Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06221999 - D9 Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: June 22, 1999 SUBJECT. HEARING OF AN APPEAL FILED BY STEVE AND TRACY DONDANVILLE, JAMES AND BARBARA BRAY AND DON MOUNT, OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE A USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE WITH VARIANCES TO PERMIT TANDEM PARKING AND TO ELIMINATE THE 4 FOOT LANDSCAPE STRIP ALONG THE PARKING SPACES; THE PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED 411 MAYHEW WAY, WALNUT CREEK AND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF THE CITY OF CONCORD - (ASOK AND INDRA SENOUPTA m APPLICANTS AND OWNERS), FILE #LP982063 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECQMMENDATIQNS 1. Sustain the County Planning Commission's decision to conditionally approve a land use permit for the day care with the attached conditions of approval. 2. Deny the appeal filed by Dcndanville, Bray and Mount. 3. Adopt the project findings contained in Commission Resolution No. 17-1999 and the growth management findings in the conditions of approval as the basis for the Board approval. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ _ X YES SIGNATURE _._. RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER. SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON ��.. APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED � OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ------ AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYESa1M „-x,y NOES: T-T UNCI ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Aruna Bhet (925-335-1219) ATTESTED June 22 , 1999 cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERIC OF Steve and Trey Dondanville THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS James and Barbara Bray AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Don Mount Appllcant Publc Works BY , DEPUTY AMB/mp a;sengup.bo Appeal LP#982063 Board of Supervisors June 22, 1999 Page 2 4. Adopt the mitigated negative declaration as adequate and in compliance with CEQA. 5. Adopt the mitigation monitoring program. 6. Direct staff to file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. EIKAL AIM PACT None. Applicant pays all costs associated with processing the application. BACKGRQUN 3 This matter concerns an appeal of a County planning Commission decision to approve a land use permit to allow establishment of a child care facility at #411 Mayhew flay in the Walnut Creek/Concord area. The project involves the remodeling of an existing residence to accommodate the child care use. This item was scheduled before the County Zoning Administrator with a recommendation for approval on larch 8, 1999. The Zoning Administrator denied the variance requests due to the inability to make the required variance findings to allow tandem parking and to eliminate the landscape improvements. The Zoning Administrator was also not able to make at least three of the required findings for granting the use permit ( 1, #3 and #5), and denied the use permit. On March 15, 1999, the owners, lir. and Mrs. Sengupta, appealed the decision of the Zoning Administrator. The County Planning Commission heard the appeal on May 11, 1999. after taking testimony, the Commission approved the use permit (vote of 4-2) for the day care with the attached findings and conditions of approval. Staff proposed condition of approval #6, which is also a mitigation measure was modified by the Planning Commission as follows: Lf Prior to of a buildimg permit for t1he day S the appliesmt sheH obtain aMmval in writing from the-G" -n site plan dated April T3 S "Prior to issuance of a building permit for the day care, the applicant shall cooperate with the public Works Department in its efforts to secure or improve parking on the south side of Mayhew." The background to this project is reviewed in the staff reports to the Zoning Administrator and planning Commission. Appeal LP#982463 Board of Supervisors June 22, 9999 'age 3 APPEAL BY NEIGHBORS OF PLANNING COMM15SION'a APPROVAL In a letter dated May 21, 1999, Dondanville, Bray and Mount appealed the Planning Commission's decision to approve the permit. The various points raised by the appellants, as well as more general comments on the appeal are addressed below: REVIEW OF APPEAL POINTE Listed below is a summary of the points contained in the appellants' May 21, 1999 appeal letter and staffs response to each point. 1, Elimination of Qn- tree# Parking on Mayhew Way Staff Response: The centerline of Mayhew Way also serves as the dividing line between the City of Walnut Creek and Contra Costa County. The City had originally indicated that the proposed traffic mitigation measures for the day care center would rewire the removal of at least one parking space within their jurisdiction on the south side of Mayhew flay. After closer study, the City has determined that the mitigation measures will not require elimination of any parking on the south aide of Mayhew Way (see attached May 18, 1999 letter). On the north side of the road (County jurisdiction), the project's frontage lacks curb and gutter so parking is exclusively on the gravel shoulder. This shoulder area currently contains power poles, guy wires and a "Speed Limit Q" sign, leaving roof for approximately three cars to parr between these obstacles. Once the curb, gutter, sidewalk and driveways are constructed, and power poles are relocated behind the sidewalk with this project, only two on-street parking spaces would be available Tong the project's Mayhew Way frontage. However, the required traffic mitigation measures include three 12-foot lanes at the intersection (eastbound left tura, eastbound right tura and westbound lanes) within a 40-toot space between the curbs. The remaining four feet is insufficient for on-street parking, so the area that could be used for parking spots along the project's frontage would instead be used for the traffic mitigation measures. A total of three parking spaces along Mayhew Way would actually be eliminated with this project, as three cars can currently park on the gravel shoulder, and after the project, no parking along the frontage will be allowed. 2. On-Site Parking at the Proposed Projekt is Ir.�.�a, deouate Staff' Response. The applicant has proposed 9 off-street parking spaces. The applicant has indicated that a maximum of seven staff members are expected at the facility at any one time and has submitted an estimated daily schedule of teachers at the proposed facility. The County's zoning ordinance does not specify parking requirements for day cares or schools. Appeal LP##982063 Beard of Supervisors June 22. 1999 Page 4 Staff has checked with the City of Walnut Creek and City of Concord regarding their parking requirements for day care facilities since the project is adjacent to the two cities. The City of Walnut Creek requires t space/employee plus I space/12 children. The City of Concord requires 1 space for the first 5 children plus t one spacef10 children. Concord's parking ordinance states that additional spaces may be required at the discretion of the hearing body. A day care facility with 7 staff members and 60 children would be required to have a minimum of 12 spaces by the City of Walnut Creek and a minimum of 7 spaces by the City of Concord. Based on information submitted by the applicant and the parking requirements of the adjacent jurisdictions, 9 off street parking spaces is efficient for the proposed facility. Condition of approval ( 5) required the parking stalls to be clearly delineated for staff and temporary parking. Five off-street parking spaces would be available for parents in addition to the stacking of cars in the driveway. 3. Public Safety Staff lies : Conditions of approval attached by the County Planning Commission ensure that the project will not be detrimental to public health and safety. 4. Reduction in Value of the Surrounding Properties ataff response: The appellants have not submitted any evidence to support their opinion that property values will be reduced. 5. Enforcement Staff Res onse. When approving a use permit, it is a standard practice to attach conditions of approval. The applicant is required to abide by the conditions of approval at all tunes. However, when the applicant is not in compliance with the conditions of approval, the County has the ability to revoke the permit. 5. A Gift of Public Right-of-Way Staff_Response: This point is based on the 0.6 m (2-foot+) encroachment of the parking stalls into the normal County right of way behind the sidewalk. As this encroachment was eliminated in the revised plan presented to the Planning Commission, this issue is no longer pertinent. 7. Mitigation for BAIT Development toff response. The appellants claire that the day care is proposed as a mitigation to all the office, hotel and residential projects proposed within the Pleasant bill BART Specific Plan area. The proposed project is outside the Specific Plan Area and is not proposed to be funded or supported in any way by the fees collected as mitigation for Pleasant Hill BART Station Area projects. The applicants operate the Step Ahead Learning Center located on Las Juntas, AppealLP#982063 Beard of Supervisors June 22, 1999 Page 5 across from the SART Station. However, this is an independent and distinct project and is not a mitigation for SART Station Area development. S. Inadeauate Pedestrian Circulation Staff response: In addition to the widening of Mayhew, the project is required to provide a crosswalk from north to south of Mayhew at Bancroft which will improve pedestrian circulation in the area. 9. Lack of Conforming Landscaping Staff Response: The applicant is proposing landscaping along the off-street parking spaces within the dedicated area along Mayhew. This landscaping will be maintained by the applicant. Variance findings were made by the County Planning Commission to eliminate landscaping on the subject property. 10. Proposed Project is Out of Scale with the Characteristics of a Residential Neighborhood Staff Response: The County General flan identifies a need for child care services in residential areas. Child care policies of the Public/Facilities/Services element encourage location of child care facilities to residential neighborhoods, employment centers and along transit routes. The adjacent properties are used for residential use and the Commission's approval of the day care is consistent with the County General Flan policies. 11. Proposed Commercial Business in a residential Nftbborhodd Staff lie onse: As noted in item#10, above, the day care use is consistent with the County General Plan policies. A number of commercial 'businesses that generate traffic and noise exist within 960 feet from the subject property. They include an auto service center, recycling center, pottery, hardwood and concrete businesses. 12. Insufficient Turn Radius Staff Response: The existing corner is very sharp with poor sight distance (see item 15, below), and large trucks turning right from Bancroft load onto Mayhew Way cross the Mayhew Way centerline to complete the tura. The project, as currently designed, features 6.0+m (20-foot) curb return and greatly improves both sight distance and true tuning Motions over the existing conditions. However, very large semi-trucks (AASHTO WB-50) still would cross the Mayhew Way centerline to complete the tura. We addressed this issue in the Planning Commission staff report, noting that the Public Works Department does not have sufficient truck turning data to support resident's claims of heavy truck motion around this corner. If the Commission had determined that trunk circulation required mitigation, a 9.1',+m (30-foot) radius curb return could have been substituted for the 6.0+m (20-foot) curb return shown on the plans. This substitution would have shifted the required Appeal 82063 Board of Supervisors june 22, 1999 Page 6 right-of-way line and eliminated tandem parking stall 7. The Commission declined to rake this change, but the Board of Supervisors may elect to do so. 13. Traffic Study Does Not Include BART Station Area Build-Qut Staff response. This statement is true, however, this day care project is not responsible for mitigating future traffic generated by other developments. Mitigation of future traffic impacts from the BART station area is the responsibility of the developers of the BART station area. 14. Commercial Fueling Network on Hookston Staff response: The commercial fueling is located on Hookstdn within the city limits of Pleasant Hill and is not related to this project. Truck turning radius issue has been addressed in Item ##12, 15. Sight distance tafF Response. Currently, the sight distance for the right turn from Bancroft Road to Mayhew Way is poor, obstructed by oleander bushes near the corner of the project site. The conditions of approval for this project dictate specific measures to improve sight distance at this corner. The project is conditioned to "remove existing obstructions at the site near the intersection of Mayhew Way and Bancroft road to provide stopping sight distance for a design speed of 72 km/hr (45-am)." The project is also conditioned to preserve the sight distance at the corner by prohibiting obstructions (such as the project's sign) within a triangular area, a minimum of 7.6+m (25 feet) on a side from the ultimate right of way lines. This is the minimum sight distance requirement of Chapter 62-18 of the Ordinance Code. Finally, solid fencing is prohibited within a triangular area, a minimum of 12.2+rm (40 feet) on a side from the ultimate right of way lines. This condition is in response to the applicant's desire to use the small area between the building and Bancroft road as additional play area for the children. We believe that these conditions of approval will vastly improve the sight distance at the corner for the design speed. However, the sight distance at the corner could be further improved by eliminating the fencing (arid the play area) on the Bancroft road side of the building, or by eliminating or reducing the size of the project's signs. But these measures would be in excess of that required by the ordinance code. If the project were not constructed, the conditioned measures to improve sight distance would not be implemented and the site distance would not be unproved. 16. Zoning Administrator Denial of the Proiect -Staff Response: The Planning Commission is not obligated to accept the Zoning Administrator's decision. The Commission determined that all required ordinance findings for the use permit and variances could be made and Appeal L #982063 Beard of Supervisors June 22, 1999 Page 7 approved the project. 17. City of Concord's Dpposition to the Project Staff Response. The project site is within the sphere of influence of Concord, but has a Walnut Creek address. The City of Concord did not respond to any requests for comments sent to therm by the County. However, a staff planner with the City of Concord attended the County Planning Commission's hearing and stated their opposition to the project. 