HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 13722 (Large Family Day Care Use Permit)RESOLUTION NO. 13722
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN RAFAEL GRANTING APPROVAL
OF USE PERMIT (UP12-022)ALLOWING THE OPERATION OF A LICENSED LARGE
FAMILY DAY CARE (9-14 CHILDREN MAXIMUM) IN A TWO-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY TOWNHOME AT 23 BAYPOINT DRIVE (APN: 009-362-20)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as follows:
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 pin, 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 application was 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, the proposed minor interior alterations and operation of a large family day
care use at 23 Baypoint Drive is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15301 a (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines; 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 townhome 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 (API 2-00 7) of the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of Use
Permit UPI 2-022, 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 allowed without an approved use permit; and 4) whether the operation has
approval of the City of San Rafael Fire Department; and;
WHEREAS, the project was scheduled and placed on the agenda for the January 29, 2013
Planning Commission meeting and at the time of the hearing, there were only 4 Commissioners in
attendance (Commissioners Lubamersky, Paul, Schaefer and Robertson); and
WHEREAS, Commissioner Schaefer recused himself fi•om this item due to potential
conflict of interest, leaving 3 Commissioners. This did not constitute a quorum and therefore the
item could not be heard and the appeal was automatically continued to the next available Planning
Commission meeting date (February 12, 2013); and
WHEREAS, on February 12, 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 staff and
closed said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2013, the majority of the Commission found that the appeal
did have merit and the Commission was inclined to grant the appeal, thus overturning the Zoning
Administrator's approval. However, given that the Draft Resolution before the Commission did not
reflect their intention, the Commission could not take formal action that evening; and
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2013, Commissioner Lubamersky moved and Commissioner
Wise seconded to direct staff to prepare a revised Resolution granting the appeal, thus over -turning
the ZA's approval and return the revised Resolution to their next scheduled meeting. This motion
was approved 5-0-1 (with Commissioner Schaeffer abstaining due to potential conflict of interest);
and
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2013, the Planning Commission considered the revised
Resolution with findings for the granting of the appeal and over -turning the Zoning Administrator's
approval of the Use Permit. Following closure of the public hearing, the Planning Commission
granted the appeal and overturned the Zoning Administrator approval of Use Permit (UP12-022).
Commissioner Robertson moved and Commissioner Lubamersky seconded to adopt Resolution 13-
03, granting the appeal and overturning the Zoning Administrator's approval. This motion carried
by a vote of 5-0-2 (with Commissioner Belleto recusing himself since he was not appointed to the
Commission at the February 12`h meeting and Commissioner Schaefer abstaining due to potential
conflict of interest), based on Findings that the proposed project would create too much noise for
adjacent neighbors due to the shared common wall townhome design and the cul-de-sac parking
arrangement; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2013, within the statutory 5 day appeal period. Amanda
McCarthy, a resident of San Rafael and parent of a child at the Ramirez family daycare, filed an
appeal (AP 13-001) of the Planning Commission's action, pursuant to the provisions of San Rafael
Municipal Code Chapter 14.28, citing four points of appeal and requesting that the City Council
reverse the February 26, 2013 decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2013, the City Council meld a duly -noticed public hearing to
consider the Appeal (API 3-001), accepted and considered all oral and written public testimony and
the written report of the Community Development Department staff and closed said hearing on that
date; and
WHEREAS, following the closure of the public hearing, the City Council discussed the
appeal points and the proposal, ultimately voting unanimously to direct staff to prepare a revised
Resolution, granting the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, thereby over -turning the
Planning Commission decision to overturn the (AP 12-007) Zoning Administrator's approval of Use
Permit (UP12-022). The Council further recommended that the approval include a condition of
approval of the Use Permit (UPI2-022)to limit the approval for a period of 6 months, during which
time the daycare provider, concerned residents and Community Action Marin staff will meet and
confer to address resident concerns about noise, privacy and parking. At the end of the 6 month
period, the matter will return to City staff for review and if significant noise or traffic issues are
found, the Use Permit may be revoked; and
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2013, the City Council considered the revised Resolution to reflect
their direction from the May 20, 2013 to grant the appeal and overturn the February 26, 2013
Planning Commission decision, including the appropriate findings and conditions of approval, and
voted unanimously to adopt City Council Resolution No. 13539; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2014, per City Council Resolution No. 13539, Condition of
Approval #4, the Zoning Administrator held a duly noticed public hearing to review noise
mitigation measures agreed to and implemented at the daycare site as well as review the meetings
that the applicant conducted with the neighbors and the neighborhood group; and
WHEREAS, based on public testimony, despite mitigation measures implemented, the
adjacent common wall neighbor at 27 Baypoint Dr. was still concerned about noise impacts and
therefore, per COA # 4(d) in Resolution No. 13539, the Zoning Administrator was unable to
approve Use Permit (UP 12-022) and the item was referred back to the City Council for review and
final action; and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to
review the mitigation measures implemented, and accepted all oral and written public testimony;
and
WHEREAS, the time within which to seek judicial review of this decision is governed by
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6; 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, the City Council hereby rescinds the prior 6
month approval granted through the adoption of Resolution No. 13539 and grants conditional
approval of Use Permit (UP 12-022) for a Large Family Day Care use at 23 Baypoint Drive based .
on the following Findings,
USE PERTMIT FINDINGS (tiP12-022)
1, The Council finds that 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
(PD 1562) Zoning District in which the site is located in that:
a) 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 -23), and specifically listed in General Plan
Exhibit 11 as a possible land use, subject to the performance standards. Perfonnance
standards have been developed in the Zoning Ordinance to minimize potential nuisance
effects of large family home day care facilities in order that the facilities are able to be
consistent with Policies LU -14 and NH -49;
b) Large family day care is a conditionally allowable use in the Planned Development Zoning
District; and
c) 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).
2. 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:
a) The proposed project is a conditionally allowed use under the Zoning Ordinance;
b) The proposed project does not propose any exterior changes to the building or
expansion to the building;
c) The proposed project has been reviewed by appropriate City Departments and
appropriate HOA;
d) 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 and have been addressed through the Traffic Engineering
Division; the day care use would comply with the City's established perfonnance
standard contained in Section 14.17.040 of the Zoning Ordinance; and
e) 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 #4, which memorializes sound reduction
mitigation measures.
Furthermore, based on concerns expressed about noise during the Council public hearing on
May 20. 2013, the Council directed the daycare provider to meet with concerned residents to
review possible noise reduction measures. The daycare provider organized 5 meetings with
residents and other interested parties. As a result of meetings bevNeen concerned neighbors and
the daycare provider, the following additional noise reduction measures were implemented in
September 2013: a) installation of "hemasote" sound board along the downstairs shared wall; b)
installation of% inch rubber matting on the interior floor and the exterior patio; and c) behavior
modification/good-will measures (visit the site. no a -turn or left turn at the curve, warning of
dangerous roadway, walkway, and driveway).
4
In addition, an evaluation by a contractor, specializing in noise control and soundproofing, , Lee
Brenner (State License Contractor # 916001), conducted an evaluation of the site (without a
noise meter). The contractor detailed his observations and suggestions about noise attenuation
options in a letter dated July 10, 2013 (see City Council staff report, Attachment 3, Exhibit 4).
The use of stepping stones was also discussed and agreed upon, but require HOA approval prior
to installation. At this time, daycare families are walking along future proposed location of the
steeping stone path instead of using the sidewalk and cul-de-sac entrance to 23 Baypoint Drive.
Despite these measures, the adjacent neighbor at 27 Baypoint Drive continues to identify noise
from the daycare use as a noise problem at her adjacent property.
The Council understands the concerns expressed by the adjacent property owner, particularly
with respect to the impact of potentially having 14 children on site. However, based on
information on the use, submitted by the applicant, 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 has 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 Council finds
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 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 fi•ont yard of the
adjacent property at 19 Baypoint Drive, not the rear recreational space. The daycare provider
has made changes to the ingress/egress, parking and interior noise reduction to mitigate the
perceived noise impact. 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 arguably could have less land area than a single family lot configuration. It
is detennined 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
Council finds that the proposed project would not be materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed child care service (as conditioned) complies with each of the applicable
prox isions of the Zoning Ordinance because it has been reviewed by the Zoning Administrator
and City Council 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 14,1 ;`.040 of the Zoning Ordinance. Further, the City Council determined
that it is the goal of the City to balance all interests. Childcare is much needed, and noise is
regulated through Chapter 8.13 in the Municipal Code. It is unlikely that the daycare use
exceeds the Noise Ordinance thresholds in Chapter 8.13, however, the Council recognizes that
the concept of noise is different for each person and therefore it is difficult to find an acceptable
noise level that everyone can agree upon. Still, the daycare use does not trigger or exceed the
noise ordinance and mitigation measures have been agreed upon and implemented. This is a
positive step. The Council recognizes that the Ramirez Large Family Day Care is operating
within the parameters of the specific requirements set forth in the Performance Standards for
Large Family Day Care per Zoning Ordinance Section 14.17.040.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council hereby
approved the Use Permit (UPI2-022)for a Large Family Day Care use at 23 Baypoint Drive,
subject to the following conditions of approval:
USE PERMIT (UP12-022)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
1. Except as modified by these conditions of approval, 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 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday.
Outdoor playtime is limited to 1 hour in the morning (generally between 11:00 am — 12:00 pm)
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 (UPI 2-022).
2. The subject property shall be used in substantial conformance with the floor plans and
parking/loading plans submitted and stamped Approved May S, 2014, and shall be the same as
required for issuance of a building permit (if necessary), subject to the listed conditions of
approval.
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. The following sound mitigation measures agreed to by the daycare provider shall continue to be
required as part of daycare operations at 23 Baypoint Drive:
a. Installation of sound board (hemasote) at the shared wall downstairs.
b. Installation of Sia -inch rubber matting throughout the daycare and the outside play area.
c. Installation of stepping stones from the Baypoint sidewalk to the front entry door so that no
parents or children walk in the shared driveway (implementation is contingent on HOA
appro� al first).
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 )ards.
6. Although the Performance standards for large family day care uses allow outdoor activities on
the site between the hours of 7:00 am and 9:00 pm., this Use Permit shall limit outdoor play
activities to the applicant's project description, which limits outdoor play activities on site to
twice a day for 1 hour each time, generally between the hours of 11:00am to 12:00pm and
1:30pm to 2:30pm. This condition does not prohibit the day care from taking children off site
for outdoor play at other days during their allowable hours of operation.
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 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) shall run with the land and 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.
12. The operation of a large family day care shall maintain a valid City of San Rafael business
license.
13. 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 UP 12-022. Such an amendment
review shall be done at the Zoning Administrator level, with required public notice.
14. Noise from the large family day care use shall be subject to the daytime noise limits contained
in City's Noise Ordinance (SRMC 8.13). Noise exceeding the noise ordinance standards shall
allow the City to call the Use Pen -nit up for review.
I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
of said City held on Monday, the 5`" day of May 2014, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUINCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Colin, Connolly, McCullough & Mayor Phillips
NOES: COUNCILMENTBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
C._- ave P,c..;.,
ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk
Project Vicinity Map - 23 Baypoint Drive
SCALE 1 :361
i
20 0 20 40 60
FEET �!
REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
February 5, 2014
Minutes and Action
23 Baypoint Drive — Zoning Administrator (ZA) review of noise mitigation measures for the
operation of a licensed large family day care (9-14 children maximum) in the two-story single
family home at 23 Baypoint Drive. Proposed hours of operation are Monday through Friday
between 6:00 am — 6:00 pm; APN # 009-362-20; Planned Development (PD 1562) Zoning
District; Heather Ludloff, owner; Leticia Arvizu, applicant; File No: UP 12-022.
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 9 2142005252). Mrs. Ramirez has been licensed by the State of
California to operate a day care facility since 1994.
On November 14, 2012 the Zoning Administrator conditionally approved a use permit (UPI2-022)for a large
family day care to operate at 23 Baypoint Drive. This decision was appealed to the Planning Commission
(AP12-007), which granted the appeal. The Commission's decision was appealed (AP13-001) and overturned
by the City Council, at which time, the Council voted to grant the use permit for 6 months and directed the
applicant to work with neighbors to find solutions to potential noise issues, and directed staff to hold a ZA
hearing at the end of 6 months to review noise mitigation measures proposed by the day care provider.
After the City Council hearing, the day care provider, Maria Ramirez worked with Amanda McCarthy (PC
appellant) to set up a meeting of all concerned parties to discuss potential noise attenuation strategies. There
have been a total of 5 meetings held between June 2013 and January 2014 to discuss noise mitigation measures
(See Exhibit 1: Meeting Notes, with attendees identified). The framework of the discussion began with (but
was not limited to) 6 points listed below (originally suggested by the PC appellant), and included in use permit
COA 93 as points that "may be incorporated as additional conditions of approval to ameliorate concerns."
1. Replace the doors and/or windows of the home to be more "soundless"
2. Installing an A1C system so that the windows do not need to be open when it is hot
3. Conducting a study of "comps" near other large" home daycares to determine any effect of home
daycares on property value while also engaging a realtor and appraiser. broker to fully understand any
implications for the future sale of your home (my understanding is that there is no difference between 8
children and 14 children)
4. Requiring a set drop-off and pick-up time "set window" to reduce arty perceived impacts of these
activities
5. Requiring a 6 -month or 1 -year (biannual or annual) reneNval of the perinit
6. Revocation of the permit if any conditions agreed to by neighbors surface
Amanda McCarthy. parent and PC appellant took the lead in setting up the meetings. sending out agendas, and
distributing a surnmary of the meeting discussions ( See Exhibit 2: meeting summary). Caron Parker, project
plarnier, attended the first meeting only, and kept in contact with Ms. McCarthy via e-mail. In addition to the
23 Baypoint Drive
Re: UP 12-022
Hearing Date: February 5, 2014
meetings, in August 2013, a letter was distributed in English and Spanish to daycare parents, explaining the
protocol for behavior during drop-off and pick-up (Exhibit 3). Also, Lee Brenner (State License Contractor #
916001), who specializes in noise control and soundproofing, conducted an evaluation of the site (without a
noise meter). The contractor detailed his observations and suggestions about noise attenuation options in a
letter dated July 10, 2013 (Exhibit 4). Participants in the meetings included concerned neighbors (Tommie
Weldon, Starr Taber, Russ Rhone, Rita Laken, and David Rassas); the Canal Alliance (Tom Wilson, Sandy
Ponek, and Saul Godinez); Community Action Marin (Laurel Hill and one associate), the applicants (Maria
Ramirez, Leticia Arvizu, and Lionel Ramirez) and PC appellant (Amanda McCarthy). Members from the HOA
have not participated in the meetings. The homeowner (Heather Ludloff) has given guidance to Amanda
McCarthy through e-mails, but did not attend the meetings. After two meetings with neighbors; the group
agreed to and implemented the following noise reduction measures:
1. Behavior modification/good-will measures (visit the site, no u -turn or left turn at the curve, warning of
dangerous roadway, walkway, and driveway).
