Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06221999 - D10 Contra. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS � a � 'F Costa trA'yak FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICR County COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: June 22, 1999 SUBJECT: Hearing of an Appeal from Charlene Gutierrez and Alice Roberts of the East County Regional planning Commission Approval of a Land Use Permit (Modification) for a Child Care Facility in the Oakley area ( ercrey & Richard Lafayette, Applicants & Owners); County File #I`LP892001 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RE. QMMENDATIONS 1 e Adopt the CEQA Class I(e)(1) exemption prepared for this project as adequate. 2. Adopt a motion sustaining the approval of the East County Regional Planning Commission, and deny the appeal of Charlene Gutierrez and Alice Roberts, 3. .Adopt the findings contained in Resolution 19-99 as the ,basis for the Board's action. 4, Direct the Community Development Department to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk, CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X "SES SIGNATURE e . RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE t�T`HER SIGNATURE{S): ACTION OF BOARD ON June 22, 1999 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ASSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES:a,T_,r,7-,y NOES: TIT AND ENTERED ON TIME MINUTES OF THE ABSENT; ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE. DATE SHOWN. Contact: Darwin; Dyers (510/335-1210) ATTESTED_-_ JUNE 99,, 1999 cc; Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Charlene Gutierrez THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Alice Roberts AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Mercrey & Richard Lafayette R Building Inspection Crept. E. County Counsel By" � £ t. � m DEPUTY {�y�. ' e f SUBJECT LINE BOARD OR CO!V1 r7i,EE DATE Page 1=1�CA� I�IPa� Nome. The applicant is responsible for all applications review costs, whether or not the project is approved. BANl A 5QNB nFDR RECDIlllV1END-AT'I N In September, 1989 the East County Regional Planning Commission approved LP892001 to establish a child care facility for 40 children. (The permit was granted to a previous child care provider l; On October 15, 1998 the present owners, lot"ercrey & Richard Lafayette, submitted an application to modify the project, and to intensify the use from 4€3 to 74 children. The project, as approved by the Zoning Administrator, suited the applicant to 40 children (see Condition of Approval 9), and added a number of conditions in response to concerns expressed by neighboring property owners. in effect, the ,project approved by the Zoning Administrator is the same capacity as the project approved in 1989, with a number of new conditions intended to avoid/minimize the potential sand use problems. Foilowing the March 8, 1,999 approval by the Zoning Administrator, two neighboring property owners (Charlene Gutierrez and dice Roberts) filed an appeal on larch 17, 1999. On May 3, 1999, the East County Regional Planning Commission serving as the Board of Appeals received testimony from 15 persons. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and discussed the issues raised. Ultimately the Commission voted to sustain the Zoning Administrator's approval, but with a modification ;o Condition of approval . The modification was intended to ensure that the landscape plan for the project utilized 15 and 5-gallon evergreen trees, which would effectively screen/soften views of the site from the rear yards of adjacent properties. APPEAL OF EAST QO NTY RE 1 NAS PLANNING MM1 SION DEC 15 1 N In a letter dated May 10, 1999, Charlene Gutierrez and Alice Roberts appealed the approval of the Planning Commission. For informational purposes, the attached Figure 1 shows the location of the appellant's property in relationship to the project site. Background of the opposition of some neighboring property owners to this project is presented in the staff report to the East County Regional Planning Commission (report dated May 3, 1999). Specifically, the appellants (Charlene Gutierrez and Alice Roberts) appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Planning Commission. That appeal letter, along with a discussion of the eight appeal points, are presented in the May 3, 1999 staff report. It also presents the app'licant`s response to the appeal and staff analysis of the appeal points. The appeal of the decision of the East County Regional Planning Commission is based on the same issues that were considered by the Planning Commission during its deliberations. In reaching its decision, the Planning Commission tools into consideration that the proiect as approved by the Zoning Administrator was not intensifying the land use. Rather, it was a modification to the Site Plan to replace an old, orae-story wood-frame structure with a modular classroom that was to be placed on a permanent foundation, along with modifications to the circulation and entry to the site, and construction of outdoor play areas for children and inciude number of conditions to ensure that the protect did not create nuisance problems in the neighborhood. The appeal additionally raised concerns regarding health and safety issues. The Planning Commission placed reliance on the SUBJECT LINE BOARD OR coMM7TEE DATE Page professional staff of County Departments (Health Services, Public Works, and Building Inspection), along with the fire district (Contra Costa county Fire Protection District) and State of California (Health & Welfare Agency) to ensure the child care facility complies with all applicable standards and regulations. In this regard, it should be noted that the State Health & Welfare Agency has prepared a "facility evaluation report"; the plans have been approved by the fire district; the County Health Services Department has issued a water supply permit; and the septic systems was installed in 19.39 under terms of a permit. A_NALY'SIS OF APPEAL PAINT The May 10; 1599 appeal letter identified eight concerns/issues of the appellants, but it doses not provide supporting documentation. The following is a discussion of the appeal points: Possible contamination of 6 wells on the surrounding properties: Response: The applicant has not requested any exceptions to the County Ordinance Code requirements. The Health Services Department has approved the water system, and they have not indicated any concerns about the septic system on site Onstalied in 1989). The intensity of the permitted use is unchanged, and there is no evidence that the previous child care facility on site resulted in contamination. 