18. The California Child Day Care Facilities enact Provides for Small (into 8) and Large p to 14 Family Care Centers in Residential Neighborhoods Staff ReV nse: Horne day cares (up to 14 children) are permitted by right in residential neighborhoods. A use permit is not required. The -15 zoning ordinance also permits the establishment of day cares with more than 14 children upon obtaining a use permit from the County. Since the applicant wishes to have more than 14 children, they applied for the use permit. 19. Day Care Shortage aff Response: Staff has not researched into this matter. However, Betsy Rutana of the Department of Social Services and Sharon Williams of the Child Care Council testified at the Planning Commission hearing regarding the shortage of day cares for infants and toddlers. The child care council submitted data that shows 3,257 infant/toddlers needing child care with only 1,589 licensed slots available in North Central Contra Costa County. Other Appeal Points. In the letter dated May 20, 1999, the appellants also Mate that the appeal is filed on behalf of the City of Walnut Creek and City of Concord. The letter dated larch 4, 1999 from the City of Walnut Creek (attached) states that they have no objections to the proposed day care center. The City of Concord has not submitted any letter opposing the day care. The appellant's comment alleging that Commissioner Clark was biased in his approval of the use permit is noted. However, it is not relevant to this appeal process. The neighbors' appeal presents no new information about the project that was not available to the Planning Commission. Staff sees no compelling reason to reverse the Commission approval of the project. While the Zoning Administrator had a different perspective of this project, the Commission determined that all required ordinance findings for the use permit and variances could be rade. Evidence provided by the applicant at the Commission hearing aided the Commission in coming to this conclusion. Accordingly staff'recommends that the Board deny the appeal and sustain the Commission's conditional approval of the child care facility. ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.9 Agenda June 22, 1999 This is the date and time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for the hearing on the appeal by Steve & Tracy Dondanville; James &Barbara.Bray; and Don Mount (Appellants), from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the request for a land use permit(County File#LP98-2063)by Asok &Indra Sengupta (Applicants and Owners), to convert an existing 2,049 sq. ft. single family residence to a 3,910 sq. ft. day care (Step Ahead Learning Center)with a maximum of 65 children. Variances are requested to eliminate the 4-foot landscape strip along the off-street parking spaces and to provide tandem parking. The property is located at 411 Mayhew Way, at the north-west intersection of Bancroft and Mayhew, in the unincorporated Walnut Creek/Concord area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Director, presented the staff report and recommendations (see attached Board Order). Mr. Barry noted that the Planning Commission had approved the permit and suggested that the Board sustain their decision. Aruna Bhat, Community Development Department, and Heather Ballenger,Public Works Department, were also present. The Board discussed the issues. The public hearing was opened, and the following people commented on the issues: Steve Dondanville, appellant, Floxglove Homeowners Association, 156 Foxglove Lane, Walnut Creek; Don Mount, appellant, 309 Oragg Lane, Concord; James Bray, appellant,406 Mayhew Way, Walnut Creek; Gene DeMar, 1313 Gragg Lane, Concord; Helen Allen, Councilmen ber—City of Concord, 3687 DeRosa Court, Concord; Bob Farmer, Colony Parr Homeowners, Concord; Charles Jordan, 1053 A Laski Lane, Concord; Jens Sorensen, 427 Le Jean Way, Walnut CreClq- Dorice Armentrout, 500 LeJean Way, Walnut Creek.; Martin Meisler, 424 Mayhew Way, Walnut Creek; Lynette Tanner-Busby, Contra Costa.Center Association,1350 Treat Blvd., Walnut Creek; Bonnie Henry, Bonnie Henry Commercial Deal Estate, 1990 N. California Blvd., Walnut Creek; Abigail McCann., 1241 McCann Court, Concord; Linda and Bruce Meneken, 1220 Traud Drive, Concord; Mary Aissen, 1298 Train Drive, Concord; Christine Carbajal, 1289 St. Louis Drive, Concord; Marina Ciccarelli, 345 Lake Meadow Ct.,Martinez; Melanie Sengupta, 130 Bexley Place, Walnut Creek; Nancy Nelson, 1740 Apple Drive, Concord; Michele Lynd, 2610 Bel Air Drive, #206, Concord; Carol Brown, 12 Donald Place, Orinda; Kathi Hamilton, 825 Oak Grove Road, Concord; Basudha Sengupta, 230 Langlie Court, Walnut Creep; Tammy Johnson-Hu€zo, 1651 Detroit Ave., #206, Concord; Zola Neally, 1827 Pacheco, Martinez; June Wong, 914 Helix Drive, Concord; Sue Bell, 124 Lucinda Lane, Pleasant Hill; Jessica Conti, 29 Phylis Drive, Pleasant Hill, Kim Owens, 1340 Las Juntas, #D, Walnut Creek; Sharon Williams, Parent's Voices, 1035 Detroit Ave., Concord; Dawn Bass, 2547 Lynn Avenue, Concord; Don Nelson, 1740 Apple Drive, Concord; Shawn Hensley, 7649 Peppertree Road,Dublin; 1 Jennifer Manuto, 205 Acorn Court, Oakley; Andrew Schneit Court, 3625 Springer Court, Walnut Creek; Susan.Kotchou, 218 Ivywood Drive, Walnut Creek; Kathy Russell, PMB 500, 6680 Alhambra Avenue, Martinez; Ruth Batz, 55 Massdo Drive, Pleasant Dill; Lee Farretta, 61.9 'Montezuma Court, Walnut Creep; Betsy Rufana, State Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing, 1515 Clay Street, Ste.1102, Oakland, Sheilah.Morrison,401 Mayhew Way, Walnut Creek; Tomi Van de Brooke, 6680 Alhambra Ave., #250, ?Martinez The following people did not speak,but offered written comments Kuldep Chohan, 211. Masters Court, #3, Walnut Creek; Jyouru Lyang, 2337 Welsh Court, Walnut Creep; Doug Westlund, 1336 Boulevard Way, #104, Walnut Creek.; Sonja M. Westlund, 1336 Boulevard Way, #104, Walnut Creek.; Pam.Mayerhoff, 28 The Trees Drive, Concord; Cathy Baldwin, 3506 Ralf?Moon Lane, Concord; Lakdaa Latawala, 2239 Southwest Circle, ?Martinez; Preem Tuteja, 114 Mayer Court, #2, Walnut Creek.; Ibrahim Khalaf, 424 Mayhew Way, Walnut Creek; Mike Korveleyn, 424 Mayhew Way, Walnut Creek; Serge Froloff, 1298 Traud Drive, Concord; Lisa.Czviko, 2600 Gill Court, Concord; Tisha,Jett, 3501 Chestnut Ave., #17, Concord, Ria Sengupta, 130 Bexley Place, Walnut Creek. Those desiring to speak having been heard, Supervisor Canciamilla stated the hearing was closed., and the Board discussed the issues. Following Board discussion, Supervisor DeSaulnier moved that the appeal be upheld without prejudice. He suggested that the Redevelopment Agency Director work with the applicants to see if another location could be found which would be better suited for such intense use. The motion died for lacy of a second. The Board continued to discuss the matter. Supervisor Gerber inquired about the truck traffic and the difficult turn radius onto Mayhew Way. .Supervisor Gioia noted that#8 of the Conditions of Approval referred to the landscaping, which he contended was inadequate. He requested suggestions for landscaping to buffer the facility and provide better noise abatement for the neighbors. Aruna Brat responded that#12 of the Conditions of Approval required a solid wooden fence, however, the Board may request to change that to a solid masonry wall. Dennis Barry advised that a masonry wall might provide a greater sound barrier than a wooden.fence. However, even with that, the children at play would be heard. He informed the Board that any wall or fence over 6 feet high within the setback area would require a variance and a new noticed hearing. Supervisor Uilkerrma stated that one way to minimize the congestion impact would be to offer off-site staff parking. Following further discussion, Supervisor DeSaulnier moved that it be the intent of the Board to approve the appeal without prejudice, and to direct staff to develop findings to that effect, and come back in one month so the applicants and appellants might work out a compromise. Supervisor Uilkema inquired if the_notion addressed the issues discussed, including the sound.wall. Supervisor DeSaulnier acknowledged that it included all of the items discussed today, including the sound wall, reduction of the children served at the facility and.parking. The motion died for lack of a second. 2 Discussion continued. Supervisor Gerber moved to deny the appeal and amend the project to include: approving a sound wall and landscaping for the sound wall between the two properties; arranging for off-site parking for a majority of the staff; working with the other jurisdictions to limit truck use on Mayhew to a 30 ft. radius (after determining what turn radius trucks would require), and if it is not possible to work with the other jurisdictions, then require a 30 11. radius;reduce the intensity of use to 50 children. Dennis Barry suggested that the Board keep the bearing open and continue the matter, and should the Board approve the motion, there would need to be land rights shown on the other property, and a deed restriction recorded on the subject property for the future. Supervisor Canciamilla proposed that the hearing be continued to July 27, 1999, at 3:00 p.m., and the matter be referred to staff with a request that they meet with the applicants and appellants to review issues including: the sound wall for the western Side of the property; the landscaping on the front and side; the off-site parking question; the intensity of use; and determination for truck traffic or other options for mitigating the traffic issue. Supervisor Gerber recommended that her motion be ascended to include the proposals made by Supervisor Canciamilla, and include reducing the intensity of use from 60 to 50 children. Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion including the amendment. Supervisor DeSaulnier advised that he wouldn't be supporting the motion since it did not address his concerns about the internal circulation. He stated that he felt the site would be better served with less intensity, like a maximum of 20 children, and that the Board encourage the Redevelopment Agency to possibly help by providing area funding for the kind of facility that would be less controversial and would help the entire cosnrnunity. It was suggested by Supervisor Canciamilla that the motion be ascended for a maximum of 50 children, which would allow the staff some flexibility. The Board continued the discussion. Supervisor Uilkema expressed agreement with Supervisor Canciamilla's concerns. Supervisor Gioia requested an amendment for a minimum of 40 children and a maximum of 50 for the motion he had previously seconded. Supervisor Gerber asked what criteria would be used to snake that determination between 40 and 50. Supervisor Canciamilla responded that staff would analyze the number of traffic trips, as well as the use and the historic context of such use. Supervisor Canciamilla called for the vote. The vote was as follows: .AYES: SUPERVISORS GIOLA and GERBER NOES: SUPERVISORS UILKEMA,DeSAULNIER and CANCI AMILLA ABSENT: DONE ABSTAIN: NONE Supervisor Canciamilla offered a substitute motion. He shoved the same motion as Gerber had offered, the same conditions, and included that the staff analyze the impacts of reducing the number of clients from 60 to a maximum of 50. Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion. AYES: SUPERVISORS GIOIA,UILKEMA,DeSAULNIER and CANCIAMILLA '_NOES: SUPERVISOR GERBER ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing is CONTINTIED to July 27, 19995 at 3:00 p. .; Community Development Department staff is DIRECTED to meet with the applicants and appellants to review issues including: sound walls,property landscaping, offsite parking for staff, and truck traffic; and the Board DECLARED it's intent to reduce the intensity of use to a maximum of 50 children. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 17-1.999 BEFORE THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEAL e Asok and Indra Sengupta f (Applicant & Owner), Land Use Permit 9 .File#LP9820363 s In the Unincorporated 1 Walnut reek/Concord area 1 Oen September 9, 1998, ASO K AND INDRA SE�`GIJPTA(Applicant& Owner) Filed a land use permit application, County File##LP982063, with the Community Development Department for an infant/toddler day care facility with a maximum capacity of 65 children with variances to the design requirements of the Off Street Parking Ordinance to permit tandem parking and to eliminate the 4 foot landscape strip along the parking spaces on a parcel that is zoned Single Funnily Residential, R- 15. Oen March 8, 1999, after issuance of a notice of a use permit as required by law, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public bearing on the application, at the conclusion of which the Zoning Administrator determined that not all required Endings could be made for the subject applications, and DENIED the application; In a letter dated March 18, 1999, the applicant appealed the denial decision of the Zoning Administrator to the County Planning Commission and modified the project by decreasing the proposed number of children at the day care to 601; On May 11, 1999, after notice was issued as required by law, the County Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals, conducted a hearing on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's denial decisions; The County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission finds the mitigated negative declaration determination to be adequate and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; Further, the Comn-dssion makes the following findings with respect to granting the variances per Section 26-2.2006 06 of the County Ordinance Code; 1. Required Finding: That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Resolution No. 17-1999 .File # P982063 County Planning Commission Mage 2 Project Finding: Tandem parking variances have been granted in the past for other commercial/residential projects in the vicinity and granting this variance is not a grant of special privilege. 2. Required Finding: That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. Project Finding: The subject property is triangular in shape with streets abutting on two sides of the property, The residence on the property is located 20 feet from the front property line. The requirements for dedications on Bancroft and Mayhew significantly constrain the property. 3. Requiredindin : That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent ai,d purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Project Finding: The proposed variances substantially meet the intent of the purpose of the R-15 zoning district. The applicant is proposing to install and maintain 5 feet of landscaping behind a 5 foot sidewalk within the County right of way. The landscaping will maintain the residential character of the area. Further, the Commission makes the following findings per Section 26-2.2008 of the County Code for approval of the use permit; 1. Required Finding: The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the county. Project Finding: The conditions of approval of the project ensure that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the county. 