2. Installation of stepping stones so that no parents or children walk in the shared driveway (note, the stepping
stones have not been installed, as the HOA and homeowner are in dispute regarding the front yard; however,
parents and children are using a dirt path in the same area and are not utilizing the shared driveway).
3. Installation of sound board (hemasote) at the shared wall downstairs.
4. Installation of 3/4 -inch rubber matting throughout the daycare and the outside play area.
An additional three meetings were conducted as measures were implemented, to go over progress of
implementation, and to seek comments on the benefit of the implemented measures. Per City Council
Resolution 13539 (See Exhibit 5) Use Permit Condition of Approval #4, the ZA shall hold a 6 month review
hearing to "review the continued operation of the use and review the progress by the various parties on the
implementing measures address the neighbors concerns and determine compliance with conditions of approval,
as outlined in Condition of Approval 93." The ZA decision on whether to approve the use permit shall be based
on the following criteria, per use permit COA 44 (c) and # 4(d):
If there are no significant issues raised from the affected parties, the Zoning Administrator shall have the
authority to extend the Use Permit in perpetuity and incorporate as conditions of approval any and all
agreements made by the parties for continued operation of the large family day care.
• If there are significant issues raised or lack of agreement, the Zoning Administrator shall refer the matter
for review and action by the City- Council. This may result in the non -extension of the Use Permit,
requiring that the large family day care cease and operate as a small family day care (8 or fewer
children;) a single family home.
SRZA Minutes 2.5.14
23 Baypoint Drive
Re: UP 12-022
Hearing Date: February 5, 2014
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Required Entitlements:
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 UPI 2-022 to allow the operation of a daycare for up to 14 children.
Proposed Project:
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.
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; (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 HEARING
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, and Amanda McCarthy, appellant.
Also.there were several residents in attendance. Staff at the meeting was Caron Parker. Prc?ject Planner and
Raffi Boloyan, Principal Planner, acting as the Zoning Administrator. The issue of noise from the activities of
the daycare was explored as part of the community meetings held after the last City Council hearing. Several
SRZA Minutes 2.5.14
23 Baypoint Drive
Re: UP 12-022
Hearing Date: February 5, 2014
noise attenuation measures were implemented as a result. Caron Parker explained the project history and stated
that the purpose of this ZA hearing was to review noise mitigation measures implemented by the day care
provider, and get input on whether the measures helped reduce the perceived noise impact from the day care.
Ms. Parker asked Amanda McCarthy to update the ZA on the meetings held and the noise measures considered
and ultimately implemented. Amanda McCarthy testified that between June 2013 and December 2013, she
organized 5 meetings to discuss noise mitigation measures. Meeting notes are attached as Exhibit 1. Ms.
McCarthy indicated that the two neighbors most directly impacted by the daycare (19 Baypoint and 27 Baypoint
did not attend the meetings); although the property owner at 19 Baypoint did communicate via e-mail and 27
Baypoint attended the last meeting. A narrative summary of the meetings is presenting in Exhibit 2. The goal
of the meetings was to focus on effective and affordable mitigation measures. Noise mitigation measures
implemented in September, 2013 included: installation of flooring indoors and outdoors, installation of
soundboard material at the shared wall, and implementation of behavioral changes requested of the parents
(Exhibit 3). These noise reduction measures were researched and recommended after a site visit was conducted
by a licensed general contractor from Bay Area Noise Control (see letter in Exhibit 4). By the December 2013
meeting, traffic improved and the noise improved. Stepping stones leading from the street to the front door
could not be installed without HOA approval, but parents use the same path to approach the front door in order
to avoid using the cul-de-sac (per neighbor request). Ms. McCarthy indicated that there are 8-10 kids on site
under the age of 2 and 4 school age children. Many people seem to think there is an "increase" in the number
but there is no increase in kids on site.
Ms. Parker indicated that staff had received 3 letters of concern about the project (Exhibit 6). They were from
the residents at 27 Baypoint Drive (Victoria Pollick and David Rassas), who share a common wall with the
project site. The letter indicated that they "continue to hear loud voices and children screams on most days
during the daycare business hours." They asked that the City reevaluate the use permit. Ms. Pollick has not
been in attendance at any of the meetings; however, Mr. Rassas indicated that Ms. Pollick has asked him to
speak on her behalf. Ms. Parker indicated that she sent out a letter and e-mail to Victoria Pollick to set up a site
visit to her home to observe the noise. No response was received and as such, staff was unable to visit the
common wall neighbor at 27 Baypoint Drive. The third letter was from a resident at 11 Baypoint Drive
(Tommie Weldon) who indicated that she was concerned about the process being biased. She also reiterated her
experience with noise in her unit, which is not relevant to this use permit application.
The ZA heard testimony from a total of 20 people as summarized below:
Speaking in support of the project:
1. Heather Ludloff (property owner, 23 Baypoint): kids are well behaved, you can hear them playing but
not screaming, feeling that the daycare is living in fear of the neighbors; important that kids have a place
where people care and we need to support this; be tolerant: she is willing to plant in yard and add
stepping stones.
2. Francine Skates (2 3 Baypoint): Lived here for 7 --ears and Nvould never know dayeare is there; there is
about a 20 foot expanse between the Iiving space at 23 Baypoint and 27 Baypoint; very organized
school; there, are nosier places to be.
3. Teresa Juarez ("friend): Knows Mrs. Ramirez and has never seen any problems; was her first neighbor
many years ago.
4. Laura Hill (Department Director. Community Action \'Iarin): The difference in noise between 9-14 kids
is not significant; never seen so many complaints from neighbors about noise; Mr. Russ Roane stated the
SRZA Minutes 2.5.3 4
23 Baypoint Drive
Re: UP 12-022
Hearing Date: February 5, 2014
project would cause a "change in character of the community" - what does this mean?
5. Sandy Ponek (Canal Alliance): Family daycare is important; safety issues on site are reviewed and
handled by the State; the site is very safe; project brings diversity of age to the community- this is good.
6. Tom Wilson (Executive Director, Canal Alliance): Attended first and last meetings to discuss noise
mitigation options and thought the meetings were quite productive; the daycare has been licensed and
inspected so safety is not an issue, the daycare has 10 children on site and the rest are in school most of
the day; Mr. Rassas is home all day but told me that he was not concerned about noise, but rather, any
increase in numbers; Mrs. Ramirez runs a critical community service.
7. Ledyes (Community Action Marin): Supervises the site, helps with curriculum and daily routine; the
kids are not just running around, they have a schedule and lots of supervision.
8. Paula Sifuentes: I supervise Maria Ramirez and do not hear noise outside when I come to the site; not
always 14 kids on site.
9. Liz Burns (Community Action Marin, Child Development Program): Mrs. Ramirez's daycare receives
Community Action Marin (CAM) supervision and state mandated qualification, Mrs. Ramirez must
submit "desired result" letter to report how children are progressing; state auditors review the operation;
never has had a complaint from parents using the daycare; CAM has not received complaints from
neighbors about noise, CAM resolved a noise complaint from neighbors adjacent to a daycare center
with 220 kids, so we should be able to resolve any noise issues at 23 Baypoint; what is the community's
idea of "neighborhood character?"; CAM operating 8 family day care locations; CAM forced to close
infant care facility so family day care is the only place for infants to go; family day care is a good
investment.
10. Florensa Parada: I didn't have childcare for 2 years. This negatively impacted my ability to work and
the kid's education; family daycare is important to everyone; waiting lists are very long; Maria Ramirez
provides a good quality service; we can work out the noise issue and build relationships, no
discrimination
11. Maria Ramirez (daycare provider and applicant): Daycare operating with all required permits (Fire, State
and use permit) and has insurance; licensed for 14 kids since she started at 23 Baypoint; cannot exceed
the maximum allowed (14 kids) because she would lose her State license; kids play outside %2 hour/day,
reduced from 1 hour, installed rubber matting on ground outside to reduce noise; kids do not go near
other properties; kids are supervised by parents during drop-off and pick-up; respect neighbors and have
tried to do anything she can to reduce noise.
12. Leticia Arvizu (Ms. Ramirez's daughter): The daycare has 4 school age kids and 10 kids in the home;
there is another large family- daycare in the area (185 Bahia) with the same HOA; My Mom is trying to
do everything to compromise with neighbors; no 100% happiness for anyone; only a difference of 2 kids
between small family daycare and large family daycare; offer neighbors to come meet the family and see
the daycare operation; daycare has nothing to do with property landscaping and the fence is not an issue
to run the daycare
13. Iden Bateho (75 Belvedere): Implements "raising a reader" in 26 home day care locations; Mrs.
Ramirez is the best run dayeare that he has seen. Great teaching.
14. Mr. Arvizu ('Mrs. Ramirez's son): There were no noise complaints until the ZA notice went out for the
use permit back in 'November 2012; if neighbors had not been notified, ncighbors would not know that
the daycare was large family; the neighborhood is growing and diversity is coming, feel that neighbors
in opposition are pulling in things like traffic and landscaping — and this has nothing to do with daycare;
change is coming.
SRZA Minutes 2.5.14
23 Baypoint Drive
Re: UP 12-022
Hearing Date: February 5, 2014
Speaking in Opposition to the project:
1. Russ Roane (39 Baypoint): Lives in Oregon and speaking on behalf of Victoria Pollick. There are 3
issues: a) the noise standard is subjective and the property owner at 27 Baypoint does not think
mitigation measures have solved the noise issue; b) the daycare is causing a change in the character of
the community; and c) problems between HOA and landlord and leasee should make sure safety issues
are addressed. How will they be addressed? Fence is still broken.
2. Victoria Pollick (27 Baypoint, common wall neighbor to 23 Baypoint): Sound board installed is
ineffective; my husband is at the house for 6 weeks straight and needs to sleep during the day.
3. Karen Thomas (135 Baypoint): Representing the HOA; thought there were only 8 kids at first; read an
HOA statement, concerned about the noise, property owner at 23 Baypoint will not work with HOA on
site improvement issues; noise has to be abated for HOA to support the project.
4. Star Taber (31 Baypoint): Unsafe for kids on arrival; can hear noise in her yard and never heard noise
before.
5. Christine Bachman (10 Avocet): On the HOA's Architectural Board Committee; lawn at 23 Baypoint is
in complete disrepair; HOA cannot approve stepping stones without first getting the yard repaired; HOA
attorney is communication with property owner, HOA is interested but limited in its ability to
participate; replaced the windows in her house and it made a significant huge difference in sound.
6. Tommie Weldon (11 Baypoint): Noise issue at my house and with my adjacent neighbor; in support of
Vicki Pollick; supports daycare.
The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing at 11:30 am.
The Zoning Administrator has reviewed the meeting notes and examined the mitigation measures put in place.
Overall, the ZA 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, except for the noise
issue raised, the proposed use would be largely compatible with the surrounding uses in the cul-de-sac and
neighborhood at large. General Plan Policy NH -66 states "provide more affordable, quality childcare programs
that support the community." The proposed Large Family Day care is consistent with this GP policy.
However, through the public process, noise from the daycare has been identified as an issue for some neighbors.
The express purpose of this ZA hearing is to take comments from affected residents on the success of the
installed noise reduction measures. Based on public testimony, there is no agreement that the mitigation
measures implemented have reduced the noise levels.
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 o- NN ncr, 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.
SRZA Minutes 2.5.14
23 Baypoint Drive
Re: UP 12-022
Hearing Date: February 5, 2014
ACTION TAKEN: NO ACTION. PROJECT CONTINUED TO CITY COUNCIL
The Zoning Administrator, at the meeting of Wednesday, February 5, 2014 had two options:
Option 1: Extend the operation of the use permit (UPI2-022)with conditions; or
Option 2: Take no action and schedule the project for a City Council hearing, per City Council Resolution
13539, COA 94 (c) and (d).
In approving the use permit, the intention of the Council was to allow the daycare provider a 6 month period to
work with the neighbors on identifying possible noise reduction measures. Resolution 13539 approved the use
permit for Large Family Day Care at 23 Baypoint Drive with the following conditions:
COA 42: This Use Permit (UP 12-022) is valid for 6 months only, or until December 3, 2013. At the end of this 6 month
period, the Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Division staff to review the continued operation of the use and
review the progress by the various parties on implementing measures to address the neighbors' concerns and determine
compliance with conditions of approval, as outlined in Condition of Approval #3 below. Based on the review, the Use
Permit may be extended or not extended subject to the procedures outlines in Condition of Approval #4 below.
COA #3: Within the 6 month time period, the daycare provider, concerned residents, staff from Community Action Marin
and the Baypoint Lagoon HOA, will meet and confer to address potential impacts from the daycare regarding noise,
privacy and parking safety.
a. City staff will initiate an introductory meeting between the four parties to establish the framework,
explain this condition of approval and encourage a cooperative process to find solutions. The framework
for the discussion will be based on the point identified in a letter from the appellant (Amanda McCarthy)
to the Council dated May 5, 2013, as on file with the Community Development Department, identifying 6
points that may be incorporated as additional conditions of approval to ameliorate concerns, as listed
below:
i. Replace the doors and/or windows of the home to be more "soundless"
ii. Installing an A/C system so that the windows do not need to be open when it is hot
iii. Conducting a study of "comps" near other large" home daycares to determine any effect of
home daycares on property, value while also engaging a realtor and appraiser/broker to fully
understand any implications for the fixture sale of your home (my understanding is that there
is no difference between 8 children and 14 children)
iv. Requiring a set drop-off and pick-up time "set window" to reduce any perceived impacts of
these activities
V. Requiring a 6 -month or 1 -year (biannual or annual) renewal of the permit
vi. Revocation of the permit if any conditions agreed to by neighbors surface
COA #4: The 6 month review is to be administered by Planning Division staff, and shall follow the following procedures:
a. At least 4 weeks prior to the expiration date, the applicant shall be responsible to submit in writing an
update and status on their discussions with concerned residents, staff from Community Action Marin and
Baypoint Lagoons HOA.
SRZA Minutes 2.5.1.4
23 Baypoint Drive
Re: UP 12-022
Hearing Date: February 5, 2014
b. Planning Division staff will mail a 15 -day public hearing notice for a Zoning Administrator public
hearing to request any written or oral comments on operation of the use and the discussions/agreements
made by the working group.
c. If there are no significant issues raised from the affected parties, the Zoning Administrator shall have the
authority to extend the Use Permit in perpetuity and incorporate as conditions of approval any and all
agreements made by the parties for continued operation of the large family day care.
d. If there are significant issues raised or lack of agreement, the Zoning Administrator shall refer the matter
for review and action by the City Council. This may result in the non -extension of the Use Permit,
requiring that the large family day care cease and operate as a small family day care (8 or fewer children)
a single family home.
e. No application fee will be required for this review.