2. Substandard lot size in a residential area with A-2 zoning: Response: The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the State of California, which regulates child care facilities. The State has requirements for play areas, classrooms, and other facilities (e.g., lavatory facilities, cooking facilities), as well as regulating the child care providers through a licensing program. Previously, the State approved a child care facility on the site, and its "facility evaluation report", dated December 16, 1993, did not identify any deficiencies. There are no zoning ordinance provisions that would preclude the establishment of a child care facility in a residential area (or on a parcel zoned A-2). However, the establishment of the use requires approval of a land use permit. A land use permit was granted for a pre-school on the site which operated for 6 years in the mid- 1990's. The design of the facility was evaluated during staff's review of the application. The design was determined to be compatible with the existing school and the surrounding neighborhood. S Traffic congestion and safety issue especially for school children walking to, from and waiting for school buses. There are no sidewalks. Response: The Public Works Department has reviewed the project, and has recommended 14 conditions of approval. The Public Works Department has not expressed concern about the safety issue, other than requiring adequate sight distance (Condition of Approval #23). The Knightsen School District has a bus stop at/near the Delta Road frontage of the site. Historically the school has used the graveled frontage of the site as an informal turnaround area. The School District has indicated a willingness to move its bus stop ;there are no improvements associated with the existing bus stop). At the May 3, 1999 hearing, the Lafayette's indicated a willingness to work with the Knightsen School District, and would allow the Knightsen Elementary School District bus to continue to use the driveway as a turn-around, and would have pre-school staff control traffic and pedestrians on site to ensure that the bus turn-around could be done safely. SUBJECT LINE BOARD OR COMMITTEE DATE Page 4 4. Possible property value depreciation of the 5 surrounding properties: response: The appellant's have not provided documentation to support this point of appeal. A properly conditioned child care facility has the potential to increase property values. For the past two years, the site has been vacant aro not maintained. There has been vandalism of the site improvements and unauthorized persons sleeping in the vacant building from time to time. A well maintained child care facility should :not create nuisance problems or affect property values. 5. Noise levels, inadequate sound barriers and rights of privacy are not being respected. response: The Conditions of Approval require a landscape and irrigation plan (Condition of Approval#2); exterior lighting is restricted (Condition of Approval: #5); a solid wood (noise barrier) fence is required (Condition of Approval #61; no loud speaker, radios, cd's or tapes shall be operated outside any structure (Condition of Approval #7), hours of operation are restricted, with no holiday or weekend use allowed (Condition of Approval #10). 6, Delta [load presents drug problems, transient problems and firearm discharge problems: Response: The issue of drugs, transient and firearms discharge problems are existing conditions that are not attributable to the proposed project. T The propane gas company presents a severe safety hazard: : suburban propane was one of the first users established in the neighborhood. This parcel is in the northeast corner of the Delta Road/Brentwood Boulevard intersection, and is approximately 200 feet northwest of the site. The firm is operating with all require permits and business plans. Anumber of residences are closer to the parcel than the child care facility. The County health Services Department has not raised any safety issues regarding the child care facility's location:. 8, Demolition of the existing house and moving in a modular structure was done without permits, Response: No permits were granted for the demolition work. The modular structure was moved to the site for storage until the land use permit was granted. Building permits are required for assembly of the modular structure after the applicant has demonstrated that all conditions of approval have been met. If the application is denied, the modular structure will be required to be removed. DM/aa BD282 01 s89.DM ADDENDUM TO ITEM Deg Agenda June 22, 1999 This is the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for the hearing on the appeal by Charlene Gutierrez and Alice Roberts (Appellants), from the decision of the East County Regional Planning Commission on the application by Mercrey and Richard Lafayette(Applicants and Owners), for a land use permit(#LP 89-2001 [as modified]). The permit is for a child care facility for up to 40 children on a 0.85 acre with site variances to the standards of the Off-street Parking Ordinance to allow 8-foot by 1.8-foot parking spaces(minimum 9-feet by 19-feet spaces required); a 4-foot planter area along the frontage; and to allow for a graveled parking area(asphalt or cement binder pavement, or similar surface required), The site is located at#61 Delta Road, in the Oakley area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Director,presented the staff report and recommendations. The public hearing was opened, and the following people appeared to speak; Rick LaFayette, applicant, 412 Clearwood give, Oakley; Mercrey LaFayette, applicant,412 Clearwood Drive, Oakley; Charlene Gutierrez, appellant,440 Memory Lane, Oakley; Lil Tarin, East County Homeowners, 1315 Delta Road, Brentwood; The following people did not speak, but offered written comments. Alice Roberts, appellant, 81 Delta Road, Oakley; Rosemary Langford, Delta Kids Center, 4395 Mehaffey Way, Oakley; Debbie Carter, 2950 Buskirk Avenue, Ste 140, Walnut Creek; Rosario Martinez, 450 Memory Lane, Oakley. Those desiring to speak having been heard,the hearing was closed. The Board discussed the issues. Iden Stuart, Director of General Environmental health Programs, advised the Board that the applicants have completed their well permit. They will be monitoring monthly for bacterial contamination, and they are required to supply quarterly nitrate and mercury reports. Mr. Stuart suggested that the intensity of use be kept at the present level. The Board continued to discuss the matter. Supervisor Canciamilla expressed concern regarding the water monitoring. He requested that a Condition of Approval be included to monitor the water, and in the event there is any abnormal result from the testing that is currently required, that notification be given to all of the surrounding property owners so that they are aware of the result, and so it can be handled proactively. With that addition,he moved the staff's recommendations (See attachment.) Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: AYES; SUPERVISORS GIOIA,UILKEMA, DeSAUL�`IER and CA�vCIAMILLA DOES; SUPERVISOR GERBER ABSENT; NONE ABSTAIN: NONE IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDER-ED that the hearing is CLOSED; staff s recommendations are APPROVED; and DIRECTED that a Condition of Approval be included to monitor the water, and should there be any abnormal results from the testing currently required, the surrounding property owners will be noticed.