2. Required Finding: The proposed project will not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the county. eject Finding: The immediate surrounding area consists of single family residences and the proposed day care is consistent with zoning and general plan for the property and will not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the county. Resolution No. 17-1999 File #LP982063 County Planning Commission Page 3 3. squired Finding: The proposed project will not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the county. Project Finding,: No evidence has been submitted to the Planning Commission to demonstrate that the project will adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the county. 4. ReQuired Finding: The proposed project will not adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the general plan. Project Finding: The proposed project is consistent with the policies and goals of the general plan that encourage location of day care centers in residential areas. 5. wired Finding: The proposed project will not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. Project Finding: Conditions of approval have been placed on the project to ensure that it does not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problems in the area, which include staggered pick up/drop off of children and clear delineation of the parking spaces for staff and parents. 6. Required Finding: The proposed project as conditioned will not encourage marginal development. Project Finding: The approval of the project will not encourage marginal development, since the design of the proposed day care is compatible with the surrounding structures. 7. Required Finding: That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. Project Finding: The subject property is located close to the Pleasant Hill BART Station area of the County and is in proximity to a number of office buildings and other employment areas. Further, based on the foregoing findings, the Commission GRANTS the appeal of the applicant; and REVERSES the Zoning Administrator decision; and APPROVES the use permit for the day care subject to conditions. Resolution No. 17-1999 File -LP982063 Count Planning Commission Page 4 The decision of the County Planning Commission was given by motion of the County Planning Commission on May 11, 1999 by the following vete: AYES: Commissioners - Kimber, Pavlinec, Caddis, Clary NOES, Commissioners-Hanecak, Wong ABSENT: Commissioners - Terrell ABSTAIN: Commissioners -None JOANN PAVLINEC Chairwoman, County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa State of California Can May 21, 1999, the Community Development Department received an appeal of the County Planning Commission action on this project. 1,Bennis Barry, Secretary of the County Planning Commission, certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on May 11, 1999. ATTEST: Dennis M. Barry, AICD, Se ret ary of the County Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California A /mp a:sengup.res FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LAND USE PERMIT 2063-98 AS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON MAY l 1, 1.999 Findings A. Growth Management Element Pei -w-mance Standards 1. r ffi : The project will generate less than 100 peak hour trips and does not trigger a Measure C traffic study. 2. Water: The project is within the boundaries of the Contra Costa Nater District. 3. Sa.nitaLy Sewer: The project is within the boundaries of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. 4. Fire Protection: The subject property is within the Centra Costa County Fire Protection District boundaries. Automatic fire sprinklers will be rewired. 5. Public Protection: The growth Management Element standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station area per 1,000 population. Due to the nature of the project, there will be no impact on public protection in the area. {. Parrs & Recreation: Due to the nature of the project, no park dedication fee is required. T Flood Control & Drainage: The project will be required to meet all collect and convey requirements. (Ref. The growth Management Elernent, Chapter 4, of the General Ilan) B. Land Use Permit 1. That the proposed conditional land use shall not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the County. 2. That it shall not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the County. 3. That it shall not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax lase within the County. 2 4. That it shall not adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the General Plan. 5. That it shall not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. 6. That it shall not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood. 7. That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. (Ref. Section 26-2.2008 of the County Code) C. Variance 1. That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. 2. That because of special cir-curnstances applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. 3. That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. (Rel. Section 26-2.2006 of the County Code) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The request for the establishment of the day care is generally approved as shown on the revised site plan and elevation drawings dated received by the Community Development Department on April 20, 1999. 2. Approval is granted to allow for variance(s) to parking standards, that meet the requirements of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code as follows: 3 4 feet landscape strip required by zoning ordinance along the off-street parking spaces. 0-feet approved. Independently accessible parking spaces (9'x l9') required by zoning ordinance. Tandem parking spaces (8'x18') approved. 3. The maximum number of children at the facility is limited to 6£1. The dedication along Mayhew and Bancroft shall not be counted towards the required minimum useable outdoor play area. 4. The children at the facility shall not occupy the outside play area before 8:00 A.M. 5. Applicant shall reconfigure the parking lot shown on the site plan, received by Community Development on April 20, 1999, to meet the following conditions, subject to the review of the Public Works Department, and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator: Provide a loop driveway, to be signed or painted "keep clear", that will be placed such that it is not blocked by any designated parking stalls and will remain passable at all times. This loop driveway shall meet all turning radius requirements. This requires the relocation or removal of stall 5. Provide one Handicapped accessible parking stall (Stall 4). Provide a nilminum of four parking stalls dedicated for temporary parking and signed "10 min. Parking" (stalls 1, 5, 6 and 9). Stall 5 may be placed directly in front of the entrance to the building, such that sufficient room exists for the loop driveway described above. Provide a minimum of four parking stalls dedicated and signed "staff only". These stalls may in tandem with other parking stalls described above. (Stalls 2, 3, 7 and 8) - The limits of all stalls, including the one neat the entrance to the building, shall be clearly delineated, and all stalls shall be clearly signed with their restricted uses. 4 6. Prior- to issuance of a building permit for the day care, the applicant shall cooperate with the Public Works Department in its efforts to secure or improve parking; on the south side of Mayhew. 7. The proposed sign shall be located outside the sight distance triangle. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the final colors and design shall be subject to the review and approval of the County Zoning Administrator. 8. The day care shall have the following minimum landscape features: A. 24-inches boxed planters shall be provided along, the front of the building. B. Landscaping shall be provided adjacent to the proposed sign. C. A minimum of 12 15-gallon evergreen trees shall be planted along the western property line adjacent to the play areas. 9. Prior to issuance of the building; peri-rift, the landscape plan shah be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and finding; of adequacy. The landscape plan should address alter-nate surface material for the parking; stalls. 10. Landscaping shall conform to the County Mater Conservation Landscape Ordinance 82-26 and shall be installed prior to occupancy. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall be certified to be in compliance with the County Water Conservation Ordinance. 11. Exterior lighting shall be directed downwards and away from residential areas and public streets so as not to produce glare. 12. A 6-feet high solid fence shall be installed along the western properly line. 13. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the colors of the building shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 5 14. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other onsite excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. 15. No loud speakers or amplified music shall be permitted outside the enclosed building. 16. The hours of operation of the school shall be 6.30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. 17. This application is subject to an initial application fee of $2,581.25 which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 120% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior-to use of tlae permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. You may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be sent to you shortly after permit issuance. 1S. The applicant shall include in the standard contract with parents In 16 point letters encouraging; staggered pickup/drop off of children). PUBLIC WORDS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PERMIT 98-2063 Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, "Title 9, and Title 10 of tlae Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the plans submitted to Community Development on September 9, 1998. COMPLY 'M'I`TT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT ANIS PRIOR TO INITIATION OF THE USE PROPOSED UNDER THIS PERMIT: 6 General 19. Applicant shall submit improvement pians prepared by a registered civil engineer to the Public works Department, and pay appropriate fees in accordance with the County Ordinance and these conditions of approval. Compliance with these conditions of approval will be determined by the Public Works Department. Roadway Improvements 20. Along the parcel's frontage of Mayhew Way, the applicant shall construct curb, 1.5 m(5±foot)sidewalk(width measured from face of curb), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, streetlights, relocation of utility poles, pavement widening; and necessary transitions. The face of curb shall be located 3.1f rrr (10 feet) from the ultimate right of way line. The applicant shall also restripe Mayhew Way to allow for separate 3.7±m (12-foot) left and right turn lanes at Bancroft Road. Each lane shall have stacking rood for a minimum of two cars. 21. The applicant shall also construct a 6.0±in(20-foot) radius curb return and curb ramp at the corner of Mayhew Way and Bancroft Road. This curb shall align with the ultimate frontage improvements planned for Bancroft Road (face of curb 3.0±m (10 feet) from the ultimate right of way line). 22. The applicant shall cooperate with the Public Works Departr-nent in its efforts to secure or improve parking on the south side of Mayhew Road. Exceptions: 23. The applicant is granted an exemption from installation of frontage improvements along Bancroft Road, provided the property owners execute a defe.-Ted improvement agreement for the following improvements: A. Construction of curb, 1.5± m (5-foot) sidewalk (width measured from face of curb), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, streetlights, relocation of utility poles, pavement widening and necessary transitions. The face of curb shall be located 3.0± in (10 feet) from the ultimate right of way line; and At the time the deferred improvement agreement is called up, the property owner shall submit improvement plats, prepared by a registered civil engineer, to the Public Works Department and pay appropriate fees in accordance with the County Ordinance and this deferred improvement agreement. 7 Road Alignment/Sight Distance 24. Applicant shall remove existing obstructions on the site near the intersection of Mayhew Way and Bancroft Road to provide stopping sight distance for a design speed of 72 km/hr(45± mph.). 25. Applicant shall preserve sight distance at the intersection of Mayhew Way and Bancroft .Road per Chapter 82-18 of the Ordinance Code and these conditions. Specifically, no improvements, including signs, parking, landscaping or fences, shall extend higher than 0.76±m (2.5 feet) above the top of curb within a triangular area, a minimum of 7.6± m (25 feet) on a side from the ultimate right of way lines. 26. Applicant shall further preserve sight distance at the intersection of Mayhew Way and Bancroft Road by constructing any fences, trellises or similar structure within a triangular area, a minimum of 12.2± m (40 feet) on a side from the ultimate right of way lines, with a visually "open" material, such as wrought iron. Solid fences in this area are prohibited. The applicant is granted an exemption to allow the proposed sign to encroach into this area. Access to Adjoining Property 27. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment from the Applicant and Permit Center for- construction of driveways or other improvements within the County right of way. 28. Applicant shall only be permitted access at the locations shown on the approved site plan. The westerly driveway shall be entrance only; the easterly driveway shall be exit only. The easterly driveway shall be clearly labeled "exit only", or as approved by the Public Works Department. The easterly driveway shall be signed "right turn only." Road Dedications 29. Applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer- of Dedication: 6.6± m (22 feet) along the frontage of Bancroft Road. 3.0± m (10 feet) elsewhere along the frontage of Mayhew Way, and 3.0± m (10 feet) behind the face of the curb return at the Bancroft Road/Mayhew Way intersection, for the planned future width of Bancroft Road and Mayhew Way. 8 30. The Offer of Dedication for Bancroft Road shall exclude the area of the existing roof overhang of the sti ucture. Street Fighting 3L Applicant shall apply for annexation to County Service Area L-1€ 0 Lighting District by submitting: a letter of requests a metes and bounds description, and, pay the current LAF'CO fees. Annexation shall occur prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant shall be aware that this annexation process must comply with State Proposition 218 requirements, which state that the property owner-must hold a special election to approve the annexation. This process may take approximately 4 - 6 months to complete. Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities 32. The applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap Access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. t,.itilities/Undergr ounding 33. All new utility distribution services shall be installed underground, with an exception, of the existing; structures. Applicant shall be granted an exemption from the undergrounding requirements of the Ordinance Code for the existing overhead utility lines along the fiontages of Mayhew Way and Bancroft Road, however, the applicant shall relocate joint poles as necessary to avoid conflict with the applicant's required frontage improvements. Drainage Improvements Collect and Convey 34. The applicant shall collect and convey all stormwater entering and/or originating on this property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to all adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. 35. Applicant shall be responsible for verifying the adequacy of any downstream drainage facility utilized to convey storm water runoff from this project and, if necessary, construct improvements to guarantee adequacy. 9 Miscellaneous Draina e�Reauirements 36. Applicant shall prevent storm waters from draining across the sidewalks and driveways in a concentrated manner. 37. Applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities in accordance with the Ordinance Code and the Public Works Department's design standards. 38. Applicant shall dedicate a public drainage easement over any drainage system which conveys storm water runoff from public streets. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 39. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water- Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay - Region Il, or Central Valley - Region IV). 40. Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMP's) for the reduction or elimination of store water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate wherever feasible, the foltowing long-term BMP's in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean Water- Program for the site's storm water drainage: - Utilize pavers for household driveways and/or walkways. - Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. - Stenciling all storm drain inlets with "No Dumping, Drains to Bay" with thermoplastic tape. - Construct concrete driveway weakened plane joints at angles to assist in directing run-off to landscaped/pervious areas prior to entering the street curb and gutter. Seal trash bins to prevent leakage, OR, located them within a covered enclosure. Other alternatives as approved by the Public Works Department. Metric Units 41. .All first check and subsequent submittals and calculations shall be in metric units. Exceptions may be permitted by the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, based upon evidence of substantial hardship. 10 ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR. THE PURPOSE OF INFOR-MING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE ANIS OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MIDST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. .Additional requirements may be imposed by the Fire District, the Health Department and the Building Inspection Department. It is advisable to check with these departments prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project. B. The Building Inspection Department will require two sets of building plans which must be stamped by the Community Development Department and by the Sanitary District or, if the site is not within a Sanitary District, by the County Health Department. C. The applicant shall pay the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan Fee for this development's fail- share of the infrastructure needs (drainage, road and transit improvements) in the Pleasant Hill BART area as established by the Board of Supervisors. AMB/aa LPXII/2063e98c.AMB 5/11/99 - CPC (a) All's � o • 4CI A• ra'" rte, r* O•'e #J ZS N ✓ .•� 4 ++ r• dCa O n t y• 7 (7, 0, �. , 1p C4 t SU"' r�CY 75,�•• cn 3 i � •t1 p, N C� '� o a Edward Thomas Janet Homrighausen, Planner Joe Neely 917 Bancroft Rd City of Concord 917 Getoon Dr Walnut Creek CA 94598 1950 Parkside Lar, Concord CA 94518 Concord CA 94519 Lynette Tanner-Busby P. Ward Ackerman Dr. Ranjit Chakravorti 1350 Treat Blvd 918 Bancroft Rd 422 Bolero Dr #180 Concord CA 34518 .Danville CA 94526 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Gene DeMaroo Martine Meisler June Wang 1313 gg Lane 424 Mayhew Way 914 Helix Lar. C cord CA 94518 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Concord CA 94518 Steve Bonham Linda.Best Carol W. Brown 914 Helix Dr. 146 Via Copia 12 Donald Drive Concord CA 94518 Alamo CA 94507 Drinda CA 94563 Bonnie HenryMichael Hillerman Susan Kotchou 1990 N ifornia Blvd, Suite 830 1025 .Bermuda.Dr. 218 Ivywood Dr W . ut Creek CA 345}6 Concord CA 94518 Walcot Creek CA 94598 Margaret Hennig Efraim Gutierrez Lyrnda Rivera 1006 Bancroft Rd 852 Grenola far. 3018 Woodlawn Dr. Concord CA 94518 Concord CA 94518 Walnut Creek CA 94595 Ja­nie Guzza ao- iCuld.ip Chohan lawn bass 1230 '- . ouis Drive 211 Master Ct, 93 2547 Lynn Ave. co C rd CA 94518 Walnut Creek CA 94598 Concord CA 94520 Nancy Nelson Rachel Campbell Darlene Martinez 1740 Apple Dr. 1871 Overhill Rd. 2031 Morro Dr. Concord CA 94518 Concord CA 94520 Pittsburg CA 94565 Doan Nelson Michele M. Lynd Kimberly Owens 1740 Apple Lar. 1410 Bel Air Dr, 9206 1340 Las Juntas Way#D Concord CA 94518 Concord CA 94521 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Steve Vitus Andrew Schneit Zola Neally 3405 Rlamath Woods Place 3525 Springer Court 1827 Pacheco Blvd Concord CA 94518 Walnut Creek CA 94598 Martinez CA 94553 Michael Alexander Barbara Bray James Bray 1233 St. Lewis Dr. 406 Mayhew Way 406 Mayhew Way Concord CA 94518 Walnut Creek CA 94598 Walnut geek CA 94598 Sharon Williams for Parent Voices Alda and Karin Robert Kira Harrell 1035 Detroit Ave., Suite 200 1290 Traud Dr 234 Ivywood Dr Concord CA 94518 Concord CA 94518 Walnut geek CA 94598 Dr. Basudhe Sengupta Bruce and Linda Meneken Busy Rutana 230 Langlie Court 1220 Traud Dr. 1515 Clay St., suite 1102 Walnut geek CA 94598 Concord CA 94518 Oakland CA 94612 Lillian Thomas Lynne Wayne Al Arron 917 Bancroft Rd 100 Foxglove Lane 426 Lejean Way Walnut Creek CA 94598 Walnut Creek CA 94595 Walnut geek CA 94596 Steven Dondanville Don Mount Tomi Van de Brooke 156 Foxglove Lane 1309 g Lane 6680 Alhambra Ave #250 Walnut Creek CA 94596 ncord CA 94518 Martinez CA 94553 Jens P Sorensen Marina Ceccarelli Pamela A Mexerhoff 427 Le Jean Way 345 Lake Meadow Court 28 The Trees Drive Walnut Creek CA 94596 Martinez CA 94553 Concord CA 94518 Jerry J. Rivera Kathy Starnes Heath Dita Basu 849 B Robinson St. 2519 Menorca Ct 1922 2nd Ave. Martinez CA 94553 San Ramon CA 94583 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Tisha Jett Phoebe Ly Jove Frantz 3501 Chestnut Ave 917 2412 Geraldine Dr. 125 Karen Lr; Concord CA 94519 Pleasant Hill CA 94523 Martinez CA 94553 Jasmine Meyer Lakdas Watawala Moy Basie 3416 Willow Dass Rd 2239 Southwest Ct. 20 Weatherly Ct 91 Martinez CA 94553 Danville CA 94506 Concord CA 94511 Selby Bill and Marilyn Kleisath Suzanne Bell 125 Lucinda Lane 1730 Magnolia Way 124 Lucinda Lane Pleasant Hill CA 94523 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Pleasant Mill CA 94523 Massoud Naraghi James L. Johnson Kerry Sullivan 3050 Citrus Circle, Suite 225 1298 Jillian Ct 459 McCall Drive Walnut Creek CA 94598 Walnut Creels CA 94598 Benicia CA 94510 James L. Mullins Sue Anderson Margie Morris 805 Parkway Drive 3659 Perada Drive 1280 Evergreen Tar Martinez CA 94553 Walnut Creek CA 94598 Concord CA 94520 Charlotte Yates .Eric and Kim Westlund Frances Mehtala 1400 Dumaine St 235 Camelback Rd#321 4494 Adelia Ct Concord CA 94518 Pleasant Hill CA 94523 Concord CA 94521 Scott Miller Jyouru Lyang Prem Kumar Tuteja 4081 Clayton Rd#128 2337 Welsh Ct 114 Mayer Court #2 Concord CA 94521 Walnut Creep CA 94598 Walnut Creek CA 94598 Sonja Hongisto Amnett I Lyev Sunanda Chakravortt 537 Heather Grove 1064 Wesley Ct #3 422 Bolero Tar Walnut Creek CA 94598 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Danville CA 94526 Liz Craft Anjali Tuteja Don Huggins 2930 Treat Blvd 114 Player Ct #2 506 Le Jean Way Concord CA 94520 Walnut Creek CA 94598 Walnut Creels CA 94596 Juan Giansetto City of Walnut Creek, Planning Dept. City of Concord 1350 Traud Ct. 1666 N. Main Street Planning Rept. Concord CA 94518 PO Box 8039 1950 Parkside Drive, M/S 50 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Concord CA 94519 Walden District Improvement Assoc. Asok and Ind engupta Step Ahead Le ring Center 1'C1 Box 4505 411 tvl : w Way Asok an ' ra Sengupta Walnut Creek CA 94596 W-hut Creek CA 94598 133 as Juntas Way shut Creek CA 94596 Asok and lndr _ ngupta 130Be Place W ut Creek CA 94598 May 20, 1999 Contra Costa County Community Development Dapartment County Administration Building Attn. Aruna I hat 651 Pine Street Martinez,CA 94553-0095 From:Don Mount 1309 Cragg Lane Concord,CA 94518 Re. Mailing List for ROS appeal hearing on decision of Planning Commission for LP 982063 Dear Aruna Attached is the list you provided to me on May 19, 1999 as per my request. You informed me that this list was used for mail notification of the appeal hearing before the Planning Commission on May 11, 1999 on the project referenced above and that this list will satisfy our requirements as appellants for notification of the BBS appeal hearing. We have made three additions to the list, handwritten at the bottom of the final page. In our conversation you stated that the County would notify all speakers at the PC appeal hearing and that we as appellants are not responsible for these mailings. Thank you for your help on this matter. It is always a pleasure. Sincerely Don Mount 148 082 008 148 082 009 148 082 010 Benjamin&.Terri Jennings Donn&Jeanette Holman Margaret Kilgore 1274 Saint Louis Dr 1266 Saint Louis Lar €258 Saint Louis Thr Concord, CA 94518 Concord, CA 94518 Concord,CA 94518 148 082 011 148 082 012 148 082 013 RaDrntond& Sr.ra,ne Fritsch Bing Shits Lego&Chiao Chien Feng Lawrence&Catherine Collins 12543 Saint Leis tar 932 Saint Louis Ct 926 Saint Louis Ct Concord,CA 94518 Concord, CA 94518 Concord, CA 94518 148 082 014 148 082 015 148 082 016 Carol lean Homan David Kleirtecke Shar Ting-Yu 920 Saint Louis Ct 921 Saint Louis Ct 53 Woodranch Cir Concord,CA 94518 Concord,CA 94518 Danville, CA 94506 148 082 017 148 082 018 €48 082 019 William&Laura Wilson L7a0d Harrison& Wyler Long lamic&:,Nancy Cetzzaida 929 Saint Louis Ct 933 Saint Louis Ct €230 Saint Louis Dr Concord,CA 94518 Concord,CA 945€8 Concord, CA 94518 148 082 020 148 092 028 148 141 004 Fabian&.Cheryl Medina Raul&Evangeline Roberto Louis Volpone 1220 Saint Louis Dr 944 San Miguel Rd 84 Las Juntas Way Concord,CA 9451.8 Concord., CA 94518 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 148 141 005 148 141 036 148 141 007 later Family Trust Reynolds Vasile Simplicio Mary Pribela&Mary Pribela 404 Le Jean Way 408 Le,learn Way 414 Le lean Way Walrsut Creels, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 148 141 008 148 141 (309 148 141 024 Elliott&Betty Arnnarn Daniel&Lori Woodworth Stephen Potter 426 L e.lean Way 438 Le learn Way 510 Kismet Ct Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 148 141 025 148 142 010 148 1142 4311 Frederick&.A B Clenneshaw Lloyd&.Ann Scott Gregory Schmidt& 1 M Lois 540 Kismet Ct 445 Nora Ct 439 Le lean Wav Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creep, CA 94596 148 142 012 148 142 013 1.48 142 015 vlona Hanlon Jens&Patricia Sorensen monis&c Bernice Bruce 433 Le Jean Way 427 Le Jean Way 415 Lc learn Wav Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Walnut Creels, CA 94596 148 142 016 148 142 017 €48 142 018 Thomas&Piien Vemon Thomas Pollastrini Ronald Bugna 409 Le Jean Wav Patricia Pollastrinni 401 Lc lean Way Wahiut Creek, CA 94596 331 Livorn;a Rd Walnut Creek.CA 94596 Alamo,CA 94507 148 081 001 148 481 002 148 081 003 Robert&Marie Broadww'el1 Suri Suriyakumar Simon&Shirley Thomas 1201 Saint Louis Dr 1209 Saint Louis Dr 1217 Saint Louis Dr Concord,CA 94518 Concord,CA 94518 Concord,CA 94518 149 081004 148 081 005 148 081 006 Gerald Pando Kathryn Alexander&Havold E Alexan Kaye Cuba 177 E1 Camino t:,orto 1233 Saint Louis Dr 1.241.Saint.Louis Dr Walnut Crack,CA 94596 Concord,CA 94518 Concord,+CA. 94518 148 081 007 148 081 008 148 081 009 Donald Edward&Karen Krause Andrew Cuglielmino Donald&Virginia Schmidt 1249 Saint Louis Tae Catherin Guglielinino 1265 Saint Louis Dr Concord,CA 94518 618 Manhasset Ct Concord,CA 94518 Walnut Creek,CA 94598 148 091 010 148 081 011 148 081 012 Joseph Kirk&Diane;Starkey Robert&Grace Chen 7aime&Christine Carbajat 910 Cortina Ct 71 Tracy Ct 1289 Saint Louis Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Alamo,CA 94507 Concord, CA 94518 148 081 013 148 081 414 148 081 015 tory Aissen&Serge Froloff Aldo& Karin Robert Jess Moredo 1298 Traud Tar 1290 Traud Dr 1280 Traud Tar Concord,CA 94518 Concord,CA 94518 Concord,CA 94518 148 081 016 148 081 017 148 081 018 Scott&N ichelle poreg Robert&Carol Stroluticier Ryan Douglas&1athleett Tetlow 1270 Traud Dr 1260 Traud Dr 3083 WelweTn P1 Concord, CA 94518 Concord,CA 94518 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 148 081 019 148 081 020 148 081 021 Kathy Lafrance Paul &E N4 Baldacci Jr. Juan&Olga Gianscito 1341 Traud Ct 2291 Via De Mercados#E 1350"fraud Ct Concord,CA 94518 Concord, CA 94520 Concord, CA 945 i8 148 081 022 148 081023 148 082 001 Scott Alan vlorimoto ivlisty Seymour&Amold loosen Galva 1340 Traud Ct 1915 Encima Lar PQ Box 942897 Concord,CA 94518 Concord, CA 94519 Sacramento, CA 94297 149082002 1.48 082 003 148 082 004 3lnzmy& Stacie Deng Yolanda Castellino Vivian Tateo& Wade Wilson 1225 Traud Dr 1235 Traud Lar 1245 Traud Dr Concord,CA 94518 Concord. CA 94518 Concord, CA 94516 148 082 005 148 082 006 148 082 007 David Bruce& Sheila Ann Hill Jury&Maureen Wright Shirley Golightly 1255 Traud Dr 1265 Traud Dr 1282 Saint:Louis Dr Concord,CA 94518 Concord,CA 94518 Concord, CA 94518 148 142 019 148 142 020 148 142 021 John 1vlagnussen George&Ruby Tellswonla James Bray 78 Las Juntas Wav 36 Mathews P1 40,6 Mayhew Wa3, Walnut Cre&., CA 94596 Alamo,CA 945437 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 148 142 022 148 142 023 148 142 024 John Maloney Michael William Core Allen Mitche.11 Meister 412 Mayhew Way 15232 Andover St 49713 Cold Harbor Dr Walnut Creek,CA 94598 Edinonds,WA 98026 Birmingham,AL 35223 148 142 426 ` 149 142 027 148 142032 Janiot gaga . _,. Edward Thomas& Gillian Thoruas Steven&Patricia Wutluich 14780 Curtis Cir 91.7 Bancroft Rd 421 Le Jean Way Sonora,CA 95370 Walnut Creek,CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 148 142 036 148 143 005 148 .143 006 Edward&,Louise Herrera Bruce&Linda Meneken Linda Meneken&Karen& Maly lbd: 921 Bancroft Rd 1220 Traud Dr 12213 T'raud Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Concord, CA 94518 Concord,CA 94518 148 143007 148 143 008 148 143009 09 1"Ward&Aran Ackerman Raul &Evangeline Roberto Vivian Decker 918 Bancroft Rd 944 San Miguel Rd 1211 Mccann C4 Concord, CA 94518 Concord, CA 94518 Concord, CA 94518 148 143 010 148 143 011 148 143 012 Nbry&.Jerry Mitschke Robert& Ingeborg Scott Reid BSc Aran Cerney 118:Las Juntas Way 1231 vvl=nn Ct Family Jtevocra Cerney Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Concord, CA 94518 900 W Ville St Lodi, CA 95240 148 143 4313 148 143 014 148 143 017 Mary Caldera Bruce Robert L.ehinan .lanacs& Arlene Allam 1240 Mccann Ct 1230 Mocann Ct 914 Bancroft Rd Concord,CA 94518 Concord, CA 94518 Concord, CA 94518 148 143 019 148 143020 145 144 001 Douglas&Colleen Hughes Norman& Eileen Lynch Tames&Cirtdi Jacobsen 1220.