The ZA pointed out that it is the goal of the City to balance all interests. Childcare is much needed, and noise is
regulated through Chapter 8.13 in the Municipal Code. It is unlikely that the daycare use exceeds the Noise
Ordinance thresholds in Chapter 8.13, however, the ZA pointed out that the concept of noise is different for
each person and therefore it is difficult to find an acceptable noise level that everyone can agree upon. Still, the
daycare use does not trigger or exceed the noise ordinance and mitigation measures have been agreed upon and
implemented. This is a positive step. However, at the conclusion of the ZA hearing, there was still a lack of
agreement between neighbors about the effectiveness of the mitigation measures implemented. The ZA
indicated that he appreciated the efforts by those who participated on both sides of the issue, but unfortunately,
since there was no compromise reached, the ZA could not take an action. Per City Council Resolution 13539,
COA 44d, the matter is now referred back to the City Council for final review. The hearing date is as yet
undetermined but will be notice to all parties within 300 feet and any other persons in attendance at this ZA
hearing.
FINDINGS (Use Permit UP12-022)
No findings were made as part of this ZA hearing. As the matter of noise reduction could not be resolved
between the parties, the project was continued and a hearing will be scheduled before the City Council.
Previous findings for the 6 -month conditional approval of the Use Permit (UPI2-022)can be found in the City
Council Resolution 13539 (Exhibit 5).
Raffi Boloyan, Acting Zona Aaiiiiati�t'#�a�®r Date
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
SR-ZA Minutes 2.5.14
23 Baypoint Drive
Re: UP 12-022
Hearing Date: February 5, 2014
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
Ken Bateho, 75 Belvedere
Victoria Pollick 27 Baypoint Dr
Christine Bachman, 10 Avocet
Russ Roane, 39 Baypoint
Laura Hill, Community Action Marin, 29 Mary Street
Liz Burns, Community Action Marin, 29 Mary Street
Tom Wilson, Executive Director, Canal Alliance, 91 Larkspur
Maria Ramirez and Leticia Arvizu, applicants, 23 Baypoint Drive
SRZA Minutes 2.5.14
Attendees: Caron Parker (City of San Rafael Planning Department)
Laurel Hill (Community Action Marin)
Tom Wilson (Canal Alliance)
Sandy Ponek (Canal Alliance)
Maria and Yone Ramirez (Applicant -tenant of 23 Baypoint)
Amanda McCarthy (Appel la nt/Pa rent)
Russ Rhone (Neighbor at 39 Baypoint, representing Victoria)
Location: 91 Larkspur Street, San Rafael, CA 94901
Subject: 23 Baypoint Mediation -Conditional Use Permit discussion
Date/Time: Thursday, June 6, 2013/ 9am-1 0:30am
The meeting began with introductions and an overview of the City Council decision, the draft
resolution to go before the Council on Monday, and a timeline discussion. The CUP is approved
until December 3, 2013 and Caron will prepare a summary of activities completed to date and
hold an additional public hearing sometime in late October. We discussed that there are likely
going to be two sets of items that are discussed at these meetings: 1) issues to be a part of the
CUP that pertain to the daycare and things that the City can regulate and, 2) human behavior
issues that we can all agree to abide to, but that the City will not be a part of for the CUP. We
also all agreed that the HOA needs to let us know which items require HOA approval (and then
which committee and contacts to gain approval) and which items can be implemented
immediately, with no approval. We then went through the list of items developed to date,
refining them as a group. Items asterisked are to be implemented immediately. Items with
BEHAVIOR will not be a part of the CUP, but will instill good will. Other items will need to be
reviewed by the HOA and homeowner (Heather) and implemented as feasible.
Overview of refined list of items:
a) Having all parties that are participating in the mediation of conditions visit the site,
so that we all understand what the home and location look like. BEHAVIOR
b) ****Investigating ways to make the front door "quiet" and implementing technology
(soft closer, new seals, etc)*"***
c) Installing an A/C system so that the windows may be closed when it is hot
(window or central and how the HOA would approve)
d) --install floating, sound absorbing padding or some sort in the children's play
area/daycare area (not in the kitchen/living room area)"'
e) No u -turn or left turn at the curve (so must continue along Baypoint, doing a loop -
this would be a sign put by the City and abided by neighbors and daycare
attendant parents) or Would be a sign that children are present: BEHAVIOR
2169-G East Fm7C CC e;Vd
, a _ Rafael, CA 9401 (415) 454-8888 id (4151454-0129 fax i n f—Pawra
-ca.com wvmira-ca.com
f) Installing stepping stones so that no parents or children walk in the shared
driveway
g) Fence issue (HOA to help): NOT IN CUP
h) Install sound proofing at shared wall (upstairs and downstairs, if determined
needed by assessment of sound, see item i)
i) ***Conduct sound assessment to determine what conditions would most reduce
noise (Tom Wilson of Canal Alliance to determine if this can be done pro-bono or
at a reduced fee)****
j) Install window film to reduce noise
k) Notify all parents that, between the blind curve, driver's that have slower reaction
times, or other situations, dangerous situations can occur and that they should be
vigilant at all times. BEHAVIOR
We will begin investigation and implementation of the asterisked items (front door, thick padding
in daycare area, and sound assessment (Tom Wilson)) and will update the neighbors as these
items are implemented. The next meeting will be scheduled for one month (tentatively on
Thursday, July 11 to be held at gam at the Canal Alliance conference room (91 Larkspur Street,
San Rafael) to discuss progress and to continue to refine the list of items that will make this work
for all. We should know much more by the next meeting if the sound assessment can take place
that Tom is going to work on ..... thank you!
Meeting Notes
Attendees: Caron Parker (City of San Rafael Planning Department)
Laurel Hill (Community Action Marin)
Sandy Ponek (Canal Alliance)
Maria and Leticia Ramirez (Applicant -tenant of 23 Baypoint)
Amanda McCarthy (Appellant/Parent)
Russ Rhone (Neighbor at 39 Baypoint, representing Victoria)
Tommie Weldon
Location: 91 Larkspur Street, San Rafael, CA 94901
Subject: 23 Baypoint Mediation -Conditional Use Permit discussion -2nd Meeting
Date/Time: Thursday, July 11, 2013/ gam -1 0:00am
The meeting began with introductions and an overview of the timeline discussion we began at
the first meeting. The CUP is approved until December 3, 2013 and Caron will prepare a
summary of activities completed to date and hold an additional public hearing sometime in late
October. We discussed that the way that we will proceed will be to first have Heather (the owner
of 23 Baypoint Drive) have the HOA give their approval for items to be conducted out the outside
of the building. Hopefully, at the next meeting, we know that all items are approved for
proceeding from the HOA. At the next meeting (Set for Thursday, August 8, 2013 at gam at the
same location), we will agree to the items to be implemented prior to the October hearing and
will begin implementing them.
I
Next, Amanda McCarthy gave an overview of the site visit from the sound engineer at Bay Area
Sound Control. Items that we went over at the site visit are included in the list of potential action
items, below. However, he did verbally state that he felt that none of these items would control
the noise to a point that it would be detectably less by a sensitive ear. We all agreed that we
would do what we could, in both behavior and in implementing possible solutions.
Lastly, we discussed being neighborly and treating each other with respect and courtesy. There
rn
is soe concern that this has not been taking place.
I have, waited to finalize these minutes to get a final report from the sound engineer, but he has
informed me that there is nothing else for him to Prepare without conducting a more -detailed
sound study that is outside of the scope (and budget) of this project. I arntherefore including
any iterrs that we discussed at the site visit, but that may nct have been included in the draft
report.
As discussed at the first meeting, there are going to be two sets of items: 1) issues to be a par,
of the CUP that pertain to the daycare and things that the City can regulate and, 2) human
behavior issues that we can all agree to abide to, but that the City will not be a part of for the
CUP.
2169-0 East Francisco Blvd., Son Rafoel, CA 94901 (415) 454-8863 tei (415) 454-0129 fox info@vvra-catom WW'Wra-co'com
Behavior items that all parties will agree to adhere to, but that will not be a part of the
City process (per Caron):
a) All parties that are participating in the mediation of conditions will visit the site, so
that we all understand what the home and location look like. However, please
note, Maria is prohibited from allowing anyone into the home while children are
present. She can be fined $500 for any infraction, per person, by the State. This
is to protect the children. Please email Amanda to set up a time to visit.
b) No u -turn or left turn at the curve (so must continue along Baypoint, doing a loop -
this would be a sign put up by the City and abided by neighbors and daycare
attendant parents) or would be a sign that children are present.
c) Notify all parents that, between the blind curve, driver's that have slower reaction
times, or other situations, dangerous situations can occur and that they should be
vigilant at all times.
d) Conduct sound assessment (completed)
e) Fence issue to be resolved outside of this process
f) Items to be approved by the HOA (first two) and Heather (the homeowner,
remaining items)
g) Installing stepping stones so that no parents or children walk in the shared
driveway. This is from the sidewalk to the path to the front door, and will be
visible from the street. Russ and Tommie stated at the meeting that this occurs
elsewhere in the development, so should not be a problem.
h) Installing an A/C system so that the windows may be closed when it is hot
(window or central). Russ has central A/C, but HOA would need to approve
location.
i) Install sound proofing drywall at shared wall (upstairs and downstairs, or in
garage). No change in appearance, so HOA should not need to approve.
j) Install window film or secondary window to reduce noise. No change in
appearance, so HOA should not need to approve.
I<) Install additional sound seals to the front door and other doors, as appropriate.
No change in appearance, so HOA should not need to approve.
1) Install floating, sound absorbing padding or some sort of carpeting in the
children's play area/daycare area (not in the kitchen/living room area). No change
in appearance, so HOA should not need to approve.
m) Install kitchen mats (from restaurant supply store) in kitchen (completed)
n) Install seals and additional barrier (Plexiglas) on door between kitchen and
daycare. No change in appearance, so HOA should not need to approve.
As stated previously, we hope to have the HOA review this list prior -to the next meeting -so that
we can discuss what should be implemented prior to October. The next meeting will be
scheduled for one month (Thursday, August 8 to be held at 9am at the Canal Alliance
conference room (91 Larkspur Street, San Rafael) to discuss progress .....thank you?
Meeting Notes
Attendees: Sandy Ponek (Canal Alliance) .
Maria, Leo, and Leticia Ramirez (Applicant -tenant of 23 Baypoint)
Amanda McCarthy (Appellant/Parent)
Tommie Weldon
Starr Taber
Rita Laken
Supporting friend (no name stated)
*1 apologize for any misspellings!
Location: 91 Larkspur Street, San Rafael, CA 94901
Subject: 23 Baypoint Mediation -Conditional Use Permit discussion -3rd Meeting
Date/Time: Thursday, August 8, 2013/ 9am710:00am
The meeting began with introductions and an overview of the timeline discussion we began at
the first meeting. The CUP is approved until December 3, 2013 and Caron will prepare a
summary of activities completed to date and hold an additional public hearing'sometime in late
October. We discussed that the way that we will proceed will be to implement the behavioral .
iterns and three physical items immediately to determine the effect of these items prior to the
October hearing.
We also spent some time discussing "starting with a clean slate" in terms of perception and
neighborly attitudes and we differentiated items i) related to the daycare and 2) related to
continued frustration with the maintenance of the property (landscaping and fence issue) that
are to be dealt with outside of this process. Some time was spent discussing behavior of
neighbors and parents (daycare clients) to refine the list of items, below. Vibrations and noise
for anything over 8 children continues to be a concern of neighbors.
As discussed at the first meeting, there are going to be two sets of items: 1) issues to be a part
of the CUP that pertain to the daycare and things that the City can regulate and, 2) human
behavior issues that we can alt agree to abide to, but that the City will not be a part of for the
-- CUP, For both categories; I- have 4n -e -out-items that have been completed, no longer apply, or
that will not be the focus of efforts, based upon the agreement of all parties this morning.
Behavior items that all parties wHl agree to adhere to, but that will not be a pari of the
City process (per Caron):
a) All parties that are participating in the mediation of conditions will visit the site, so
that we all understand what the home and location look like. However, please
note, Maria is prohibited from allowing anyone into the home while children are
present, She can be fined $500 for any infraction, per person, by the State. This
is to protect the children. Please call Leticia to set up a time to visit.
b) No u -turn or left turn at the curve (so must continue along Baypoint, doing a loop -
this would be a sign put up by the City and abided by neighbors and daycare
attendant parents) or would be a sign that children are present.
c) Notify all parents that, between the blind curve, driver's that have slower reaction
times, or other situations, dangerous situations can occur and that they should be
vigilant at all times. Also notify parents about general safety regarding children
(e.g., not to leave children unsupervised in vehicle).
d}-Gondt4ct-sound
o bo
i) Physical Items
g) Installing stepping stones so that no parents or children walk in the shared
driveway. This is from the sidewalk to the path to the front door.
hHnstalling--an AIG system se --that #windo a y be clesed M lien 4t4s-hot-
(wind-ew-GP-GeWtral). Ru,,,.s has sd-n-eccd to oppr-a-
�im�.
i) 1ristall sound pr Fyw
dall all
f,
ganago. Install sound board at shared wall.
;N
J] .I
. . . . . chonga-i-
appearan-Ge-�o+IQA-s-[qG�ot-nee-d4G--a-pp-rov,—
lo install aadditi-en-al-s-OL-Rd &0uIc to4he-frGnt-dao at #ier--deers, as appropriate=
No Ghange- in ap-1--carance, oa44OA-s-heuld4iot-n-aed to apprave-.
1) Install floating, sound absorbing padding or some sort of carpeting in the
children's play area/daycare area (not in the kitchen/living room area).
"stall sc-als an dition—al baT-t:ier 1plexig'—N — de -F betw een-kitcben--a-nd-
dayGam—.No-cliange in appear-anGe, so1-111--A—shodd-n%keed-te-app-FGW—,
Prior to the next meeting, the stepping stones and sound board will be in place and the flooring
solution will be determined. Tommie has offered to speak with Deborah's neighbor to see if the
sound board was an effective solution and will let us know ASAP.. This should allow time to see
if some of the concerns are being addressed (i.e., conditions are improving).
The next meeting will be scheduled for one month (Thursday, Septmber 5, 2013 to be held at
9arn at the Canal Alliance conference room (91 Larkspur Street, San Rafael)) to discuss
progress .....thank you!
