate size for the daycare
operation on site. Ultimately, the Commission determined that the project site is not the ideal location for
the services provided and voted 5-0-2 to grant the appeal.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The initial approval of the project by the Zoning Administrator, included a determination that project was
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section
15301 (Existing Facilities). This exemption was found to be appropriate by the Planning Commission,
given that the proposed large family day care home is located in an existing single family townhome with
no proposed exterior alterations or additions.
However, should the Council ultimately vote to deny the appeal of the Planning Commission decision, the
decision would in essence be considered a denial of the Use Permit. In that case, the project is statutorily
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as identified in Section 15270 of the CEQA
Guidelines and no further CEQA review is required. This section exempts projects which a public agency
denies.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE:
In accordance with the City's public noticing requirements, public notice of the City Council hearing was
mailed to the property owners, residents, businesses and interested parties within 300 feet and
surrounding neighborhood associations. A copy of the public hearing notice is attached (Attachment 7,
Page 85 of this report).
All comments received as part of the Planning Commission appeal hearing are included as Attachment 6.1
Pages 59 - 84 of this report.
Comments received as of the City Council staff report are included as Attachment 8. 1, Page 87 - 110 of this
report. As of production of this staff report, staff has received 21 responses regarding this hearing. 19
responses were in support of the project because they felt there were minimal noise impacts and that for
the majority of the day, there are only 9 children on site. Also, 2 letters of opposition was received in
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
opposition due to concerns about disturbing yelling, noise and safety during drop-off and pick-up. Any
comment letters received after the distribution of the staff report and before the hearing, will be forwarded to
the Council under separate cover.
CONCLUSION:
The primary issues raised in the appeal are that the noise impacts from the proposed project would not
cause substantial impact to the adjacent properties beyond what is normally anticipated for an active
residential neighborhood. Further, in granting the appeal and denying the use permit for the large family
day care use (9-14 children), the City is not actively seeking to promote General Plan Policy NH -66, to
provide affordable, quality childcare facilities that support the community.
The issues raised by the appellants were adequately considered and analyzed as part of the Planning
Commission review of this project. While recognizing the importance and the need for large family day
care, the Commission determined that the day to day impact of having up to 14 children at 23 Baypoint
Drive was not compatible with the townhome design and small yard spaces of the project site and
surroundings at 23 Baypoint Drive.
As can be seen by the unanimous vote and the discussion at the hearing, the Planning Commission
considered all points and debated the potential impacts. Though not an easy decision, ultimately, the
Commissioners decided that they could not support the ZA findings that the proposed large family day
care would not have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. The Commission determined that
small family day care (0-8 children) was more appropriately suited to be located in the home at 23
Baypoint Drive, in order to minimize noise and parking impacts.
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options:
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to overturn the ZA decision to
approve large family day care at 23 Baypoint Drive.
Grant the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's decision, thus approving the Use
Permit.
3. Grant the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's decision with further modifications,
changes or additional conditions of approval to the original Zoning Administrator conditions of
approval.
4. Continue the appeal to allow the applicant, appellant(s) or staff to address any comments or
concerns of the Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This project is a private development and does not have any new fiscal impact on the City budget given
that the review and processing of these applications, including the appeal, are subject to cost recovery
fees. No new traffic improvements or mitigation fees would be triggered given that the project entails
daycare in an existing single family home.
It is recommended that the City Council
1. Open the public hearing and accept public testimony;
2. Close the public hearing;
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7
3. Adopt Resolution denying the Appeal (AP13-001) and upholding the Planning Commission's
decision to overturn the Zoning Administrator's approval of Use Permit (UP12-022) fore large
family day care home use ot23BeypointDrive (Attachment 1.Page S).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission's Decision
2. Performance Standards (Zoning Ordinance Section 14.17.O40)
3.1 Appeal Letter —Amanda McCarthy, March 5.2013
4.1 Planning Commission Resolution (13-03) granting the appeal and overturning the Zoning
Administrator approval cfUse Permit UP12-022.
5.1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission with Selected Exhibite, February 12, 2013
Exhibit Vicinity/Location Map
Exhibit 3 Zoning Administrator minutes approving Use Permit UP12-022
8.1 Correspondence received as part of the February 12, 2013 Planning Commission hearing
7. Public Hearing Notice ofAppeal
8.1 Correspondence received prior huthe May 2O.2013City Council hearing
37
41
50
51
59
85
87