\4ccann Ct 1210 Mccann Ct 922 Bancroft aid Concord,CA 94518 Concord, CA 44518 Concord,CA 94318 148 300 006 148 300 027 145 300 028 Arthur fir.Sheilals Monison Anthony Zeind& Sandra Sakuda-Zein Geroge fir.lvlarnfa Sernber 401 Mayhew Way 91 Foxglove Lit 99 Foxglove Ln Walnut Creek, CA 94.598 Walnut Creek., CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 148 300 029 148 300 030 148300031 Harng-Sherr& Jean Kne Bean Uernura& Viola Lze Ann Crush 1012 Leland Dr 115 Foxglove Ln 12.3 Foxglove Ln Layette, CA 94549 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Walnut Cretk,CA 94596 148 300 032. 148 300 033 148 300 034 Gregory&Joan Remmert Gucren Deng&Wei Zha ng Ateudra.&Jyotsaa Gandhi 131 Foxglove Ln 139 Foxglove Ln Rasesh Gandhi Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Walnut Creels, CA 94596 147 Foxglove Ln Walnut Creek,CA 94596 148 300 035 148 300 036 148 300 037 David&Bigelow Juliane Witt Yei-Yun Wang I On-Yang al;r.Diana Wei Ho 155 Foxglove Ln 55 Normandy Ct 171 Foxglove Ln Walnut Creek,CA 94591 Danville,CA 94506 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 148 300 038 148 300 039 1.48 300 040 alai Hong Zhao&Yu Wei Feng Peter&Pik-aChee Lain Brent&Katherine Bergman 179 Foxglove Ln 3480 Shadow Creek Dr 1.72 Foxglove Ln Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Danville,CA 94506 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 148 300 041 148 3043 042 148 3013 043 Geraldine Mando Traci Dondanville Korrstaritin Kenstantinov 164 Foxglove Ln 156.Foxglove Ln Palitz Konstantinova Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek.CA 94596 .116 Foxglove Ln Walnut Creek, CA 94596 148 300 044 148 300 045 148 300 046 David&Jessie Flatt Lynne Wayne Anne Pettigrew 108 Foxglove Ln 100 Foxglove Ln 92 Foxglove Ln W4alraut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 148 300 047 148300049 148 300 050 COMMON AREA-TRACT-7490 Hany Gerges&Nancy Shalaby 1'u�ieta C1aiaaag 1855 Gateway Blvd#340 201 Ivywood Dr 345 Walnut Ave Concord, CA 94520 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Walnut Creek. CA 94598 148 300 051 148 300 052 148 300 053 Gregory Barone Alumd Rahimi&Sepidela Mahandesa Ping Tso Otto& Maya Chang 217 Ivywood Dr 225 Ivywood Dr Yei-yun Wang Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Walnut Crack, CA 94598 55 Normandy Ct Danville, CA 94506 148 300 054 148 300 055 14830005,6 Michael foot Andrew Todd&Kinnbcrly Harrell Dilantah&,Manoja Wi}esuriya 242 Ivywood Dr 234 Ivywood Lar 226 Ivywood Lar Wa'nut Creels,CA 94598 Walnut Creek., CA 94598 Walnut Creek,CA 94598 148 300 057 148 300 058 148 300 059 Keith&.Susan Kotchou john&Kiaaaberly Schiuk Robert tatter 218 Ivywood Dr 210 Ie-yavood Dr 202 Ivywood Lar Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 148 300 060 COMMON AREA-TRACT 784.5 1855 Gateway Blvd#340 ColiCord, CA 94520 Plo*rence Shepard tion Mount Betty C. Bias 913 Bancroft Rd. 1309 Cragg Lane 911 Bancroft Rd. Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Concord, CA 94518 Walnut Creek, CA.94598 Bruce& LindaMeneken Gene DeMar Bonnie Henry 1220 Traud Dr. 1313 Cragg Lane Bonnie Henry Comm Real Estate Concord, CA 94518 Concord, CA 94518 1990 N. California Blvd., $830 Walnut Creek., CA 94596 B. Thomas Abigail McCann Susan Kotchan 917 Bancroft Ind. 1.241 McCann Ct. 218 Iveywood Dr. Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Concord, CA.94518 Walnut Creek,CA 94598 Jamie Guzzaldo Larry Collins David Matt 1230 St. Louid Dr. 926 St. Louis Ct. 108 Foxgloves Concord, CA 94518 Concord, CA 94518 Walnut Creek., CA 94596 Stephanie Unruh Kathi Harnilton Betsy Rutana 475 Le3ean Way 825 Oak Grove Rd., #51 Commiunity Care Licensing Walnut Creek,C A 94596 Concord, CA 94518 1515 Clay St , #1102 Oakland, CA 94612 Ma.-ina Cicarelli 345 Lake Meadow Court Martinez, CA 94553 ISi?6P 19H -7) �, =C�r=,+✓ ' 130 May 20, 1999 Contra Costa County Community Development Department Application and Permit Center 651 Pine Street, Second Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 .Rea Proposed Day Care Center at 411 Mayhew Way - County File No. LP982063 Please consider this letter an appeal to the County Board of Supervisors and request for hearing on the above-referenced matter. Enclosed is a check for$125 for the required filing fee for this appeal. This appeal is filed on behalf of residents of unincorporated county(SOI Concord), the City of Concord, and the City of Walnut Creek, as it directly affects all three.jurisdictions. As you may be aware, the Zoning Administrator, on March 8, 1999, denied the use permit since required findings for approval could not be made. The Zoning Administrator's decision was overturned on May 11, 1999, before 6 of the 7 members of the Planning Commission with a vote of 4 to 2 to overturn the Zoning Administrator and approve the project. (Supervisors Wong and Hanecak voted in opposition to the project.) County Zoning Ordinance section 26.2.2008 required the Planning Commission to make all seven of the following findings prior to granting a use permit: 1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the county. 2. The proposed project will not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the county. 3. The proposed project will not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the county. 4. The proposed project will not adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the general plan. 5. The proposed project will not create a nuisance and/or enforcement,problem within the neighborhood or community. 6. The proposed project as conditioned will not encourage marginal development. 7. That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. 40682.1 Contra Costa County Community Development Department May 20, 1999 Page 2 In denying the use permit on March 8, 1999, the Zoning Administrator found that required findings 1, 3, and 5 could not be met. The May 11, 1999, Staff Report for the Planning Commission appeal hearing states on page S-4: The Zoning Administrator denied the variance requests due to the inability to .make fee required variance findings to allow tandem parking and to eliminate the landscape improvements. The proposed tandem parking spaces are inconvenient and people may elect not to use those spaces and instead park elsewhere on neighborhood streets. There is also insufficient space on site to allow for necessary maneuvering without resulting in hazardous back-up maneuvering on Mayhew Way. The elimination of frontage landscape planter is also not consistent with the residential character of the area. It is our position that all of the seven required findings have not been met and we will address there in more detail at the hearing before the Board of Supervisors. In particular,the points we would like to address at the hearing pertain to the following issues: :. Elimination of on-street parking on Mayhew Way 2. tin-site parking at the proposed project is inadequate (e.g., circulation problems, inadequate driveway design and location, proposed tandem parking) 3. Public safety 4. Reduction in value of the surrounding properties 5. Enforcement 5. A gift of public right-of-way 7, Mitigation for BART development 8. Inadequate pedestrian circulation 9. Lack of conforming landscaping 1.0. Proposed project is out of scale with the characteristics of the neighborhood 11. Proposed commercial business in a residential neighborhood 12. Insufficient truck turn radius 3. Traffic study does not include BAIT station area build-out 14. Commercial Fueling Network on Hookston l5. Sight distance i6. Zoning Administrator denial of project 17. City of Concord opposition to project 18. The California Child Day Care Facilities Act (Health & Safety Code § 1597, et seq.)provides for small (up to 8 children) and large(up to 14 children) family day care centers in residential neighborhoods 19. Daycare shortage? 40682.1 Contra Costa County Community Development Department May 20, 1999 Page 3 In addition, at the hearing on May 11, 1999, before the Planning Commission, Commissioner Richard Clark, who voted to overturn the Zoning Administrator's decision., stated that if she City of Walnut Creek were in opposition to this project and made it difficult for the applicants to gain approval in regard to the elimination of on-street parking and left turn lanes and striping,that he could recommend the names of[several] lawyers who could represent them in this matter. We believe that these inappropriate statements constitute a blatant conflict of interest on Mr. Clark's part and request that you take into consideration the seeming bias of Mr. Clark in his recommendation of approval of this project. In closing, we respectfully request that an appeal hearing date be set before the Board of Supervisors on this matter. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Steve and Tracy Dondanville 156 Foxglove Lane Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 937-0724 .Tames and Barbara Bray 406 Mayhew Way Walnut Creek, CA 94598 (925) 935-2370 Don Mount 1309 Gragg Lane Concord, CA 94518 (925) 687--2184 40682.1 Agenda Item H Community Development Contra Costa County CON'T'RA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF APPEALS "I F LSA)', -k I I, I. INI`RQDUCTIC)N ASOK & INDR_ASEN JP (Appellants &Owners), County File#LP982063: This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a land use permit request to convert an existing 2,049 square feet single far-dly residence to a 3,9103 square feet day care with a maximum of 60 children. Variances are requested to eliminate the 4 foot landscape strip along the off-street parking spaces and to provide tandem parking. The property is addressed #411 Mayhew Way and is located at the north west intersection of Bancroft and Mayhew, in the unincorporated Walnut Creek area of the County. (Rm 15) (ZA: L-14) (CT: 3381) (Parcel 4148-300-005). 11. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision and deny the use permit. 111. GENERAL II FORMATION A, General Plan Land Use I es gyration: The subject parcel is designated Multiple fanuly - rnediurn density in�the Contra Costa County General Plan adopted in January, 1991. B. Zoning: The subject parcel is in the R-15 Zoning; District. C. CEQA tutus: A mitigated negative declaration of environmental significance was posted on February 12, 1999. D. friar tt7 citic�ns: None IV. BACK"TR OND INFORMATION This item was scheduled before the Zoning Administrator with a reconin-tendation for approval on March 8, 1999. The Zoning Administrator- denied the use pernut since required findings for approval of the variances and use permit could not be made-On S-2 March 18, 1999, the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Sengupta appealed the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Since the time this was heard by the Zoning Administrator, the appellants/applicants have proposed changes to the floor plan that reduce the building by 40 square Feet and eliminated the need For a setback variance along Bancroft dray. Landscaping is proposed along Mayhew dray. However, the proposed landscaping is within the right of way along Mayhew and cannot be counted towards the rewired 4' landscape strip along the parking areas. A variance is still required for the elimination of the landscape strip and tandem parking. The applicant has proposed to reduce the maximum number of children at the Facility from 65 children to 60 children.. V. SI` UAREA DESCRIprl ION There is an existing single story single family residence on the property. To the immediate west of the property, is a single family residence and beyond that house is a single family development. There is an open rail fence between the subject property and the adjacent property on the west side. The subject property has a 6' fence along Bancroft. The property is triangular in shape with frontages on Mayhew Way and Bancroft. VL PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant is proposing to convert the existing 2,049 square feet residence to a 3,910 square feet day care center. An entry/reception area, office area, kitchen, two infant and three toddler rooms are proposed. The applicant is proposing to have 60 children at the day care between the ages of 3 inonths and.3 years. Hours of operation are proposed to be.Monday through Friday 6.30 am - 6 pm. Access to the day care is proposed off Mayhew Way. Nine off-street parking spaces are proposed. VII. AGENCY COMMENTS A. Building_InspectionDeenartinent: Survey stakes required. B. ontra.Costa County l-rc I rstection District: In a letter dated September 21, 1998, (lie Distiict representative indicated that automatic fire sprinkler system will be required along with other provisions. S-3 C. Health Services D �m,tA �'nv roncatal Health DivisiQn: Must supply public water and use District sanitary services. DNorthwest- Inf'ornation Center In a letter dated October 19, 1998, they indicated that although the property potentially contains archaeological resources, due to the nature of the present project, it is probable that no adverse impacts will be caused and no study is recommended at this time. VAI. PL-LtC COMM 1 Several.Letters were received from area residents prior to the Zoning Administrator's meeting expressing concerns regarding parking, increase in traffic and compatibility of the proposed day care in a single family neighborhood. Public testimony at the March 8, 1999 Zoning Administrator's hearing and subsequent telephone conversa- tions with concerned residents indicate that large volumes of track traffic pass from. southbound Mancroft Read onto westbound Mayhew Way, and have difficulty making the sharp right turn. The public Works Department has no truck turning data to determine the number of trucks making this turn at peak traffic fours. If the Coinnission decides to approve the project and determines that truck circulation requires n-itigatiort, a 30 foot radius curb return may be substituted for the 20 foot curb return shown on the plans. This substitution would shift the required right-of-way lire and eliminate tandem parking stall #7. Letters supporting the proposed daycare are also attached to this report. IX STAFF ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION A. Al mprir�`ateness o1`Use: Day care centers are permitted in residential areas upon obtaining a use permit from. the County. The Public facilities/ services element of the general plan identifies a weed for child care services in residential areas. Child care policies of that element encourage location of child care facilities in residential neighborhood, en ployment centers and along transit routes. B. Site Plan: Parl;ing.The applicant has proposed 9 off street parking spaces. Eight of the proposed 9 spaces are located in tandem. The county zoning ordinance does not specify parking requirement for day care use. The applicant has indicated that a niaxiinunz of 7 staff members are expected at the facility at any one SA time. The applicant has submitted a chart showing the number of children and staff members expected at various times of the day (attached). Variances: The applicant is requesting variances to allow tandem parking, eliminate the 4' landscape strip adjacent to street right-of-way and also reduce the parking stalls to 18' depth. The Zoning Administrator denied the variance requests due to the inability to make the required variance findings to allow tandem parking and to eliminate the landscape improvements. The proposed tandem parking spaces are inconvenient and people may elect not to use those spaces and instead park elsewhere on neighborhood streets. There is also insufficient space on site to allow for necessary maneuvering without resulting in hazardous back-up maneuvering onto Mayhew Way. The elimination of montage landscape planter is also not consistent with the residential character of the area. X. REASONS FOR DENIAL County Zoning Ordinance Section 26.2.2008 requires the approving body to make all seven of the following findings prior to granting a use permit: 1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the county. 