Attendees: Sandy Ponnk(Canal Alliance)
Maria, and Leticia Ramirez /Aoo|icant-tenantof23Bevoo/n0
Amanda McCarthy (Appel ksnt/PonenA
Laurel Hill (CAyW)
Tommie Weldon /11 BaypninU
Starr Taber (31BaypoinU
Grant Miller /31Baypoind
°{ apologize for any misspellings!
Location: 91 Larkspur Street, San Rafael, CA94SO1
Subject: 238avooindMediation-Conditional Use Permit disouooion'vmMeeting
Date/Time: Thursday, September 5, 2013/ 9am-10:00am
The rneeting'began with introductions and an overview of the timeline discussion we began at
the first meeting. The CUP iaapproved until December 3,2O13and Caron will prepare a
summary nfactivities completed todate and hold anadditional 'public hearing sometime inlate
January 2014. VVediscussed that the way that waare proceeding iahoimplement the
behavioral items and three physical items immediately to determine the effect of these items
prior to the next meeting to determine how things are going.
Leticia and Maria have distributed a flyer to all parents describing the safety concerns of the
neighbors and have asked all parents to abide by the items discussed, namely to not conduct u -
turns or left turns at the curve and to be aware oi safety considerations. Anagroup, vve
discussed some of the safety concerns, while also concluding that we can advise, but not
control, the behavior ofother adults inthe neighborhood. The only control that vvereally have is
onour own behavior and the behavior nfthe children once atthe daycare. However, Maria has
advised parents that there may not be a spot for them if they are not respectful of these
concerns. Starr, in particularly, brought up an incident with a parent crossing the road and
calling another child to cross the road without an adult and of incidents with children left in omra
without adult supervision. VVeare doingourbest toeducate parents and have asked all parties
LO notify Maria if this should happen and to address tile parent while the activity is occurring,
We nex' discussed 'the progress oil the "physical items" agreed to by all parties:
Physical Items
a) Installing stepping stones sothat noparents orchildren mo|kintile shared
driveway. This is from the sidewalk h)tile path tothe front door.
b) Install floating, sound absorbing padding inthe children's play area/daycare orea
(not in the kitchenilkvingmomarea),
c) Install soundboard at the downstairs shared wall to further muffle any noise
impacts (kitchen door is closed at all times).
We are awaiting approval from the HOA to install the stepping stones (Heather is to submit the
application ASAP and Leticia is going to work on this). We have identified a flooring solution
that is affordable and meant for this application. CAM and the Canal Alliance have both agreed
to work to provide funding for the flooring (estimated to cost $1000 with shipping). We had
postponed the purchase of the sound board to see what solution Deborah and Theresa had
used, but have determined (via phone message and information from Tommie), that no sound
board was installed so we cannot learn anything from that application.
We agreed that the flooring will be the first priority and then will install the sound board solution.
We also discussed the importance of spacers, density, and thickness of the material (Tommie
did research at San Rafael lumber).
Lastly, although we agreed that numerous issues do not pertain to the daycare or this CUP, we
discussed the landscaping issues, fencing issues, and overall concerns that the neighbors have
with the homeowner of 23 Baypoint (Heather). It was agreed that the best resolution will be for
Leticia and Maria to discuss these items with Heather and perhaps to take over the landscaping
etc from the homeowner. There is some concern that parents may drive "nice" cars to be able
to receive subsidized daycare, requests for information regarding the cost of daycare (CAM
provided generalities), and further discussion of "neighborliness" that indicate some
improvement in relationships between the neighbors and the residents of 23 Baypoint. We
ended with some discussion of next steps and what the ultimate result will be....it is my belief
that everyone participating is concerned that, in the end, there will be no change in perception
or in the acceptance of a daycare at this location.
The next meeting will be scheduled for one month after the installation of the flooring material
and the stepping stones and will be held at 9am at the Canal Alliance conference room (91
Larkspur Street, San Rafael)) to discuss progress .....thank you! I will send out a notification
when the materials have been installed so that everyone is aware of the progress that has been
made.
~^~_~.~~^_.
Attendees: Tom Wilson (Canal Alliance)
Saul Godinez (Canal Alliance)
Maria, Lionel, and Leticia Ramirez(Applicant-tenant uf23
Amanda McCarthy (Aopeikant/Parent)
David Raa000(Adjacent Wall Neighbor, 27BaypoiDM
Tommie Weldon /Neighbor. 11 BoypoiOU
Location: 91 Larkspur Street, San Rafao|,,CA84QO1
Subject: 23BavouindMediation-Conditional Use Permit disouoaion-2n«Meeting
Date/Time: Thursday, December 19, 2013/ 9am-1 0:00am
The meeting began with introductions and an overview of the process that has taken place
since the initial application for the Conditiona|UsePermit (CUP). The CUP haapproved until
December 3, 2013 and Caron will prepare a summary of activities completed to date and hold
an additional public hearing sometime in early February 2014 (the City is on mandatory furlough
the last two weeks ofDecember 2O13). The purpose ofthis final meeting was togather
feedback oh the conditions that have been implemented to date (installation of flooring indoors
and outdoors, installation ofaoundboanjmaterial atthe shared wall,and implementation of
behavioral changes; installation of the stepping stones has not taken place, but parents walk
along adirt path inexistence, rather than the shared drivevvay). All ofthese conditions were
agreed upon byall participants inthis process.
After the overview ofthe process, | presented oommnntefrom Deborah Vondervoorthne� ~ (neighbor
adjacent tobackyard of23Baypo�b;
t.ThnpointhetnhmneksmdinooDaspondanoewith ` e
(she was not able to attend any of the meetings, but has been in email contact throughout the
process) include: 1.Concern for HOA enforcement for noise; 2).Quiet neighborhood/ tight
configuration ofhomes; 3).Permit would exist inperpetuity; and 4).Property value concerns. In
summary: 1) the HOA previously worked with Deborah and her neighbor to control noise, but
has not participated in this process nor enforced outstanding HOA items with the current
homeowner. iamnot sure what the process for this is, but David let usknow that the HOAks
'
not able hoenforcea/(enorother option tofo,oeahomeovvnertoimprove the yard, replace the
fence, or be quiet more than City ordinance allows; 2),this is a quiet neighborhood, but is not "a
retirement community that prohibits families orsmall children from being present /butpedleps
the HOA wouWlike tochange po|icy?);3\ The CUP iaissued tothe opp|ioanffor
'the particular
location and is not transferable to another location nor to another individual; 4) property value
will not increase nor decrease due tothe presence nfahome daycare (it ism positivetosome
and anegative toothers. depending onthe potential home byyeh. Primarily, Deborah's
concerns are for outside noise (the children usually /eavethe premises for outside tinno,now, aa
negligenceMaria has O-chi|dstrollers totake themtnPioNevveedPark) and for homeowner
(fence and /ondacaping).
Next, David presented his concerns and gave us his background (he has not participated in the
process previously). He travels for work and is home for 2 months and then away from home
for 6 weeks throughout the year. Victoria works away from home 4 days each week. His
primary concern is for noise/vibration due to the shared concrete pad for the two homes and
open construction of the attic and subfloor. Both David and Victoria hear noises while they are
at home, throughout the day. Prior to the Ramirez family moving to the location, the
homeowner lived in the home (alone) and one prior tenant lived in the home (alone, with a
grown child present at some times). The current family living situation is therefore much
different from any of the previous inhabitants at the location. We also discussed what it means
to live in a multi -dwelling housing (with shared walls) at an apartment complex, what the
inherent expectations are of living in close proximity to others, and what the daycare's previous
location was like (shared wall, shared subfloor and concrete pad, shared attic space).
Lastly, Tommie presented her concerns and gave us some background information. She lives
away from the daycare, but is sympathetic to the direct neighbors as she has experienced living
by noisy neighbors at her current location. She does not experience any impact from the
daycare while the children are inside, but can hear them when they are outside playing (in
contrast to noise from the school across the street). She has experience that noise/vibration
comprises quality of life. She also brought up safety concerns for two vehicles/experiences (a
dark blue caravan and a red neon). Leticia was going to check to be sure, but thought that
neither of these vehicles belonged to parents of the daycare—she warns parents to abide by all
rules that we have established in this process (see previous notes) and dismisses them from
the daycare, if needed. Another condition to be considered by the City for the CUP could be to,
maintain a list of all vehicles driven by parents (with license plates) so that all direct neighbors
are aware. The daycare cannot control driving behavior of all people on the street, however,
nor is the daycare responsible for anyone with children that may be present in the area.
The last item discussed/clarified was the number of children present at the daycare and
concerns that the number of children would increase over existing conditions. The daycare has
always operated under the license for 14 children (at the previous location and at this location).
The City has allowed the daycare to operate with 14 children without the CUP until this process
is completed (from July 2012). With the CUP process, no addition of children would or could
occur as the daycare is state licensed for no more than 14 children (in varying makeup, as
described previously).
This was the final meeting to take place prior to the Planning Commission hearing that will be
scheduled for February 2014 (date to be determined). All meeting meetings have been
compiled and submitted to all parties, including the City, documenting the discussion made by
the group. Any future meetings will be scheduled at a later time, if determined necessary by the
City .....thank you!
Dr. Amanda McCarthy
83 Clyde Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
February 2, 2014
Caron Parker
City of San Rafael Planning Division
P.O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
Re: File No UP12-022—Outreach and mediation summary
Dear Ms. Parker,
I am writing to give a summary of the activities that have been conducted in support of the City Council decision to
grant the use permit for 6 months. Per the City Council's direction, I have worked on behalf of the applicant,
Leticia Arvizu, and her mother, Maria Ramirez, to "work with neighbors to find solutions to potential noise issues."
Specifically, the Commission's decision was appealed (AP13-001) and overturned by the City Council, at which
time, the Council voted to grant the use permit for 6 months and directed the applicant to work with the daycare
provider, concerned residents, staff from Community Action Marin, and the Baypoint Lagoon HOA to find
solutions to potential noise issues, and directed staff to hold a ZA hearing at the end of 6 months to review noise
mitigation measures proposed by the day care provider.
Five meetings were held to comply with this condition:
June 6, 2013, July 11, 2013, August 8, 2013, September 5, 2013, December 19, 2013
All meetings were held at the Canal Alliance office (91 Larkspur Street, San Rafael) from 9 to 10am. Prior to each
meeting, I send an Outlook invitation (and separate email agenda) to the following: Rita Lakin (neighbor, 35
Baypoint), Deborah Vandervoort (neighbor, 19 Baypoint), David Rassas (neighbor, 27 Baypoint), Victoria Pollick
(neighbor, 27 Baypoint), Russ Roane (neighbor, 39 Baypoint), Tommie Weldon (neighbor, 11 Baypoint), Starr
Taber (neighbor, 31 Baypoint), Grant Miller (neighbor, 31 Baypoint), Christine Bachman (Baypoint Lagoon HOA
representative), Stefany Charles (Baypoint Lagoon HOA representative), Glenn Youngling (HOA legal
representative), Heather Ludloff (homeowner), Leticia Arvizu (applicant), Sandy Polek (Canal Alliance), Tom
Wilson (Canal Alliance), Laurel Hill (Community Action Marin), Caron Parker (City Planning). My goal was to
keep the neighbors, homeowner, HOA, and community groups apprised of the progress and findings and to allow
everyone to participate, regardless of their ability to attend meetings.
The two neighbors most likely affected by the daycare conditional use permit, Deborah Vandervoort (19 Baypoint)
and Victoria Pollick/David Rassas (27 Baypoint), did not participate in the process. However, Deborah gave me
additions to the list of possible conditions prior to any meetings taking place; David attended the final meeting on
December 19, 2013 to state that he was continuing to be impacted by noise. The HOA would not comment nor
participate in the process, nor would their legal representative.
During the meetings, the majority of discussion related to the failure of the homeowner (Heather Ludloff) to
maintain the fence or the landscaping, issues that do not relate to the daycare, but which have resulted in general
hostility between the neighbors and the homeowner. This has affected the daycare CUP negatively by directing
hostility towards the applicant concerning the CUP, in my opinion. In addition, there has been rampant
misinformation regarding the process, what the CUP is and approves, and what the ultimate impact will be to the
neighbors. These meetings have attempted to clarify this information, but, even at the final meeting, Tommie
Weldon and David Rassas were stili under the impression that the daycare was going to expand or that, once
approved, a daycare could be there under any operation and by an operator. Meetings also discussed noise
attenuation methods and the results of these efforts, as described in the meeting minutes sent to all parties.
Lastly, it should be noted that, of the neighbors that participated in the meetings in person, only David Rassas
lives adjacent to the daycare—and he only attended the last meeting to say that he was not happy. Other
C
neighbors that participated, including Rita Lakin and Tommie Weldon, do not live in the area, but feel sympathetic
to the situation and their friend, Victoria Pollick. The only neighbor that attended all of the meetings was Tommie
Weldon. Several neighbors, in fact, said that they are not impacted, but are supporting their neighbor. While
appreciate their participation in the process, this gives a skewed impression of the reality of the daycare's
operation and of its impact on the neighborhood.
In addition, I learned through the process that all of the neighbors are accustomed to living next to single -
occupant or double -occupant homes with adults, not children. Therefore, the noise threshold appears to be
dictated by the noise that a single adult or an older married couple would make --not the noise that a family would
make. In addition, there is a history of neighbors "forcing" their neighbor to move bedrooms or risk enforcement
by the HOA for sound reduction. I do not believe that these standards are typical, enforceable, nor consistent
with City code, the City general plan, or the City vision for a community.
Lastly, I want to emphasize that the City Council directed the daycare provider, concerned residents, staff from
Community Action Marin, and the Baypoint Lagoon HOA to work together to find a solution. It is very clear from
these meetings and lack of participation in any way (in person or by comment via written communication) that the
neighbors and the HOA have never been interested in finding a solution—they only wish to have the daycare
move from its current location, which they believe will occur if the CUP is denied. However, the reality is that
there is no location that the daycare can move to that would be safe from potential retaliation of neighbors (due to
the CUP process).
In summary, I believe that this case continues to be dictated by a NIMBY (not in my backyard) faction in the
neighborhood, based on discrimination and a lack of tolerance for a different type of household, not based on the
presence of a daycare or noise impact (or any other weak argument regarding "appropriate" location). The
frequent use of "them" and "black" or other discriminatory terms and ideas was indicative of a much bigger
problem. I believe that the daycare meets all requirements expected of a daycare of this size, in terms of State
licensing and City approval, and that the CUP should be approved in perpetuity at this site under the direction of
Ms. Ramirez. I have demonstrated that any perceived concerns regarding traffic, the curve, the shared driveway,
or other are unfounded based on City code and are not relevant. I have also demonstrated that complaints of
noise are related to the neighbors wishing to live by solitary adults or older married couples, not children.
I do not believe that there will ever be universal agreement on this topic, at this or at any location. As requested
by the City Council, a review and subsequent amendment to the general plan should be made that dictates what
locations are acceptable for the location of a daycare of 9-14 children so that disputes of this kind can be avoided.
Please tell us what acceptable locations are so that the service can be provided to the community without
neighbor review.
Please contact me with any questions or concerns.
Kindest regards,
'J�� Axj��_
Amanda McCarthy
Dear Parents,
As you know, we continue to work to ensure that our neighbors near 23 Baypoint Drive are not
impacted bythe daycare. Asapart mfthe City Conditional Use Permit (CUP),wehave beommeebng
monthly with the neighbors in the hopes that at the 6 -month review of the CUP we will have made
satisfactory progress addressing neighbor's concerns. The following items have been identified osthings
that you can dotohelp:
2
1 Donot make left turns orU-turns anywhere near 238oypontDrive. All parents should instead
follow a direct path along Baypoint Drive, making a circle as it connects with Bellum.
- —_----
many residents ofthe neighborhood are older, with slower reaction times. Some drivers are not
fully paying attention tothe road. Always bevigilant. The best approach btocontinue straight
on Bellum, take a left on Bavpoint Drive at the stop sign, and park on the side of tile road
nearest to Maria's house.
I Please utilize the stepping stones toenter the daycare sothat you (and children) are never
within the shared driveway.
4. Please do not leave children unattended at any tirne for any reason (this includes within a
vehicle).
5i Please be courteous to all neighbors, enforce quiet voices frorn children, do riot allow children
torun nrplay inthe area, and smile hzthose that you encounter.
Thank you!
� Exhibit 3
Estimados Padres do familia,
Como ya saben, seguimos trabajando muy duro para que, nuestros vecinos en 23 Baypoint Drive no scan
impactados por la guarderia Ramirez. Como parte del permiso conditional de la ciudad, nos hemos
estado reuniendo una vez per mes con los vecinos para revisar las condiciones del permiso do los 6
ureses. Tarabi6n con la esperanza quo los vecinos se sientan a gusto y confornies con las soluciones a sus
preocupaciones. Las siguientes ideas han sido sugeridas y que calla uno do nosotros podemos hacer para
ayudar:
1. No hacervueltas ala izquierda ni vueltas en U, on ninguna parte cerca do 23 Baypoint Drive.
Todos los padres y personas autorizadas para recoger a los nifios deberian seguir el camino recto
y dar ]a vuelta hasty la calle Bellum.
2. Por Favor do tener mucho cuidado con todo el alrededor. Ya que es una curva peligrosa donde
accidentes pueden pasar. Muchos vecinos son gente mayor y reaccionan lentamente.
Mant6n_aansealei-tasyaque muchosconductoresnoprest,inmuelia,ttclici6ii. Lamejornianera
do Ilegar ala guarderia es seguir derecho y dar ]a vuelva on Bellum, y estacionarse del lado de la
guarderia Ramirez.
1. Por favor utilicen las piedras sobre al pasto para caminar. (usted 37 los niflos) y asinuncausar la
crtrada do carros.
2. Por favorNUNCA dojennihos solos afuerade la guarderia sin suporvisi6n mucho menos on el
carro. por ning ana roz6n.
0 -
3. Por favor tratOTI do ser amables con todos Jos vecinos, usar votes ba.iasafuera de la guarderia. No
permitatique los niiioscorranojuegueneneldreadeafueta.'T-,iiiibi6nt,-atei,idesoiucir,ilos
vecinos que se oricuei�tren.
Muebas Gracias
Amanda McCarthy
83 Clyde Ave.
San Rafael, CA 94901
July 10, 2013
Re: 23 Bay Point Dr. site visit on July 9, 2013 at 3 pm
Dear Amanda,
As per, our agreement, below is a summary of my notes during the site visit conducted on
Tuesday, July 9, 2013 from 3 to 4 pm. The purpose of the site visit was to assess the ambient
condition of the home and to assess what noise reducing conditions could be implemented at the
location to reduce perceived impacts to the shared wall neighbor. Noise impacts to the adjoining
yard were not assessed as there is no way to contain noise in an open air situation.
While no digital recording was employed for this evaluation, an assessment was made based on
16 years' experience in this field of study and being a licensed General Contractor specializing in
Noise Control and Soundproofing with similar situations. Bay Area Noise Control provides
seasoned, nuanced, sound proofing diagnoses and sound remedy from field soundproofing noise
control experience of 5,000 sound proofing site visits and 1,000 completed sound jobs in the San
Francisco Bay Area and Continuing Education from 100 conferences and trade shows over 15
years. Bay Area Noise Control brings you the most optimal sound remedies and a variety of
soundproofing choices to meet your soundproof home, sound proof building, personal sound
proofing and budget needs, to optimize sound proofing results.
Possible noise transfers to address (in no particular order):
1. Walls: This appears to be a town home with two separate walls on the same footing, or
foundation that can act as the transfer point of impact noises between the homes. Also, the roof
lines may be touching and may also act as common transfer points. These situations are normally
built designs for the era of these properties and in my opinion, would meet a minimum
Transmission Loss Test of 50 dB or a field test of STC 45. These standards are made for
residences to achieve a barrier to satisfy, in my opinion, 70% of the people, 70% of the time.
Some people may be more sensitive than others, thus not satisfied with the results, some of the
time. This has to be compared with incidences of disturbances vs. the cost of the remedies as
well as social behavior modifications to avoid such, as a small % of people may call it a
"nuisance". To digitally test for this theory, one would need to operating testing equipment 24/7
and analyze the high points along with an audio recorder to see from where this noise comes
from—testing of this sort is not recommended in this instance.
Possiblc Wall Remedies:
a. The least costly direction is to set up a set of rules for neighbors to live by to help
avoid conflicting situations, such as mutual schedules, raucous behavior eliminated,
shared events or adding social times to minimize conflicts.
b. Add overlays of 2x Mass Loaded Vinyl and I x 518" XP acoustical dry wall, scaled
into place without floating. The cost for these materials installed will run from $15-$25
per sq. ft. depending on amount of detail involved, not in this report.
c. Add a "floating wall" on isolators with acoustical dry wall. The cost of this remedy,
subject to amount of details, will range from $35 to $50 per sq. ft.'
d. There is little chance to de -couple the roof lines or the "footings" or center wall
foundation that would justify such costs.
2; During my visit, I did not experience any raucous behavior of the children either sleeping or
at play that would come to a level of "non -nal" noise of households. I also did not see that the
door noises at the front door would be significant. This may happen at other times, however, and
one needs to consider the sensitivities of neighbors el
,,hbors who may feel that a nv noise is a 'nuisance'
Doors slamming/Remedies:
a. Subject doors can be lined on the edges with a softer than door weather-stripping to
soften the closing door.
b. Easier, is the attention one would pay to such closure and take the door handle
manually to softly closing such doors, even if one is in a hurry by swinging the door
behind them upon exiting.
3. Children walking or running may be causing noise. This is a more difficult problem, as these
types of town homes are usually built on the same deck with wall partitions on top. As a result,
hardwood floors may transfer noise laterally from side to side.
Children walking/running remedies:
a. One could place anti -microbial softer surface carpet, like those in hospitals these
days, to help soften the impact of children feet, walking or running.
b. This final surface can also be laid over a decoupling underlaymcnt of cork with an
anti -impact layer of rubber. Final cost of this is not kno-,N-n at this time, but we do
such special work. I can take a guess based on old info on this at $75 per yard with
the "underlayments", installed at the higher -end of performance.
c. Install rubber mats in kitchen
c. You can also add sound masking or sound scapping additional noise makers to set the
level of either unintelligibility or more pleasing sounds selected to envelope the home of
one being disturbed.
As discussed, it is possible, based on my experience, that none of these solutions will make a
significant difference in terms of perceived noise (there will be noise in any shared wall home,
from nornial. daily, family activity) --there are likely underlying I'm,- issues, not noise., that need to be
addressed. Tflcan help inany ofthe suggested noise mitigation options described above, please
let me lmow.Ihave also included general information for your use, below.
Lee Brenner, St. Contr. Lic. 916001
P/nxdmember wf thefiollowing organizations:
Acoustical Society V[America
Ceiling and Interior Construction Association
Association ofWall and Ceiling Industries
luotdutn of Noise Control Engineering
The Building Trades Aomooiu1iVo
Construction Services offered through SonodnroutlogILemodolcru
Solution Postulates for Effective Soundproofing
Creation of a Cavity Space - When attempting to increase the STC value of a window
construction, the most effective method is to create cavity space between two layers of glass.
Noise from the exterior environment causes the outside windowpane to vibrate. As the glass
oscillates in and out, it compresses the mass of air trapped in the cavity space. The greater the
volume of air in the cavity space, the greater the mass. The inertia of the air trapped in this
cavity space, resists the increase in pressure instigated by the vibrating glass. This damping
effect attenuates the noise entering from outside.
Addition of Mass - The addition of mass as a barrier is an effective way to attenuate airborne
noise. A good rule of thumb is to estimate that for a given frequency, each doubling of surface
mass will result in about 6 dB reduction in sound levels. Because the math involved is rather
tricky, we model our construction methods with acoustical prediction software to determine the
Sound Transmission Class ofour constructions.
De -Coupling of Adjacent Surfaces - Structural borne noise occurs when the components of
the waU, floor orother building elements are set into vibratory motion by direct contact with
vibrating sources. These sources can be airborne noise as well as mechanical equipment or
domestic appliances. This mechanical energy is transmitted throughout the building structure to
other wall and floor assemblies with large surface opooa, which in turn are forced into vibration.
These vibrating Surfaces, which behave like the body ofanacoustic guitar, transmit their motion
to the surrounding air, causing pressure fluctuations that are propagated as airborne noise into
adjacent areas. By de -coupling adjacent surfaces through various materials such as resilient
channels, sound clips, and acoustical caulk, we stop vibration from propagating through a
structure.
Cascading Densities of Materials - A trade secret. But if You ask Lis nicely, we will explain it to
you inperson.
Tightness of Fit - A great acoustical design can be foiled by noise leaks. If a door or window,
for instance, is improperly installed, air gaps can allow the direct transmission Of Sound around
the high-tech barrier. A design is only as good as its weakest link. Therefore, it is imperative that
soundproofing materials are only installed bylicensed acoustical contractors. Furthermore, it is
essential that your contractor has experience with all aspects of the noise control field. Certain
factors can often work at odds with each other. For instance, tightness of fit is essential to
eliminate noise leaks. Yet, window frames affixed rigidly to a wall will propagate vibration
through the adjacent structure. Therefore, acoustical contractors must be adept at guaranteeing
a tightness of fit while providing resiliency between the building components.
Vibration Damping - Vibration Damping refers to the technique and the category of materials,
which reduce vibrational noise at the source. A structure emits noise when it is excited by forced
vibration. This forced vibration can stimulate the resonant frequencies of the structure amplifying
the amount of noise. An example of a resonant vibration is the sound that occurs when one
strikes a gong. A large amount of this noise can be reduced by converting this acoustical energy
into heat. This is achieved through combinations of a variety of materials and techniques
tailored to each unique situation. Some examples of machinery we commonly treat are hot tubs,
air conditioning units, computers, air compressors, elevators and garbage chutes.
RESOLUTION NO, 13539
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN RAFAEL UPHOLDING AN
APPEAL (AP13-001) AND OVERTURNING THE FEBRUARY 26, 2013 PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION TO GRANT AN APPEAL (AP12-007) AND OVERTURN THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT (UP12-022)
ALLOWING THE OPERATION OF A LICENSED LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE (9-14
CHILDREN MAXIMUM) IN A TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOME;
THEREFORE, THE USE PERMIT FOR A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE AT 23
BAYPOINT DRIVE STANDS AS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS (APN: 009-362-20)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as follows
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 (UP12-
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 Pen -nit 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, upon review of the application, the project was determined to be exempt from
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301 (Existing Facilities); and
WHEREAS, the application was 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 tine operation of a licensed large
family day care for 9-i4 children in the two-story single family townhome at 23 Baypoint Drive,
Finding that, the proposed project was consistent with all Performance Standards pursuant to
Zoning Ordinance Section '4.17.040 (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 UP] 2-022, 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 allowed without an approved use permit; and 4) whether the operation has
approval of the City of San Rafael Fire Department; and;
WHEREAS, the project was scheduled and placed on the agenda for the January 29, 2013
Planning Commission meeting and at the time of the hearing, there were only 4 Commissioners in
attendance (Commissioners Lubamersky, Paul, Schaefer and Robertson); and
WHEREAS, Commissioner Schaefer recused himself from this item due to potential
conflict of interest, leaving 3 Commissioners. This did not constitute a quorum and therefore the
item could not be heard and the appeal was automatically continued to the next available Planning
Commission meeting date (February 12, 2013); and
WHEREAS, on February 12, 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 staff and
closed said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2013, the majority of the Commission found that the appeal
did have merit and the Commission was inclined to grant the appeal, thus overturning the Zoning
Administrator's approval. However, given that the Draft Resolution before the Commission did not
reflect their intention, the Commission could not take formal action that evening; and
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2013, Commissioner Lubamersky moved and Commissioner
Wise seconded to direct staff to prepare a revised Resolution granting the appeal and overrunning
the ZA's approval and return to their next scheduled meeting. This motion was approved 5-0-1.
(with Commissioner Schaeffer abstaining due to potential conflict of interest); and
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2013, the Planning Commission considered the revised
Resolution with findings for the granting of the appeal and overturning the Zoning Administrator's
approval of the Use Permit. Following closure of the public hearing, the Planning Commission
granted the appeal and overturned the Zoning Administator approval of Use Permit (UP 12-022).