2. The proposed project will not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the county_ 3. The proposed project will not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the county. 4. The proposed project will not adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the general plant. 5, The proposed project will not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. 6. The proposed project as conditioned will riot ericour'age marginal development. 7. That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established_ S-5 The granting of the variances may be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the County due to lack of maneuvering; area on site. The proposed project may adversely affect the preservation of property values due to lack of landscaping along the frontage of the property. The proposed project may create a nuisance or enforcement problem in the neighborhood due to staff/parents parking on neighborhood streets. Since the Zoning Administrator was not able to make at least 3 of the required findings for granting the use permit (#1, 93 and #5), staff is recommending; that the Planning Commission deny the use permit. XI ALTERNATIrE -COMMISSION ACTION If the Commission finds merit in approving the application, then make the findings for approval of the variances as required by Section. 26-2.2006 and findings for approval of the use permit as required by Section 26-2.2008 of the Zoning Ordinance and approve the use permit with the attached recommended conditions of approval. Alternatively, if the Conunission feels that the project is workable provided there are no variances to off street parking; and landscape requirements, they. the Commission could consider a reduced scale project. This may require modifications to the size of the proposed structure and a redaction in the number of children at the facility to 35. XII. ROAD AND DRAINAGE CONS IDERA IONS The attached conditions of approval, based on the plans submitted to Community Development on April 20, 1999, include road and drainage requirements. The applicant should be fully aware of the County Ordinance Code requirements as they pertain to this development. The following; issues should be considered with this project. 1. Read Dedication and Frontage Improvements: On Baneroft Road, the applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, 6.6±m (22-feet) along; the frontage for the planned ultimate half width of 12.6±tn (42-feet). The County anticipates accepting the Offer of Dedication for recording; purposes only, so the applicant may have temporary use of the area, subject to the restriction that no structure be placed in the enc€unbered area. In addition, the applicant trust vacate the encumbered area S-6 when the County fully accepts the offer. The corner of the existing house encroaches into the ultimate right of way, and shall be excluded from the Offer of Dedication. A deferred improvement agreement will be allowed for the frontage improvements along Bancroft Road. On Mayhew Way, the applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, 3.0:h in (IO-feet) along the frontage for the planned ultimate half width of 9.0± m (30-feet). Pull frontage improvements are required here, specifically curb, sidewalk, pavement widening, including necessary transitions.The applicant is also required to relocate joint poles as necessary to avoid conflict with the applicant's required frontage improvements. In addition, the applicant shall dedicate right of way and construct a curb return (with curb ramp) at the ultimate corner of Mayhew Way and Bancroft Road. The applicant's traffic engineer, TJKM, has analyzed the operation of the intersection of Mayhew Way and Bancroft Road, both in the existisng condition, and with the additional traffic generated by the project. TJKM found that the operation of the intersection was degraded to an unacceptable level of service (LOS) of F by the project's additional traffic in the morning peak hour. They recommend that Mayhew Way be restriped to allow separate left and right turn lanes to mitigate the negative impacts on the intersection's operation, bringing the LOS back: to C. Staff concurs with TJKM's findings, but additionally finds that implementa- tion of this striping within the ultimate Mayhew Way right of way will require elimination of parking on both sides of the street. The ultimate right of way is 15.3 rn (60-Meet), with 12.3± in (40-feet) from curb to curb. Three 3.7± Ira (12-foot) lanes (left turn, right tuna and westbound) leave 1.2± in. (4-feet) remaining for shoulders. If this project is approved, the Public Works Department will arrange for the applicant's frontage on Mayhew Way to be signed "No Stopping;" to prevent any cars from stopping or parking there and backing up westbound traffic. Removal of parking on the south side of Mayhew is the responsibility of the City of Walnut. Creep, and a separate application roust be processed through the City. If the City decides not to allow the removal of this parking, the recommended rru igation measure cannot be implemented, and the application should not be approved. Staff has contacted Rafat Rate, the City's Traffic Engineer, and determined that the City will not allow marking; to be removed without community consensus. Staff has advised the applicant Haat he should begin this process with the City, as this [sand Use Permit will be conditional S-7 on the City's approval of the removal of parking on the south side of Mayhew Way. 2. Parking and Internal Circulation: The applicant has submitted numerous revisions to the site plan in an attempt to improve the circulation of the parking lot. The site is small for the intended use, and while circulation and parking availability are improved from previous submittals, they are far from.ideal. The Public Works Department's concern is that if the parking lot is not adequate, either in circulation or parking :Y availability, cars will back up onto Mayhew Way and quickly affect traffic in the intersection of Mayhew Way and Bancroft load. This is not only a level of service issue, but also a potential safety hazard, when stepped cars encroach into the traffic lane. Various exceptions from general practice have been allowed in an attempt to make this project feasible. These included: tandem parking stalls, a Public Utility and Maintenance Basement instead of the road right of way, and allowing parking stalls to encroach into this Public Utility and Maintenance Easement. Staff has discussed the site plan, submitted to Commur ty Development on February 9, 1999, with the applicant, and all agree that it could be further improved by adding a loop driveway and relocating parking stall number 5 to near the building entrance, out of the way of the loop driveway. The driveway will need. to be signed or painted as "keep clear" to help prevent cars front queuing tip out of the applicant's lot and onto Mayhew Way. These changes will not snake the situation ideal, but will help improve internal circulation problem. The revised plant submitted on April 20, 1999, do not incorporate these recommendations, so staff'recommendations remain as written above. However, the applicant has informed staff that they agree to modify the site plan per staff s recommendation. 3. Site Access, Road Aligmuent and Sight Distance: As shown on the applicant's site plan, the westerly driveway shall be entrance only; the easterly driveway shall be exit only. because of the addition of a second driveway closer to the intersection., it becomes important to ensure cars turning right from Bancroft Road onto Mayhew Way can see the cars exiting the day care facility, and that cars exiting the facility can see cars turimig onto Maybes Way. No structures which block this line of sight will be allowed S-8 within the 7.6± m (25-foot) triangle at the comer of to lot closest to the intersection. The proposed sign has been relocated outside of this area. The applicant has recently proposed fencing and a trellis near this corner(but outside the required triangular clear area) in order to use as much area as possible for the children's play yard. However, these improvements in tl-s area will have a detrimental effect on sight distance. In order to partially mitigate this effect, while still allowing the applicant maximum use of the lot; any such structures within a 12.2+ m (44-feet) triangle will need to be constructed with a visually"open"material, such as wrought iron. Solid fences in this area will be prohibited. 4. Drainage: This project will increase the impervious surface area by more than 144 rn' (1.544-feet, so the applicant shall collect and convey all stormwater entering and/or originating on this property. 17he nearest discharge point appears to be approximately 46±m(154-feet) gest of the parcel on Mayhew Way. X111. ONCLUSION Staff recommends the Planning Coma fission uphold the Zoning; Administrator's decision to deny the use permit. *b Y1)3 H FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF AP.PROVAL.FQR LP982063 A. growth Management Element PerforrnanceStandards IF 1. Traffic: The project will generate less than 100 peak hour trips and does not trigger a Treasure C traffic study. . 2. 'Fater: The project is within the boundaries of the Contra Costa Water District. 3. Sanitary Sewer: The project is within the boundaries of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. 4. Fire Protection: The subject property is within.the Contra Costa County Fire protection. District boundaries. Automatic fire sprinklers will be required. 5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station area.per 1,000 population. Due to the nature of the project, there will be no impact on public protection in the area. 6. Parks-& Recreation: Due to the nature of the project, no park dedication fee is required. 7. Flood Control & Drainage: The project will be required to meet all collect and convey requirements. (lief. The Growth Management Element, Chapter 4, of the General flan) B. Land Use Permit Findings That the proposed conditional lard use shalt not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the county. 2. That it shall not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the county. 3. That it shall not adversely affect (lie preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the county. 4. That it shall not adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the general plan. 2 5. That it shall not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. 6. That is shall not encourage marginal development with the neighborhood. 7. That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established.. (Rei §26-2.2008 of the County Cade) C. `dJ ra_iaatc^ a ing I. That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. 2. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. 3. That any variance authorized small substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. (Ref. §26-2.2006 of the County Code) 'ONDI IONS OF APPROVAL FOR LP982063 I. The request for the establishment of the day care is generally approved as shown on the revised site plan and elevation drawings dated received by the Community Development Department on April 20, 1999. 2. Approval is granted to allow for variance(s) to parking standards, that meet the requirements of&ection 26--2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code as follows: 4 feet landscape strip required by zoning ordinance along the oft-street parking spaces. 0 feet approved. 3 Independently accessible parking spaces (9'x19') required by zoning ordinance, Tandem parking spaces (8'xl8') approved. 3. The maximum number of children at the facility is limited to 60. The dedication along Mayhew and Bancroft shall not be counted towards the required minimum useable outdoor play area. 4. The children at the facility shall not occupy the outside play area. before 8:00 A.M, 5. Applicant shall reconfigure the parking lot show—a on the site plan, received by Community Development on April 20, 1999, to meet the following conditions, subject to the review of the Public Works Department, and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator: Provide a loop driveway, to be signed or painted "keep clear", that will be placed such that is not blocked by any designated parking stalls and will remain passable at all times. This loop driveway shall meet all turning radius requirements. This requires the relocation or removal of stall 5. Provide one handicapped accessible parking stall (Stall 4). Provide a minimum of four parking stalls dedicated for temporary parking and signed "10 min parking" (stalls 1,5, 6 and 9). Stall 5 may be placed directly in front of the entrance to the building, such that sufficient room exists for the loop driveway described above. Provide a minimum of four parking stalls dedicated and signed "staff only". These stalls may it, tandem with other parking stalls described above. (Stalls 2, 3,7 and 8). The limits of all stalls, including the one near the entrance to the building, shall be clearly delineated, and all stalls shall be clearly signed with their restricted uses. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the day care, the applicant shall obtain approval in writing from the City of Walnut Creek to restripe Mayhew for a left turn lane as shown on site plan dated April 20, 1999. 7. The proposed sign shall be located outside the sight distance triangle. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the ficial colors and design shall be subject to the review and approval of the County Zoning Adir.inistrator. 4 g. The day care shall have the fallowing minimum landscape features: A. 24 inches boxed planters shalt be provided along the front of the building. B. Landscaping shall be provided adjacent to the proposed sign. C. A minimum of twelve 15 gallon evergreen trees shall be planted along the western property line adjacent to the play areas. 9. Landscaping shall conform to the County Fater Conservation Landscape Ordinance 82- 26 and shall be installed prior to occupancy. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall be certified to be in compliance with the County Water Conservation Ordinance. 