Commissioner Robertson moved and Comissioner Lubarmersy seconded to adopt Resolution 13-
03, granting the appeal and overturning the Zoning Administrator's approval, This motion carried
by ;,vote of 5-0-2 (with Commissioner Belleto recusing himself since he was not appointed to the
Commission at the February 12`h meeting and Co nmssioner Schaefer abstaining due to potential
conflict of interest), based on Findings that the proposed project would create too much noise for
adjacent neighbors due to the shared common wall totiinhome design and the cul-de-sac parking
arrangemcnt; and
WHEREAS, on 1-larch 5, 2013, within the statutory 5 day appeal period, Amanda
McCarthy, a resident of San Rafael and parent of a child at the family daycare, filed an appeal
(AP13-001) of the Planning Commission's action, pursuant to the provisions of San Rafael
Municipal Code Chapter 14.28, citing four points of appeal and requesting that the City Council
reverse the February 26, 2013 decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2013, the City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing to
consider the Appeal (AP13-001), accepted and considered all oral and written public testimony and
the written report of the Community Development Department staff and closed said hearing on that
date; and
WHEREAS, following the closure of the public hearing, the City Council discussed the
appeal points and the proposal, ultimately voting unanimously to direct staff to prepare a revised
Resolution, granting the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, thereby overturning the
Planning Commission decision to overturn the (AP12-007) Zoning Administrator's approval of Use
Permit UP12-022. The Council further recommended that the approval include a condition of
approval of the Use Permit (UP12-022) to limit the approval for a period of 6 months, during which
time the daycare provider, concerned residents and Community Action Marin staff will meet and
confer to address resident concerns about noise, privacy and parking. At the end of the 6 month
period, the matter will return to City staff for review and if significant noise or traffic issue are
found, the Use Permit may be revoked; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the revised Resolution to reflect their direction
from the May 20, 2013 meeting to grant the appeal and overturn the February 26, 2013 Planning
Commission decision, including the appropriate findings and conditions of approval; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council hereby grants the Appeal
(AP13-001) of Amanda McCarthy and overturns the February 26, 2013 Planning Commission
decision granting the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of Use Permit (UP12-022),
thereby granting approval of the Use Permit for a large family day care for 6 months. The City
Council finds that the points of the appeal (identified in boldlitalics) can be supported for the
following reasons:
Appeal Polnt #I: "While there is a common wall adjoining 23 Baypoint Drive and 27 Baypoint
Drive (adjacent neighbor and previous appellant, Victoria Pollick), this common wall consists of
private family space, both upstairs and downstairs. No children are allowed ira 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 counterlbar from an area with a couch, loveseal,
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. "
Resi)onse and Finding: The Planning Commission's decision was based on their review of the ZA
minutes, site visits and analysis of the proposed project's consistency with applicable General PIan
2020 policies and conformance with Zoning Ordinance regulations. In addition, the Commission
heard testimony from the ZA decision appellant (adjacent common wall neighbor at 27 Baypoir t)
that noise and vibrations from activities at the daycare were disruptive. The Commission ultimately
vote d (5-0-2, with Commissioners Bel lotto and Schaefer abstaining) to adopt a resolution granting
the appeal ofthe Zoning Administrator decision'a-�zd thus overturning the ZA's approval. However,
based on City Council review of the appeal on Nlay 20, 2013, including the staff repert appeal
letter, information submitted in comment letters and public hearing testimony, the Council
ultimately voted unanimously to grant the appeal of the Planning Commission decision. with the
caveat thai the Use Permit would be valid for 6 months. The Council found that the noise impacts
that the Commission cited as reason for the denial may not be appropriate given the noise readings
presented by the appellant, The Council further voted to allow the day care operator and their .
neighbors to meet and confer to address the issues of noise and drop-off/pick-up, and thus granted
the Use Permit for a period of 6 months, during which time the dayeare provider (Ramirez Family
Daycare), concerned residents, staff from Community Action Marin and the Baypoint Lagoon
HOA, will work together to address potential impacts frorn the dayeare regarding noise, privacy and
parking safety, The framework for the discussion will be based on the points identified in a letter
from the appellant (Amanda McCarthy) to the Council dated May 5, 2013, identifying 6 points that
may potentially ameliorate concerns, as listed below:
I. Replace the doors and/or windows of the home to be more "soundless"
2. Installing an AX system so that the windows do not need to be open when it is hot
3
Conducting a study of "comps" near other "large" home daycares to determine any effect
of home dayeares on property value while'also engaging a realtor and appraiser/broker to
fully understand any implications for the future sale of your• home (my understanding is that
there is no difference between 8 children and 14 children)
4, Requiring a set drop-off and pick-up time "set window" to reduce any perceived impacts of
these activities
5. Requiring a 6 -month or I -year (biannual or annual) renewal of the pen -nit
6. Revocation of the permit if any conditions agreed to by neighbors surface
Appeal Point #2. "The side yard is not and has never been used as a play area. 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).
Resr)onse and Finding: The Planning Commission determined that the outdoor activities of the
dayeare would have a negative impact on the outdoor recreational spaces for the adjacent neighbors
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. However, the Council
deten-nined that while the daycare did introduce a noise element to the neighborhood, there may be
ways to mitigate for the noise such that the impact from the daily dayeare operations would be more
acceptable to adjacent residents. To that end, The Council voted unanimously to grant the appeal,
approving a Use Permit for a 6 month time period, during which time, the daycare provider,
concerned residents and staff from Community Action Marin will work together to address
potential impacts from the dayeare regarding noise, privacy and parking safety. -
Appeal Point #3: "It should be noted that tit maximum, should 14 children be present in one day,
an increase of 28 car trips would be docuniented. This would be spaced out over the entire day, as
shown in the typical daily log of the day (Attachment E). Based an the existing neighborhood
use of the roadway, this is not expected to be a significant; riot substantial, nor noticeable
increase in traffic. In addition, there is ample streetparking such that parents are able to park on
each side of the "driveway" tit anytime. Parents do not enter the driveway thaw provides access to
each of the homes, garages, and guest spaces.
Response and Findina: The Planning Commission determined that the loading and unloading of
potentially 114 children near the small cul-de-sac presented a safety concern for tho 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, The Council determined that there was an
opportunity for the daycare provider and the residents to work together and resolve potential drop-
off and pick-up concerns, As such, the Council unanimously voted to grant the appeal with the
caveat that the Use Perinit be granted for 6 months only and that all parties work together to
consider the suggestions proposed by the appellant and listed in the response to Appeal Point #1
above. The Council has added Condition of Approval #2 to the previously approved conditions,
stipulating that the use pen -nit shall return for Zoning Administrator review after the 6 month time
period has ended,
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 hoineivork, reading,
or sleeping (ages typically are 5-12).
Response and Findine: The Planning Commission determined that the proposed large family
daycare use would be detrimental to properties in the project vicinity, and that small family day care
(0-8 children) was a more appropriate size for the daycare operation on site. However, the Council
recognized the need for large family day care (9-14 children) in San Rafael and the benefit it
provides as a service to the community. The Council heard testimony from adjacent neighbors that
the noise from the daycare was an intrusion on their peace and quiet during the day. However, after
discussing the potential conflicts, the Council felt that the parties may be able to find a solution that
would mitigate the impacts in a way that would allow the daycare to be more compatible with the
neighborhood. Ultimately, the Council voted unanimously to grant the appeal and approve the Use
Permit for 6 months, with the caveat that the parties work together to consider the suggestions
proposed by the appellant (see response to Appeal Point # I above) as possible conditions of project
approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based on the Council's action to grant the appeal and
overturn the Planning Commission's decision, the Use Permit stands as conditionally approved for
6 months. The proposed minor interior alterations and operation of a large family day care use at 23
Baypoint Drive are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
pursuant to Section 15301 a (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the time within which to seek judicial review of this
decision is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, 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 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does
hereby grant the appeal and overturn the February 26, 2013 Planning Commission decision granting
an appeal and overturning the November 14, 2012 Zoning Administrator's approval of a Use Permit
(UP12-022) for a large family day care based on the following findings:
USE PERMIT FINDINGS (UP12-022)
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: 'I) the child care service use
is consistent with General Plan Policy NH -111 (needed ncigliborlheod serving uses) and
Gerre-ral Plan Policy NH -52 (encouraging neNw businesses that provide needed services), 2)
larue family day care is a condi`icnally allowable use in the Planned Developalent 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). However, while the Council did find that the proposed project did
meet all performance standards for large family day cares, the Council also found that the
performance standards were lacking a strong framework of objective measures to analyze
project specific impacts. With a better framework in place, the Council felt there may be an
opportunity to minimize the daycare's impact on adjacent properties. As such, the Council
voted that the prudent course of action would be to conditionally approve the proposed Use
Permit for 6 months, during which time the daycare provider and all effected parties shall
coordinate their efforts to try and find ways to mitigate the potential impacts from the
dayearc use, as delineated in Finding #2 below.
2. 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 B ' aypoint Drive, or to the general welfare of the City of San Rafael
because: I) the proposed project is a conditionally allowed use under the zoning code; 2)
the proposed project does not propose 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; and 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
traffic in
general. Parking issues specific to the loading and unloading of children at the site have
been addressed by adding conditions of approval to minimize potential impacts identified
by concerned neighbors, including COA #6, which prohibits parking in the cul-de-sac area
and guest parking spaces, and COA 49 which requires a Use Pen -nit amendment (with a
public notice and hearing) for any future large family day care facility proposed at 23
Baypoint Drive, At the Council hearing, residents raised concerns about noise from the
childcare facility, and the Council heard testimony from the appellant 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. Ultimately, the Council
voted unanimously to limit the Use Permit for a 6 month period only (Condition of
Approval #2). During this time frame, the daycare provider, concerned residents, staff
from Community Action Nlarin and the Baypoint Lagoon HOA, will work together to
address potential impacts from the daycare regarding noise, privacy and parking safety. The
framework, for the discussion will be based on the points identified in a letter from the
appellant (Amanda McCarthy) to the Council dated May 5, 2013, identifying the following
points that may ameliorate concerns, as listed below:
a) Replace the doors andlor windows of the home to be more "soundless"
b) Installing an A/C system so that the windows do not need to be open when it is hot
o) Conducting a study of "comps" near other "large" ionic: dayeares to determine any
effect of Lorne daycares on property value while also engaging a realtor and
appraiser/brokcrto fully understand any implications for the future sale ofvour
home (my understanding is that there is no difference betw,,,cn 8 children and 14
children)
d) Requiring a set drop-off and piek-up time "set window" to reduce any perceived
impacts of these activities
c) Requiring 6 -month or I -year (biannual or annual) I'ClIewal of the permit
f) Revocation of the permit if any conditions agreed to by neighbors surface.
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 applicable requirements under the Performance Standards for Large Family
Day Care in Section 14.17,040 of the Zoning Ordinance.
USE PERMIT (UP12-022) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Plannina Division
1. Except as modified by these conditions of approval, this Use Pen -nit (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 I hour in the morning (generally between 11:00 am = 12:00 pm)
and I 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] 2-022).
This Use Permit (UP12-022) is valid for 6 months only, or until December 3, 2013. Atthe end
of this 6 month period, the Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Division staff to
review the continued operation of the use and review the progress by the various parties on
implernenting measures to address the neighbors' concerns and determine compliance with
conditions ot'approval, as outlined in Condition of Approval #3 below. Based on the review,
the Use Permit may be extended or not extended subject to the procedures outlined in Condition
of Approval #4 below.
Within the 6 month time period, the daycare provider, concerned residents, staff from
Community Action Marin and the Baypoint Lagoon HOA, will meet and confer to address
potential impacts from the daycare regarding noise, privacy and parking safety,
a. City staff will initiate an introductory meeting between the four parties to establish
the frarnework, explain this condition of approval and encourage a cooperative
process to find solutions. The framework for the discussion will be based on the
points identified in a letter from the appellant (Amanda i'vIcCarthy) to the Council
dated May 5, 2013, as on file with the Community Development Department,
identifying 6 points that may be incorporated as additional conditions of approval
to ameliorate concerns, as listed below:
i. Replace the doors and/or windows of the home to be more "soundless"
ii, Installing an AIC system so that the windoNNs do not need to be open
when it is hot
iii, Conducting a study of "comps" near other large" home daycares to
determine any effect of home daycares or, property value while also
engaging a realtor and appraiser/broker to fully understand any
implications for the future sale ofyour home (my understanding is that
there is no d;ffirenco between 3 children and 14 children)
iv. Requiring a set drop-off and pick -tip tirne"set window" to reduce any
perceived impacts of these activities
V. Requiring a 6 -month or I -year (biannual or annual) renewal of the
permit
vi. Revocation of the permit if any conditions agreed to by neighbors
surface
4. The 6 month review is to be administered by Planning Division staff, and shall follow the
following procedures:
a. At least 4 weeks prior to the expiration date, the applicant shall be responsible to
submit in writing an update and status on their discussions with concerned
residents, staff from Community Action Marin and Baypoint Lagoons HOA.
b. Planning Division staff will mail a 15 -day public hearing notice for a Zoning
Administrator public hearing to request any written or oral comments oil operation
of the use and the discussions/agreements made by the working group,
c. If there are no significant issues raised from the affected parties, the Zoning
Administrator shall have the authority to extend the Use Permit in perpetuity and
incorporate as conditions of approval any and all agreements made by the parties
for continued operation of the large family day care.
& If there are significant issues raised or lack of agreement, the Zoning Administrator
shall refer the matter for review and action by the City Council. This may result in
the non -extension of the Use Permit, requiring that the large family day care cease
and operate as a small family day care (8 or fewer children) in a single farnily
home.
e. No application fee will be required for this review,
5. The Subject property shall be used in substantial conformance with the floor plans and
park ing/loading plans submitted and stamped Approved May 20, 2013, and shall bethe same as
required for issuance of a building pen -nit (if necessary), subject to the listed conditions of
approval.
6. The applicant shall in -Form 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,
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.
8. Outdoor activities may only be conducted betwoun the hairs of 7:00 am to 6:30 pm.
9. Any new child care service other than the existing approved Ramirez Child Care Services
at ;3 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.
10. 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.
11, 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.
12. 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.
13, The applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the City, County, State, and
other responsible agencies.
14. This Use Pen -nit (UP12-022) is only valid as long as the, facility maintains a valid license from
the State of California as a Family Day Care Horne. The day care is currently approved by the
State of California under Facility # 214005252.
1, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
of said City held on Monday, the 3rd day of June 2013, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Colin, Connolly, Heller, McCullough &Nfayor Phillips
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None -
I -S g� -- - R-L-11-
ESTHER C. BEIRNIE, City Clerk
Raffi. Boyolan, Planning Manager
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, California 94915-1560
I I Baypoint Drive
San Rafael, California
February 3, 2014
RECEIVE -b
RE: UP, 12-022, Permit for Large Day Care Facility at 923 Baypoint Drive
Dear T\/h. Boyolan:
I have attended all meetings and hearings concerning the use,permit, including the four
mediation meetings at Canal Alliance. As close neighbors of the day care operation, our
initial concerns were related to increased traffic and noise. Traffic safety issues were
addressed when the decision was made not to allow drop-offs and pick-ups in the cul de
sac and not to allow staff to use guest parking spaces. Parents generally comply with
requests from Maria Ramirez and her daughter, Leticia Arvizu, to approach from
Baypoint Village Drive and park on the same side of the street as the day care facility
when dropping off and picking up their children. This eliminates the danger of parents
and children crossing the street at the end of a blind curve.