10. Exterior lighting shall be directed downwards and away from residential areas and public streets so as not to produce glare. 11.. A 6 feet high solid fence shall be installed along the western property line. 12. Prier to issuance of the building permit, the colors of the building shall be subject to review and approval of the ming Administrator. 13. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. 14. No loud speakers or amplified music shall be permitted outside the enclosed building, 15. The fours of operation of the school shall be 6.30 a.ni. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 16, This application is subject to an initial application fee of$2,581,25 which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material casts if the application review expenses exceed 120% of the initial fee, Any additional fee due roust be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include casts through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. You may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. if you owe additional fees, a bill will be send to you shortly after permit issuance. PUBLIC WORKS RE COMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PERMIT 98-2063 Applicant shall! comply with the requirements of Title 8, 'Title 9, and 'Title 10 of the Ordinance Code, Any exceptions must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval are fused on the plans submitted to Community Development on September 9, 1998. CCDMPLy WTTI-1 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND PRIOR TO INITIATION OF THE USE PROPOSED UNDER TIAs PERMIT: General: 17. Applicant shall submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to the Public Works Department, .and pay appropriate fees in accordance with the C=ounty Ordinance and these conditions of approval. Compliance with these conditions of approval will be determined by the Public Works Department. Roadway Improvements: 18. Along the parcel's frontage of Mayhew Way, the applicant shalt construct curl, 1.5 m (5±-foot) sidewalk (width measured from face of curb), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, streetlights, relocation of utility poles, pavement widening and necessary transitions. 'f lie face of curb shall be located 3.0± m (10 feet) from the ultimate right of way line. The applicant shall also restripe Mayhew Way to allow for separate 3.7±m (12-foot) left and right turn lanes at Bancroft Road. Each lane shall have stacking room for a minimum of two cars. 1.9. The applicant shall also construct a 6.0± m (20-foot) radius curb return and curb ramp at the corner of Mayhew Way and Bancroft Road. This curb return shall align with the ultimate frontage improvements planned for Bancroft Road (face of curb 3.0+ m (10 feet) from the ultimate right of way line). 20. The applicant shall secure approval from the City of Walnut Creek to eliminate parking on the south side of Mayhew Road where striping is being changed from its existing condition. Without the City's approval, the rewired traffic mitigation measure cannot be implemented. Exceptions: 21. The applicant is granted an exemption from installation of frontage improvements along Bancroft Road, provided the property owners execute a deferred improvement agreen.es.t 6 for the following improvements: 1. Construction of curb, 1.5-x- to (5-foot) sidewalk (width measured from face of curb), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, streetlights, relocation of utility poles, pavement widening and necessary transitions. The face of curb shall be located .0± m (10 feet) from the ultimate right of way line; and At the time the deferred improvement agreement is called up, the property owner shall submit improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, to the Public`works Department and pay appropriate fees in accordance with the County Ordinance and this deferred improvement agreement. Road Alignment l Sight Distance: 22. Applicant shall remove existing obstructions or, the site near the intersection of Mayhew 'may and Bancroft Road to provide stopping sight distance for a design speed of 72 km/hr (45± mph). 23. Applicant shall preserve sight distance at the intersection of Mayhew Way and Bancroft Road per Chapter 82-18 of the Ordinance Code and these conditions. Specifically, no improvements, including signs, parking, landscaping or fences, small extend higher than 0.76± m (2.5 feet) above die top of curb within a triangular area, a minimum of 7.6± m (25 feet) on a side from the ultimate right of way lines. 24. Applicant small further preserve sight distance at the intersection of Mayhew ''flay and Bancroft Road by constructing any fences, trellises or similar structure within a triangular area, a amininnum of 12.2-4- in (44 feet) on a side from the ultimate right of way lines, with a visually "open" material, such as wrought iron. Solid fences in this area are prohibited. The applicant is granted an exemption to allow the proposed sign to encroach into this area. Access to Adjoining Property: 25. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment from the Application and Permit Center for construction of driveways or other improvements within the County right of way. 26. Applicant shall only be permitted access at the locations shown on the approved site plan. Tlae westerly driveway shall be entrance only, the easterly driveway shall be exit only. The easterly driveway shall be clearly labeled "exit only" or as approved by the Public 'works Department. Road Dedications: 7 2 a. Applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication: 6.6-x- m (22 feet) along the frontage of Bancroft load, 3.0± rn (€.B feet) elsewhere along the frontage of Mayhew Way, and 3.0± m (10 feet) behind the face of the curb return at the Bancroft Road I Mayhew Way intersection, for the Planned future width of Bancroft Road and Mayhew "Way. 28. The Offer of dedication for Bancroft Road shall exclude the area of the existing roof overhang of the structure. Street Lighting: 2.9. Applicant shall apply for annexation to County Service Area L-100 Lighting District by submitting: a letter of request; a metes and bounds description; and, pay the current LAFC0 fees. Annexation shall occur prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant shall be aware that this annexation process must comply with State Proposition 218 requirements, which state that the property owner must hold a special election to approve the annexation. This process may take approximately 4-6 months to complete. Bicycle l pedestrian Facilities: 30. The applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap Access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. L tit ities/U nderground ing: 31. All new utility distribution services shall be installed underground, with an exception of the existing struct=ures. Applicant shall be granted an exemption from the undergrounding requirements of the Ordinance Code for the existing overhead utility lines along the frontages of Mayhew 'Way and Bancroft load; however, the applicant shall relocate,point poles as necessary to avoid conflict with the applicant's required frontage improvements. Drainage Improvements (Com._ll�ct and Conya : 32. The applicant shall collect and convey all storrnwater entering and/or originating on this property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public stare; drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Cade. 33. Applicant shall be responsible for verifying the adequacy of any downstream drainage facility utilized to convey storm water runoff from this project and, if necessary, construct improvements to guarantee adequacy. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements: 34. Applicant shad prevent storm waters from draining across the sidewalks and driveways in a concentrated manner. 35. Applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities in compliance with the Ordinance Cade and the Public Works Department'-s design standards. 36. Applicant shall dedicate a public drainage easement over any drainage system which conveys storm water runoff from public streets. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (nPDES): 37. `the applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. (nPDE.S) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Mater Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional dater Quality Control boards (San Francisco Bay - Region Il, or Central Valley - Region IV). 38. Compliance shall include developing long;-term best management practices (BMP`s) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. 3 lle project design shall incorporate wherever feasible, the following long-term BMP's in accordance with the.Contra Costa Clean `mater Program for the site's storm water drainage: Utilize pavers for household driveways and/or walkways. Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. Stenciling all storm drain inlets with "no Dumping, brains to Bay" thermoplastic tape. Construct concrete driveway weakened plane joints at angles to assist in directing run-off to landscaped/pervious areas prior to entering the street curb and gutter. Seal trash bins to prevent leakage, OR, locate them within a covered enclosure. - Ether alternatives as approved by the Public Works Department. Metric Units: 39. All first check and subsequent submittals and calculations shall be in metric unilus. Exceptions may be permitted by the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, based upon evidence of substantial Hardship. 9 ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MSI` IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. 1. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Fire District, the Health Department and the Building Inspection Department. It is advisable to check with these departments prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project. 2. The Building Inspection Department will require two sets of building plans which must be stamped by the Community Development Department and by the Sanitary District or, if the site is not within a Sanitary District, by the County Health Department. 3. The applicant shall pay the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan Fee for this development's fair share of the infrastructure needs (drainage, road and transit improvements) in the Pleasant Hill BART area as established by the Board of Supervisors. a.abilp982063.coa s Ted. 749 r� «e sig-f� ccbccGtUVEs 34 -r 'TR 784 a� aro-3P dsztxct�vE tt4alt _dam Y — Sa r ,tsi �i� ``� BANCROFT €C'T�`s, Aq c= .r.v.er rs•'ee °. « s.+ as•,..z 'Zt <1I 4'#tq Z IPAassss � b � t s ae fix' ez-a- I e '.� w •.�+ {�> � ` ,J/J,/f2g; ab #JCA ry�Y�. � �('�� ��, � �(J• .q�by" yqL a°' ,,! -+moi J `�..J � x �„M-� - •. 'fir l''', ds r `,y,.,"e. 6.af avj kJUA .7 G✓ 7a.., 300 Nil IEf'I-40SE,3G FOR *. &. .. ' 42 t r fin tea Ac' t . '. "103r w 02 , 914 4 REVISED CHANGE 8Y -0 � > 9a�•vs Y: ASSESSOR'S MAP BOOK 148 PAGE + Cd3t+iTPA COSTA COUNTY, Fr,i<a-oa i.-2<-ca ! 7 !t I i f I t s t t I .r ���€� CRs � r. _�"`.� � � �� ,� ! �►�,,,�f♦I��" �,, WE NO �� 4 + WIM yWINES 4 �►«►, lit � �. ... � s!� �► !fit �' .`` ��',�'' :-rsr,,,�sas assn R .r•N� ,. � ' �� ;"��► � '�► `�"`�sus=mss� "��,�`+� ��„ ,". � ■� � �� ��!'�# �''� � ����� ♦� •�' sr Kill ,r' ' `" ''� .�'r, �► , ► ',�-1s+A1- ,.�j� F$4 i�� • ,.r, � n+°/'� L �� .t*�fji.fes~{�� ��, ����� ��� � 1 ,..- .�a, Vit► ♦ _ 1► . rt -Cherry Lane � s, ;s ,F,h,•�"{_"''}T.� �k.�R',► �...�`.a +7 -Q5 ..y� � ��li�htk"41 � '. � ♦R. R�fi a !"'" (�4 }w-+.,.s..�.e' �.�-+ �"ry '�'"^yR'�,y��, e ��s �' �S ��� •��s � 4"i Ai f �i� � a �'' .1�� � as"�y�1��4.+c�."Yt�.x�'�1.,,,� �� •g�' �'�Jrsr{ ,�?� �� f i h�'�` *�1��� �,f` •` z ' �: '?1 r' ,ice" ♦ •.,�� s� •/ �� f *",�,..,", 1 l��M1 D e C o s s D� STEP AHEAD LEARNING CENTER r A Quality Preschool and Child Care Center i March 18, 1999 Contra Costa.County Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Line Street Martinez, Cts.94553-0095 For the attention of Mr. R. H. Drake,Depuiy Zoning administrator Dear Mr. Drake: Application for a Land Use Kermit (LP 982063) 411. Mayhew Way, Walnut Creek We are very disappointed that our application for a Land Use Pennit was denied during the meeting of Monday, March 8, 1999. Parents of young children who live or work near the Pleasant Hill BART Sta€ion area and have been waiting patiently for accessible duality child care, have also expressed extreme disappointment. We wish to appeal this decision in the hope that our case will be reconsidered and we will be allowed to provide the much needed duality child care at 411 Mayhew Way. We are also taking this opportunity to respond to the issues you raised during the meeting. Issue 1: People may'elect not to use tandem spaces due to inconvenience; if on-site spaces erre not used, then this project's parking demands will be imposed elsewhere in the neighborhood response: As recommended by the Public Works Department, our plan is to designate t:he inside four parking stalls in the tandem parking arrangement, to our staff for longer term panting while the five outside stalls will be used for limited time parking by the parents. This way parents will not be inconvenienced due to tandem parking; and will be able to pull in and out of the parking spaces without being blocked. The County Staff believes that the off street parking is sufficient for the proposed facility. Issue 2: Assuming that the applicant could effectively,make site occupants use ora-site parking, there is still insufficient room on site to allow for necessary maneuvering without creating on-site problems or resulting in hazardous Lack-up maneuvering onto A4'ayhew Way 1338 Las Juntas Way, 'Walnut Creek, CA 94596-2053 Phone: (514) 943-6199 Fax: (514) 943-2235 Response: We have unproved internal circulation by adding a loop driveway, and have checked maneuverability by using AASHTO basic vehicle design templates for e' wide cars. If it is really necessary,we will even designate a staff to assist the parents in safe maneuvering during peak hours. issue Elimination of`t e frontage landscape planter requirement as requested is not appropriate givers the existing residential character of'the area Response: We are providing 24"boxed planters along the front of the building and landscaping s , adjacent to the sign to blend with the residential character of the area... However, considering the triangular shape of the property we request variances to eliminate only 4' landscape strip adjacent to street right-of-way to allow parking. We have planned carefully to maintain the residential character of the area even though Mayhew`tray is of mixed use with offices and other businesses to west of our property. Finally, we would strongly urge you to consider the following facts during your decision making process: 1. Approval of this project will result in providing affordable quality child care to about 60 families in this area of the County which has a deficiency in availability of quality child care services 2. Demand for quality child care will be even higher after the construction of the new Domes on Las Juntas Way and Coggins Drive 3. Corner location.of Mayhew property with only one neighboring borne, lends itself to child care 4. Mayl-&w