Noise *remains a major concern and I am writing in empathy with the owners of 427, the
unit which shares a common wall with #23. For many months, I had a serious noise
problem, bass level sounds, with a neighbor whose unit abuts mine. I felt trapped in my
own home by the distracting and depressing effect of these persistent sound transmissions.
After Russ Roane. a former owner of a unit in the cul de sac, explained the effect of our
units' construction on the transmission of sound at the Planning Commission hearing on
February 12, 2013, 1 realized I was experienciiig forced vibrations. (The architect on the
Planning Commission immediately understood the description of the physics involved.)
A report commissioned by Amanda McCarthy describes this phenomenon. Lee Brenner, a
contractor specializing in noise control and soundproofing, made a site visit on.Tuly 9,
2013 between the hours of 3 and 4 pm, which is scheduled nap time for the children.
The following is cited from page 4 of his report:
De -Coupling of Adjacent Surfaces - Structural boine noise occurs when the components
of the wall, floor or other building elements are set into vibratory motion by direct
contact with vibrating sources. These sources can. be airborne noise as well as mechanical
equipment or domestic appliances. This mechanical energy is transmitted throughout the
building structure to other wall and floor assemblies with large surface areas, which in
turn are forced into vibration. These vibrating surfaces, which behave like the body of an
acoustic guitar, transmit their motion to the surrounding air, causing pressure fluctuations
that are propagated as airborne noise into adjacent areas.
From Page 5:
Vibration Damping - Vibration Damping refers to the technique and the category of
materials, which reduce vibrational -noise at the source. A structure emits noise when it is
excited by forced vibration. This forced vibration can stimulate the resonant frequencies
of the structure amplifying the amount of noise. An example of a resonant vibration is the
sound that occurs when one strikes a gong.
Knowledge of this technical information would have been helpful when I attended the
two hearings on October 24th and November 14th, 2012. There was not a balanced
assessment of owners' concerns about the behavioral activities of 8-14 children. in a unit
which shares a common wall. Exclusive attention was given to outside noise. When
approval of the permit was announced at the end of the November 14th meeting, there
was a heated exchange with Caron Parker, Acting Zoning Administrator. I felt approval of
UP 12-022 had been decided before the meeting, rendering the meeting a formality.
I question the fairness of having Caron Parker function as Acting ZA, reviewing her own
work and decisions on the permit process, as happened for the Planning Commission
hearing on February 12, 2013.
I understand that you will be sitting in as Zoning Administrator at the February 5th
meeting. I hope you will listen with active attention to the genuine complaints about
noise generated by 14 voices and 28 active small feet at a site �,Adth shared common walls.
This aspect of the permit process was not sufficiently considered, a fact recognized by the
Planning Commission when it found "noise from the proposed daycare could present an
undue burden on the adjacent neighbor" and voted unanimously to revoke the use permit
for a large day care facility at-,�'23 Baypoint Drive.
Sincerely yours,
Tommie S. Nkeldon
Caron Parker
From: Esther Beirne
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:55 AM
To: Caron Parker
Subject: FW: 23 Baypoint Drive, Use permit (UP12-022)
Thank You.
From; David R [mailto: s*fndr@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 6:17 PM
To: Esther Beirne
Subject. RE: 23 Baypoint Drive, Use permit (UP12-022)
Dear Ms. Esther,
Hope this will find you well.
We are communicating our concern in relation to the subject address use permit (UPI 2-022).
Six month use permit was granted in June 2013.
As the owner/occupant of the adjacent property to 23 Baypoint and do share common wall with subject
property; we continue to hear loud voices and children screams on most days during the day-care business
hours.
The noise abatement that was purposed and mandated doesn't seem to be effective remedy to noise and screams.
We asking the City to take close look at this use permit and have it reevaluated again.
Many thanks for your kind attention,
David Rassas &,Victoria Pollick
Subject: 23 Baypoint Drive Appeal
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 09:23:08 -0700
From: Esther.Beirtme..�citvofsqiirafacl.org
To: aneerNaaol.com; mccaithyOwra-caxom: 13eatlier�i-�.,hfraiiksoi-iom,.i.com. lettv arv,'Wfiotmaif.com:
sfvik,,r'i,,msnxorn
Hi All:
Attached please find the material for the 231 Baypoint Drive item, v-daich is on the City Council Consent
Calendar on Monday, June 3, 2013
Low Offices of
GLENN H. YOUNGLIN
A Professional Law Co'rpo- ration
FEB 03 Z014
Coi 4UNjVDmoPmaiTWARUT
January 29, 2014
Caron Parker, Associate Planner
City of San Rafael, Community Development Department
Planning Division
P.C. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
1108 Irwin Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
Telephone: (415) 454-1090
Facsimile,: (415) 524-2024
Gl- Y@YounglingLaw.com
Re: Conditional Use Permit (UP 12-022)
Large Family Day Care Facility (9-14)
:The Residence at 23 Baypoint (Duplex) in Baypoint Lagoons Association
Dear Ms. Parker:
I am legal -counsel for -the Baypoint Lagoons Association, which has asked me to assist them in
addressing owner to owner concerns as well as options to mitigate the negative impacts of Large
Farnily.D'ay Cate facility.. Myreferenec points are in the context oftheir Governing Documents and
the, Davis*7Stirling, Act. {See .my earlier correspondence of June 4, 2013 on this matter, which is
attached.)
It is awkward to start on this. -note,: but the Association's Board has expressed concern to me about
the close. professional relationship perceived between you and Amanda McCarthy. Their concern
is bias in the handling of this rnatter,. T pass along their request that the handling of this matter be
assigned to a different Zoning Administrator.
0
lJuipose-of:Cit� review. and whether or not to extend this use permit, be aware that For the n at the
Association has -madenumerous attempts to contact Heather Ludloff, the property owner of 23
Baypoint Drive; who' has leased her property to the Ramirez family. The Association's contact point
is Ms. Ludloff as an. owner/member of the Association. Ms. Ludloff has made no attempts to
communicate with the Association's Board of Directors, This fact should be ofparticulax importance
to the City as. she 'was asked by the City Council to participate in acoustical remediation so that the
owner of 217 'Baypoint, Drive' (which, shares a common interior NNall) would not be burdened by
additional noise generated by the increased number of children.
I am aware of meetings conducted by day care proponents but again the Association has had no
owner coifflirmation.of materials, labor or permits that were usedlobtained to perform any remedial
work. 'Thl-rearc. also P'r ' oble'ras with c-xacrior decay and a fence badly in need of signifficant repair that
the Association is attempting to get oNvrier/member Ludloff to address. It is the owner who must
Caron Parker
January 29, 2014
Page -2-
:answer to - the Association ,in the context of the Governing Documents and the Davis -Stirling
Common. Interest Development Act. There is no working line of communication between the
owner/member and the Association.
Theowners of 27 Baypoint Drive are communicating with the Association and still report that they
can hear and are disturbed.by thegreater volume of noise generated by the increased size of the day
care center operation.
Since this.is an attached dwelling that does not have fire sprinklers, the Association's interest not
only pertains to a diminishment of the noise but also to the larger issues of fire safety for their
community,:. Ms. ;Ludloffs. tenants and the increased number of Mrs. R.amirez's clients. The
Association concurs with the reasoning and bottom line of the Planning Commission's earlier
decision against expanding. the. use to a "large" facility. The time granted to address problems has
,.not led to - solving them. The Baypoint Lagoons Association urges that this permit for a Large
Pacility.be. denied or withdrawn as: inappropriate for this neighborhood and these homes which share
a lot line and interior wall.
Very truly yours,
GLENN H. Y GL t T
A Professional Law Corporation
cc: Board c/o Mgr.
Raffi Boloyan, Planning Manager
GHY:kb/alc
2014.01.29.Lr City.wrd
•
January 28, 2014
Community Development Department `atm' `,' ' �F.-_?
Planning Division JAN 31 2014
City of San Rafael
PO Box 151560 PLANN.H`gG
San Rafael, CA
Attention: Raffi Boloyan, Planning Manager
Subject: 23 Baypoint Conditional Use Permit (UP12-022).
Dear Mr. Boloyan:
I attended the recent 19 December permit mediation discussion called by the
daycare applicant/tenant and the appellant, Ms. McCarthy for 23 Baypoint Drive.
They summarized the completed improvement to the subject home and what
remains pending.
From our standpoint as the owner/occupant of the adjacent home with shared
walls, we continue to live with the vibration and children's high pitched screams.
I work away from home and then return home for a two months stretch; work late
at night and sleep during the day. This Large Daycare Operation takes away
from my rest and work harmony.
Baypoint homes, each two are built on the same "wood deck" foundation. The
walls just sit on top of the wood deck, only to create separation. The homes are
meant for normal occupancy, residential use. We purchased our home 22 years
ago with that in mind.
The vibration is potent and can be felt due to the inherent construction of the
homes. Large daycares should not be located in townhome settings, but rather in
Single family detached homes, free of shared walls and wood decks.
We appeal to your sense of reason, understanding and the need for a peaceful
setting which we had for the past 21 years.
David Rassas
Victoria Pollick
Zoning Administrator hearing — Public Comments
February 5, 2014
Speaking in support of the proiect:
1. Heather Ludloff (property owner, 23 Baypoint): kids are well behaved, you can hear
them playing but not screaming; feeling that the daycare is living in fear of the neighbors;
important that kids have a place where people care and we need to support this; be
tolerant; she is willing to plant in yard and add stepping stones.
2. Francine Skates (23 Baypoint): Lived here for 7 years and would never know daycare is
there; there is about a 20 foot expanse between the living space at 23 Baypoint and 27
Baypoint; very organized school; there are nosier places to be.
3. Teresa Juarez (friend): Knows Mrs. Ramirez and has never seen any problems; was her
first neighbor many years ago.
4. Laura Hill (Department Director, Community Action Marin): The difference in noise
between 9-14 kids is not significant; never seen so many complaints from neighbors
about noise; Mr. Russ Roane stated the project would cause a "change in character of the
community" - what does this mean?
5. Sandy Ponek (Canal Alliance): Family daycare is important; safety issues on site are
reviewed and handled by the State; the site is very safe; project brings diversity of age to
the community- this is good.
6. Tom Wilson (Executive Director, Canal Alliance): Attended first and last meetings to
discuss noise mitigation options and thought the meetings were quite productive, the
daycare has been licensed and inspected so safety is not an issue, the daycare has 10
children on site and the rest are in school most of the day; Mr. Rassas is home all day but
told me that he was not concerned about noise, but rather, any increase in numbers; Mrs.
Ramirez runs a critical community service.
7. Ledves (Community Action Marin): Supervises the site, helps with curriculum and daily
routine; the kids are not just running around, they have a schedule and lots of supervision.
S. Paula Sifuentes: I supervise Maria Ramirez and do not hear noise outside when I come to
the site; not always 14 kids on site.
9. Liz Burns (Community Action Marin, Child Development Program): Mrs. Ramirez's
daycare receives Community Action Marin (CAM) supervision and state mandated
qualification, Mrs. Ramirez must submit "desired result" letter to report how children are
progressing; state auditors review the operation; never has had a complaint from parents
using the daycare; CAM has not received complaints from neighbors about noise: CAM
resolved a noise complaint from neighbors adjacent to a daycare center with 220 kids, so
we should be able to resolve any noise issues at 23 Baypoint: what is the community's
idea of "neighborhood character?". CAM operating 8 family day care locations; CAM
forced to close infant care facility so family day care is the only place for infants to go;
family day care is a good investment.
10. Florensa Parada: I didn't have childcare for 2 years. This negatively impacted my ability
to NNork and the kid's education; family daycare is important to everyone; waiting lists are
very long: Maria Ramirez provides a good quality service: we can work out the noise
issue and build relationships; no discrimination
11. Maria Ramirez (daycare provider and applicant): Daycare operating with all required
permits (Fire, State and use permit) and has insurance: licensed for 14 kids since she
started at 23 Baypoint; cannot exceed the maximum allowed (14 kids) because she would
lose her State license; kids play outside '/� hour/day, reduced from 1 hour, installed rubber
matting on ground outside to reduce noise; kids do not go near other properties; kids are
supervised by parents during drop-off and pick-up; respect neighbors and have tried to do
anything she can to reduce noise.
12. Leticia Arvizu (Ms. Ramirez's daughter): The daycare has 4 school age kids and 10 kids
in the home; there is another large family daycare in the area (185 Bahia) with the same
HOA; My Mom is trying to do everything to compromise with neighbors; no 100%
happiness for anyone; only a difference of 2 kids between small family daycare and large
family daycare; offer neighbors to come meet the family and see the daycare operation;
daycare has nothing to do with property landscaping and the fence is not an issue to run
the daycare
13. Ken Bateho (75 Belvedere): Implements "raising a reader" in 26 home day care
locations; Mrs. Ramirez is the best run daycare that he has seen. Great teaching.
14. Mr. Arvizu (Mrs. Ramirez's son): There were no noise complaints until the ZA notice
went out for the use permit back in November 2012; if neighbors had not been notified,
neighbors would not know that the daycare was large family; the neighborhood is
growing and diversity is coming, feel that neighbors in opposition are pulling in things
like traffic and landscaping — and this has nothing to do with daycare; change is coming.
Speakinf4 in opposition to the Proiect:
1. Russ Roane (39 Baypoint): Lives in Oregon and speaking on behalf of Victoria Pollick.
There are 3 issues: a) the noise standard is subjective and the property owner at 27
Baypoint does not think mitigation measures have solved the noise issue; b) the daycare
is causing a change in the character of the community; and c) problems between HOA
and landlord and leasee should make sure safety issues are addressed. How will they be
addressed? Fence is still broken.
2. Victoria Pollick (27 Baypoint, common wall neighbor to 23 Baypoint): Sound board
installed is ineffective; my husband is at the house for 6 weeks straight and needs to sleep
during the day.
3. Karen Thomas (1 35 Baypoint): Representing the HOA; thought there were only 8 kids at
first; read an HOA statement, concerned about the noise, property owner at 23 Baypoint
will not work with HOA on site improvement issues; noise has to be abated for HOA to
support the project.
4. Star Taber (31 Baypoint): Unsafe for kids on arrival; can hear noise in her yard and
Never heard noise before.
5. Christine Bachman (l 0 Avocet): On the HOA's Architectural Board Committee, lawn at
23 Baypoint is in complete disrepair; HOA cannot approve stepping stones without first
getting the yard repaired: HOA attorney is communication with property owner,. HOA is
interested but limited in its ability to participate; replaced the,,�,indows in her house and it
made a significant huge difference in sound.
6. Tommie Weldon (I I Baypoint): Noise issue at my house and with my adjacent neighbor;
in support of Vicki Pollick: supports daycare.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL
You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following proposed project:
PROJECT: 23 Baypoint Drive - Request to extend the use permit approved for a Large family Day Care use (9-14 children). On November
14, 2012 the Zoning Administrator conditionally approved a use permit (UP12-022) for a large family day care to operate at 23 Baypoint Drive.
This decision was appealed to the Planning Commission (AP12-007), which granted the appeal. The Commission's decision was appealed
(AP13-001) and overturned by the City Council, at which time, the Council voted to grant the use permit for 6 months and directed the applicant ti:
work with neighbors to find solutions to potential noise issues. Based on a 6 month period, some neighbors are still not in support of the use
permit and therefore, based on the City Council condition of approval (COA #4), the project will be returned to the Council for final review and
action. APN # 009-362-20; Planned Development (PD 1562) Zoning District; Heather Ludloff, owner; Leticia Arvizu, applicant; File No: UP12-
022.
As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Planning staff recommends that this project will not
have a significant effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under Section 15301 Existing Facilities). if the City Council determines that this project is in an environmentally sensitive area, further studies
may be required.
MEETING DATE/TIME/LOCATION: Monday, May 5,2014,7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafael, CA
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Caron Parker, Project Planner at (415) 485-3094 or caron.parker@cityofsanrafael.org. You can also
come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday and Thursday and 8:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. You can also view the staff
report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at httD://www.citvofsanrafael.ora/meetinas
WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to accept the 6
month report and whether to direct any further changes to the Use Permit.
IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You can send a letter to Esther Beirne, City Clerk, City of San Rafael, P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-
1560. A letter can also be hand -delivered to the City Clerk's office prior to the meeting.
At the above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge in court the matter described above, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing
(Government Code Section 65009 (b) (2)).
Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 90`h day following the date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.6)
Sign Language and interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of
documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit. Line 22 or 23 Para -transit is available by calling
Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964.
To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing scented products.
, ,Parker
Caron,,,
From: Raffi Boloyan
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 11:42 AM
To: tomw@canalalliance.org
Cc: Caron Parker (Caron.Parker@cityofsanrafael.org)
Subject: FW: upcoming hearing on 23 Baypoint Family Daycare
Attachments: Planning Commission hearing for 23 Baypoint-February 2014[1].pdf
muff.TIg
I have forwarded your email and information to Caron Parker, the project planner. She will make sure this is included in
the Council's packet when it goes to them before the 5/5 Council meeting
Thank you for your interest in this project
Raffi
Raffi Boloyan
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
Planning Manager
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
P.O. BOX 151560
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94915-151560
TEL: (415) 485-3095
FAX: (415) 485-3184
From: Tom Wilson [mailto:tomw@canalalliance.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 11:29 AM
To: Raffi Boloyan
Subject: upcoming hearing on 23 Baypoint Family Daycare
Hello Raffi
I ant attaching, Dr.Ainnnda 1vleCartlty's letter as a -,vay ol'supporting in full her position and N ould like rnY nanne
and Canal Alliance to he on the record for supporting the granting of a Conditional i_'sk:, Permit for a large,
family daycare at 23 Baypoint.
From NN -hat I have seen, both at thc,. nteetin-s held at Canal AIliance and at the hearing before the C oninlission,
the claims and complaints of the Bavpoint Owners Association et al are frivolous grid witltout nterif.
The provider is operating a N.N-ell--managed and welt -run, family day= care that is a much needed resource in the
c0tnrnu11itN'. The claims of excess noise have been repudiated by the next door neighbor, David from 2.7
BaN point, who stated in our last meeting that sound at the current level didn't bother hi nm, but 1.<- Bras afraid that
an increase in size of the daycare would. As we now know, the size will not increase with the CUP because she
is operating a large daycare currently.
I am afraid frankly that, as was stated at the hearing at your office, that the real fear is for the "character of the
community" which to my ears, practiced at hearing the thinly veiled words people use when they don't want
"the other" to live in their neighborhoods, whether that may be people with children or people of color.
The childcare operator has bent over backwards to answer the complaints of the neighbors and has more than
proved that SHE is the good neighbor and will continue to run a quality, well-managed business.
Those present at the hearing, including the owner of the condo that the daycare occupies, and many others
spoke to the quality and professionalism of the operator. Her family is behind her and involved, the parents of
the children are involved. In my opinion, we could not and should not ask for more from this operator.
I urge the Council to grant the Conditional Use Permit for a Large Family- Childcare at 23 Baypoint. It is good
for the community, and good for the City.
Sincerely,
Tom Wilson
Corri lVAson€ Executive Director
Di ec`: 4 6d .3013.0*.26 € Coll: 415-497,9-1741
i41
www.canalalliance.orq
a: a L aWance
Dr. Amanda McCarthy
83 Clyde Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
February 2, 2014
Caron Parker
City of San Rafael Planning Division
P.O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
Re: File No UP12-022—Planning commission hearing
Dear Ms. Parker,
I am writing to comment on the planning commission hearing regarding the Conditional Use Permit for the large
family daycare (9-14 children) at 23 Bayoint Drive, as this issue will now be going to the City Council for
presentation and resolution. My interpretation of the public hearing comments are the following:
1. The City Council requested that "the applicant... work with the daycare provider, concerned residents,
staff from Community Action Marin, and the Baypoint Lagoon HOA to find solutions to potential noise
issues, and directed staff to hold a ZA hearing at the end of 6 months to review noise mitigation measures
proposed by the day care provider." At the hearing, Karen, a representative of the Baypoint Lagoon
HOA, read a statement and indicated that the HOA could only interact with homeowners, and could not
participate in the process nor comment. However, the HOA participated in the hearing (and previous
hearings) on behalf of the residents of 27 Baypoint, stating that noise continues to be a concern. This
appears to be conflicting—they either can comment and participate in this process or they cannot. It
appears that the HOA will participate only to comment that they support the denial of the CUP, but will not
participate in any mediation or compromise between 27 Baypoint and the owners of 23 Baypoint (or
operators of the daycare). Because of this blatant abuse of the process, I believe that any comments
from the HOA should be dismissed from the case, or the HOA should be required to participate in the
mediation process.
2. Other neighbors at the hearing commented that they are sympathetic to the residents of 27 Baypoint only,
and that if the residents of 27 Baypoint were satisfied with the mediation process, they would be satisfied.
However, the residents of 27 Baypoint did not participate in the mediation process and are not willing to
compromise. They documented during the hearing (and in the final meeting of the process) that they are
home only part time during the year (Victoria works from home four days/week and David works from
home 6 weeks at a time). They also have only had neighbors that lived alone or lived with a spouse—no
children or family has ever lived as a neighbor in the home. David implied that they would like that level
of noise to be the "existing condition." I believe that they did not participate in the process because there
is no compromise or condition that would satisfy this need, other than the daycare not being present at
the location (at this size or at a reduced size). I believe that, their hope is, if the CUP is denied, the
daycare will be forced to find an alternative location—however, there is no alternative location in the City,
nor, in particular, the Canal district.
3. The public comment continues to assert that the CUP will result in an increase in the number of children
or activity at the daycare—the daycare has always operated and will continue to operate at the current
size with approval of the CUP. The reality is that there are typically 10 children present at the home for
the hours from 8am-5pm. Denial of the CUP would result, then, in a decrease of only 2 children at the
site during the day. Any sound assessment conducted, nor individual, would not be able to detect this
reduction. The sound engineer that assessed the site documented that it is likely not noise, but vibration
that could impact the shared wall neighbor at 27 Baypoint—there will certainly be no difference between 8
and 10 children with regards to vibration.
4. The public comment also continues to bring up the poor construction of the homes in this neighborhood.
However, the majority of homes in San Rafael (particularly shared wall homes) have similar construction
or are much older buildings. Indeed, in the Canal District, in particular, 90% of homes are of shared wall
construction built prior to sound abatement technique practice. If the City agrees that this is not a
"suitable location" due to the "inferior" construction of the homes, there is no location in the Canal District
where a family home daycare can be located—and, of all neighborhoods in the City, the Canal District
likely has the greatest need for affordable, quality childcare.
5. 1 believe, from public comment, my work in the mediation meetings, and discussions with Deborah
Vandervoort at 19 Baypoint (adjoining side yard to 23 Baypoint), that the real issue is not noise, vibration,
safety, or any other item that has been discussed. It is the "character" of the neighborhood as a
retirement community for older married couples (not families) that is of concern. Families are a part of life
and, in most communities, a family daycare would be a valuable asset. Indeed, as this neighborhood
transitions through home sales etc., the character will more closely emulate other areas of San Rafael
and the Canal District and this resource will be highly valued in the community and neighborhood.
I do not believe that there will ever be universal agreement on this topic, at this or at any location. As requested
by the City Council during the hearing in May, a review and subsequent amendment to the general plan should be
made that dictates what locations are acceptable for the location of a daycare of 9-14 children so that disputes of
this kind can be avoided. Please tell us what acceptable locations are so that the service can be provided to the
community without neighbor review. This issue will continue to be of concern to the community at other locations.
Please contact me with any questions or concerns.
Kindest regards,
,J41J� A4- -
Amanda McCarthy
MMMM���
Mi nombre es Matilde,'Vivarez, soy la mama de Samanta Alvarez. Estoy escribiendo
esta carta en apoyo del daycare Ramirez. Ofresco mi apoyo porque las personas
aquf estdn muy preparadas, este lugar es muy seguro, limpio y mi hija aprende
mucho. Si redujeran el cupo, me afectara mucho porque tengo trabajar, y seria muy
diffcil buscar personas preparadas y de conflanza para que me cuiden a mi hija. Les
pido de favor que nos ayuden a mantener este daycare con los cupos para que
ninguno de nuestros hijos pierda la oportunidad ni el beneficio de un, been cuidado
y been desarrollo.
Muchas gracias.
�--
Matilde Alvarez 0
(415) 747-4537
PLAN,
A quien corresponda:
Mi hombre es Mariela Sanchez, soy la mania de Emanuel Ruiz Sanchez. El esta en el
daycare Ramirez. Como madre soltera, necesito trabajar para poder mantener a mis
Cres hijos. Apoyo el daycare Ramirez porque le ay-Lidado inucho a mi h-Ijo, el
aprendido mucho y to esta preparando para la escuela. Pava mi es mucha ayuda
tenerespacioeneste daycare ypoderterser laaytidapara podei�trabajar. Mihijo
esta muy seguro, aquf. Les pilo que nos ayuden a tener este daycare para beneficio
de nuestros hijos.
loss=
Mar'iela Sanchez
(415) 235-4472
M Z 6r 'fir
PLANl\I'tN!G
b
C
C-1
<"7
j
Mi nombre es Marilis De Leon, mama de Haylee Lopez. Con esta carta quiero
demostrar mi apoyo al daycare Ramirez. Para nosotros padres nos beneficia este
daycare, me siento muy segura, tengo otro hijo coal ya estuvo en este daycare antes.
Si redujeran el numero, de niflos nos afectarfa mucho ya gree es muy diffcil encontrar
lugares se eros. Tal vez tenga que dejar trabajar, pero yo necesito, trabajar para
poder mantener a anis hijos. Les pilo clue nos ayuden por favor.
Muchas gracias,
Marilis De Leon
(415) 261-3113
M AY 0
PLAM'41i'lG
4
4,
5
4
A quien corresponda:
Yo, Pedro Tecum, papa de Brandon Tecum. Apoyo el daycare de Ramirez. Si to
cierran seria un gran impacto para Jos padres. Si pueden ayudenos, necesitamos
ayuda ya que nosotros necesitamos este daycare. El daycare ayuda a preparar a
nuestros hijos para que se vallan ala escuela. Por favor ay6denos para que este
daycare le den el permiso necesario.
Gracias por su atenci6n,
Pedro Tecum
(415) 261-0636 Mg 0
PLANNING
Cl —C C7
�A
-21
C
'Y
18 de abril del 2014
A quien corresponds,
Soy el papa de Daisay Casas. En primero nosotros de padres trabajamos. Mi hija ya
esta acostumbrada al daycare Ramirez. Ella ha esta en muchos lugares y nunca
babfa estado tan contenta coma aqui. Si mi hija se tuviera que mover, nos afectarfa
macho ya que para nosotros es diffcil encontrar cuidados de conflanza. Nosotros
apoyamos este daycare. Por favor ay6denos a obtener este permiso para que
nuestros hijos reciban un bueno cuidado y est6n en un lugar seguro mientras
trabajamos.
Muchas gracias,
Saul Casas
(41S)717 -1252
IsED
[jAy o 5 2014
PLANNING
C- C,
0�
J
Ck
(ry
I�S /r)
ry Y
((A
A
18 de Abril del 2014
A quien corresponda:
Mi nombre es Alma Renderos, soy la mama de Christopher Renderos. El que mi hijo
venga al daycare Ramirez nos beneficia mucho, mi hijo aprende mucho, esta en un
lugar seguro y ami me ayuda en que puedo trabajar y estudiar para un mejor Futuro
para mis hijos. Si perdiera el cupo me afectarfa mucho en el sentido que tendrfa que
buscar a una persona no adecuada para cuidar a mi hijo, mi hijo dejara de aprender,
y yo tendrfa que trabar aun mas porque ya no recibiera la ayuda y pasarfa menos
tiempo con mis hijos. Les pido que nos apoyen y nos ayuden a mantener este
daycare para que nuestros hijos sigan recibiendo un been cuidado en un lugar
seguro, y sigan aprendiendo y prepardndose para la escuela.
Muchas Gracias.
MAY 0 Z01-4
Alma Renderos
(415) 320-5460 PLANNING
v
J�
-jw a
'A
1
4
--h
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
ROUTING SLIP / APPROVAL FORM
INSTRUCTIONS: USE THIS FORM WITH EACH SUBMITTAL OF A CONTRACT, AGREEMENT,
ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION BEFORE APPROVAL BY COUNCIL / AGENCY.
SRRA / SRCC AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.a
DATE OF MEETING: MAY 5, 2014
FROM: Paul Jensen, Community Development Director (CP)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
DATE: April 28, 2014
TITLE OF DOCUMENT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN RAFAEL APPROVING A
USE PERMIT (UP12-022) ALLOWING THE OPERATION OF A LICENSED LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE
(9-14 CHILDREN MAXIMUM) IN A TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOME AT 23 BAYPOINT
DRIVE; (APN: 009-362-20)
Department He (signature)
(LOWER HALF OF FORM FOR APPROVALS ONLY)
APPROVED AS COUNCIL/ AGENCY APPROVED AS TO FORM:
AGENDA ITEM:,
LA
City Manager (signature) City Attorney (signatur)
NOT APPROVED