site location is appropriate b=-use it is consistent with County's general plan that encourages location of child care centers in residential neighborhood, employment centers and along transit routes - all applicable in this case 5. Proposed traffic mitigation improves existing traffic flow(level ofservice) at the intersection 6. Addition of sidewalk and street lighting along the frontage of the property adds to the safety of the pedestrians using the arca. 7. Improved landscaping and building improvements enhance property value 8. Availability of quality child care in the neighborhood is attractive to families with young children, and create deromds for available hor?aes 9. To summarize, the benefits of this project far outweigh minor i=nconveniences if any t Q 10. We can acconu odate recommendations of the County Staff when the allowable number of children at the center is about 60. A redaction in the number ofcWddren does not allow the center to be economically viable or the provision ofour child care services to be affordable. We look Ibiward to riving from,you notice of public hearing before the Board of Appeals Of the County Plant-%ng Commission. Truly yours, j, I Asok Seng pta Indra 5engu to Alis. -gra' 99(P10,N) 12:5b PROJECTED DAILY STAFFING SCHEDULE FOR STEP AHEAD 2 AT 411 MAYI F-W WAY IINEE ulcus IVI Y Gt3muL nyF TOTAL OF Cu ut.ATiye TC3TAL of TEAc ERs PHIt-PnEN Teacher to Child Ratio Used Infants: 1:4 Two Plus: 1:12 6:3- AM 2 teachers open the 6 Children 2 Teachers to Center. Parents start (3 infants+5 two plus) (1 for infants+1 for two plus) 7:30 Ail dropping kids 7:30 AM 2 more teachers start as 26 Childress 4 Teachers to 6:303 AM more kids are dropped off (6 infants+22 two plus) (2 for infants+2 for two plus) 6:303 AM 2 more teachers start as 44 Children 6 Teachers to 6:030 AM more kids are dropped off (10 infants+30 two plus) (3 for infants+3 for two plats) 6:03 to Another teacher starts as 52 Children 7 Teachers 10:0303 AM more kids are dropped off (12 infants+40 two plus) (3 for infants+4 for two Plus) 10:00 Ail More kids are dropped off 60 Children 7 Teachers (12 infants+48 two plus) (3 for Infants+4 for two plus) 3 1:30 PM parents start picking asp 50 Children 6 Teachers to 3:0303 PM kids; 1 teacher's shift (6 infarcts+42 two plus) ` (2 for infarcts+4 for two plus) ends 3:0303 PM � More kids leave; two 403 Children 4 Teachers to 4:30 PM more teachers'shifts end ; (4 infants+36 two plus) (1 for infarcts +3 for two plass) 4:303 PM to more kids leave; another 203 Children 3 Teachers 5:303 FM teacher's ,shift ends (4 infarcts x- 16 two plus) (1 for infants+2 for two plus) 5:36 PM few kids remain, another 103 Childress 2 Teachers teacher's shift ends (2 infants+6 two plus) (1 for infants+ 1 for two plus) € 6:003 PM All kids are gone. Two 0 Children 2 Teachers teachers lack up Center l NOTES: 1. Employee Survey data show that only about 50%of the employees bring personal cars to work 2. :33%,of the employees are dropped cuff and picked up tolfrom work by their spouse 3. 17%of the employees use either public transport or reside within a walking distance from the center 4. This center is easily accessible by public transport(BART and bus) rit fi. `tf3 7 ( ;VIYp !t:JB} s . vvue vv Surrey of Transportation Mode of the Teachers at Step .head's Existing leas Juntas Facility No. of No, of No. of No. of Total No. of Teachers Teachers Teachers Teachers Teachers Briinging Getting Rues Using Public Within Surveyed Personal Cars From Spouse Transport Walking To Work 'To/From Work To/From Work Distance To Werk f 4 1 r \ 6 � � JLFP Y- 5` ! fH('. lw ;,5 ..� •c " Y` Nal ANO i fr WIN - swwwrs •9 Klrli► � � •�•? 'r 32.� - t 4� iy� ti: 4'rtA1! rM.!r ,.,1;. � �Y,i^t ams >,`�wl.�i✓...;sa,[\�A.:a'£i�4F"` 1��.�f ► wt'4w. 'es` I.'.. 1# - Tie R l R' -- �� 99 H R - PI'l S. 24 March 4, 1999 UJ I'Ity Of M.S.Aruna Bh t Senior Planner Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Fine Street,North Wing,4th Floor Martinez,CA 94553 SUBJECT: Day Case Center--41.1 Mayhew Way Step Ahead Learning Center Lear Aruna, We have no objections to the proposed day care center in this location. We noticed that the Mitigated Legative Declaration is requiring restriping improvements to the eastbound approach of Mavhew Way to allow for left turn only and right turn only lanes. Our Transportation Division reviewed the proposed plans and offers the following comments: 1) Striping details must be implemented according to Caltrans "Traffic Manual" Detail 23 for the Centerline.and Detail 38 for the Turn Lanes. 2) The striping material must be ceramic buttons and/or thermoplastic. 3) The curb must be painted red from Bancroft Road to the first driveway on the north side of Mayhew. 4) Lane designation arrows must be installed.. 5) A crosswalk must be designated on Mayhew at Bancroft. If you have any questions, please call me at (925) 943-5834. Very truly yours, ww'�V' Margaret Kimmerer Senior Planner P 0. Box 8039 + 1666 Noath Main Street + Wz/ lnut Creek, California 94596-8039 1925, 943.5800 �*Prsr te°c3 on Recycfca Pater March 6, 1939 VIA FACSIMILE(92S-335-1222) Aruna Bhat Contra Costa Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA-- Re: Hearin2 on Marcia 8 1999 re 41 82063 Bear Ms. Bhatti Please consider this letter a petition against and protest of the proposed land use permit at the above-mentioned property, and provide it to the County Zoning Administrator prior to the bearing on March 8, 1999, at 1.30 p.m. We live diagonally across tine street from the property at 411 Mayhew Way and the proposed construction of and use of the property as a daycare would cause great disruption to the neighborhood. Any construction that would be done would create an ongoing noise disturbance to the neighborhood for the duration of the construction project. In addition, once completed, there would be a major adverse impact on the already overly congestedd intersection.of Bancroft Way and Mayhew Way, causing further backups. Mayhew Way is overcrowded for a residential street as it is, due to traffic going primarily to the Pleasant Hill DART Station. We currently :are forced to often wait in excess of 10 minutes just to exit our driveway, due to the BART traffic turning froth.Bancroft Way onto Mayhew Way on a daily basis. In addition, Mayhew Way is not wide enough to accommodate any cars that may park in front of neighboring houses to pick tip and/or drop off their children at the proposed daycare center. It was also impede our ability to safely enter and exit our driveway due to obstruction from parked cars and/or foot traffic. People would be at great risk trying to cross tlae street to get to the, daycare center due to the flow of traffic already in existence. Lastly, we believe that there would be a substantial increase in the noise level in the neighborhood with up to 65 children being present at the premises on a daily basis. 37316.1 fAlk Aft Aruna Bhat March 6, 1999 Page 2 For the foregoing reasons, we ask that you kindly consider our request to deny this land use application. We rn,�y be reached at (925) 935-2370 if you have any questions or need further information from us. Very truly yours, ; Jaynes and Barbara.Bray 406 Mayhew Way Walnut geek, CA, 94598 37316A# Thursday, March 04, 1999 Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Attention: Dennis M. Barry, A.ICP Community Development Director SUBJECT: Land Use Permit for Daycare Center corner of Bancroft Road and Mayhew Way The entrance to McCann Court, on which we live, is approximately 1.50 yards away &orn Bancroft Road and Mayhew Way. At the present time it is exceedingly difficult to enter Bancroft Road due to the location of Bart, for which Mayhew is a again artery. Traffic already is exceedingly heavy during business hours, and we protest the increase in traffic which would be a result of this land use. Wicking up and delivering 65 children in this heavily trafficked area will certainly make this area even more hazardous to all. — including the children themselves, Mr. & Mrs. Robert V. Scott " 1231 McCann Court Concord CA 94518 Aetna Bhat March 6g 1999 Page 2 For the foregoing reasons.we ask that you kindly considcr our request to deny this land us(,- application. seapplication. We may be reached at (925)935-2370 if you have any questions or need further information from us. Very truly yours, James and Barbara Bray 406 Maybew Way Walnut Creek,CA 94598 3"73 1G.1 } Tl-IE FOLLOWINWE REASONS 1,HY tFE ARE OPPOSED TO THE VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY AT 411 i t Y Ht'I WAY. 1. THELE IS WT El,TJ i LAI FOR. 65 C HILMEN.MIP e... f 2. THERE ARE SIDE"(hL S ON BANOF OR l-AYHEW 3. TIERE IS A THIR.1Y FIVE MITE SPEED LEST ON BANC.Fr FDAD 4. BAN FI IS A VERY'" BUSY ST?=. IT TAKES 11E SOZI TSS TEN MINUI S TO GET OUT OF ICY DR.IVERAY. 5. MAYIIIEW IS AN EXIT SIP= ON TO BANG FP FOR. BART DRIVERS. 6. 111-DEREE IS NOT ENOU91 PARKA rG AT THIS LOCATION FC 65 CARS TO PARK FOR PARENTS TO PICC UP UEIR. CHILDREN :IJURIM TIE FOUR' SIX Sri lUJR , TRAFFIC IC, h . 7. THERE MULD NOT BE ENY! FARKRU SPACE FOR. THE PEON DYED BY TIE PROPERTY 0kNNl RS M TAKE CARE OF 111E C:H=EN. 8. `TlIS AREA IS A RESIDED-'IAL AREA-NrI A CIOMMI MCLAL AREA.. 9. APPRUML OF 'THIS VARIANCE W ULD DEE TIE PRDPE.RTY VALUE O DRA`a'TICAILY DEPRECIATE MUSS ALL OF THE S RROU DRU PRDP= INCA SL%LE FA:KELY RESIDENCES ARE T'--MMR ZONED CUTmx rc 1. 1 j. A S.�VEY OF TSE PESIDE\-UES ARO: INT THI S PROPERTY' ARE 1019% OPPOSED 1M ,HIS PF'.OPOSAL. i ? . I WISI1 T aiAVI _» 1, =A ®F SSI IC ATIC)N C� THIS ?'RD�SAL 'ABLE UNFIL THE WALDEN DIPROVE1,M ASSOCIATION HAS A C,a-ANBE TO I OK INTO HE FEASABILrFY OF `I HIS PROPOSAL. I,RS. LULL AN T .lkS 917 BANCROF1 ROAD W UN-Ul' CRF..EIC_ CAL 94598 925 934 6851 MarclI 8, 1999 SUS CI: �IjE C7PI-iP'R SIDE OF TIIE SI'P.= (1,A�54) IS IN VAIINUTT CREEK, I iQ, 2 BY I EgJESI ""iEIR PARTICL�'A`;ION UM THIS MA17ER. SINCE `ate OlvnR SIDE OF BANCIROFF IS IN CONCORD, I REQUEST 111E OF (PiNC 7RD BE LNCLUDLD ICY TC IIS FIAT TER SINCE THE C''1' OF PL.EA&AIW HILL IS tJFI`III TIE S&- BUON-MRY I request: the CIT` OF PrLEASANI 'HDL BE INVOLVED 113 'IVIS MATrf . SLICE 111E' CITY OF Ukll-txfl CTTE IS 2D-UCTAN-f TO 1DWER THE SPEED LIMIT ON BANCROFf TO 25 I ES l't"2 'M)UIR FROM PRESEW 35 -I (vailaq IS Jo} FAST) - T">-IIS IS A MAJOR SPEED PROBI-04 ON THIS STIREEE r AS iT is. March 6, 1999 VIA FACSIMILE 1`925-335-12 Aruna.Shut Contra Costa Community Development lac partrnem 651 Pirie Street Martinez, CA Re.: 'Hoiring oil Iylaarch 8, 1999 m 41. 1 Mayhew Wa "galnrrt Creek -C-0unty�ale.#�i,�982U6� Dear Ms. Bhaat: Plegvse consider this letter a petition against and protest of the proposed land also permit at the above-mentioned property, and provide it to the;County Zoning Administrator prior to the hearing on Maarch ft, 1999, at 1:3£3 p.m. We live diagonaally across, the street from the property at 4 t 1 Mayhew Way and 1110 proposed construction of and use of the property as a daycare would cause great disruption to the neighborhood. Any construction that would be done would create an ongoing noise disturbaanc, to the nei`hborlaood for the duration of the construction project. In addition,once completed, there would be a major adverse impact on the already overly congested intersection of Bancroft Wary and Mayhew Way,causing further backups, Mayhew Way is overcrowded for a residc n iaal strect as it is, arae to traffic;cring primarily to the Pleasant Hili BART Station. We currently are forced to often Wait in excess of 10 minutes just to exit our driveway, due to the BAR'S'traffic to-Milng from Bancroft Way onto Mayhew Way on as daily basis. In a ddition, Maayhew Way is not wide enough to acconiniodate any cars that aaaay park in front of ncighboring houses to pick up and/or drop off their children at the proposed daycare center. D ww; also impede our ability to safely crater and exit our driveway dace to obstruction from parked cars and/or foot traffic. People, would be at great risk trying to cross the strect to get to the daycare celtter chic:to the flaw of traffic already in existence. Uistly, we believe that there would be aa.substtantial increase in the noise level in the ocighborhood with tip to 65 children being present at the plv'rnises on a daily basis. zltrr, a 3� t U ° ' a a-u< � '�;� �.es•yes rrc e a<rsvr_a_r..se5—acre s ca: �t e���axs<;r t 3� ���i.SGG_S� t'_�f 1/YS 1 March 8, 1999 To Wham It Mav Concern: Unformrrately I vem unable to make a pc rsorzal appears today on beat of Step Ahead 2. Wlsy,because I am a working mother of two small children. My name is Dawn Bass. My oldest child is 4 years of age and my youngest h; 18 months. I arra not from the Bay Area and have no family to help watch my children and few finds to gpt advice.on obildc mare from-I Iraa two msour=to find cam for my children,Coutra Costa.County CWdcare Counsel and the Ucensing Board in"land. The ohildcwr facz.(4ty only for referetwes acrd the Ustening Board to sm if there were any serious cors p aints issued. kaagino being a youtig rnothcr with a sal baby and having to'&on that helpless being off in a s=ngees home. The honxx How many times have we all heard stories on 20/20,49 hours or Nightline of the abase of small children by thein so called."CARE GIVERS." To be able to drop off child in a loves center with a home environment,this would be the perfect fix. Currently I am feOliing quite lucky bath of my children are piam-d at Step Ahead Learning ning Center. Hero wo have a businosspomn that has an existing,well maintained and established facility in €lac area of the proposcd sight, 11=is no r"—sonnot to let her dry this?It would tic a community servico to let lacr establish Stell Ahead 2._ Beire a.homcownor.I may have concerns about the traffic that this may came however,tliese are not young teenagers who just got their drivers licenses. Keep in mind that these are parents carrying t=heir most precious cargo,t€tcre children. Who would be a safer driven? Infamt=e is nearly impossible to find in this arca.. 'Kris is the bay arra;it t: s two incomes for young family's to survive is:this area. In diar,we screed goad quality care for our chiudron. In a perfe(--world we could be gay at homc mums but this is not a perfwt world,this is the bay area. Sincerel , j D Bass Mog;au& Iaccluel�m's Monimy AKA working Mom AN lJ RGEN-T APPEAL To Ta-E CGN`rRA COSTA COUNTY Y BOARD OF Su-PE8S a iJORS, TuE CONTRA COSTA CouNTY REDEVELOPmEN-r AGENCY, E aE PLANmNG DEPT AND TSE PUBLICWORKS DEPT We, the parents of young children who work and/or live near tlae pleasant Hill BAIT station area, have a desperate need for accessible,'convenient quality child care. Step Ahead Learning Center fulfills this meed at 1338 Las Juntas Way. However, Step Ahead has reached its capacity, and the demand for comparable child care still remains. We have recently been informed that Step Ahead is trying to open a branch at nearby Mayhew flay. 'We hereby strongly appeal to the County to assist Step.Ahead with the permitting and other relevant processes in order to provide the community urgently with the quality child care it needs. Thank you. S4,nature Bate Name Address Cb �i:•`J�;'� i w''�'1 �. �'s,y�G7 •r�`/�` �� '�,. � t..t s-'"�: .�.r�-.S� trd c- S`.°`..f r t""'.✓.d"6 i &A. Ito ((IJP- tv� k-J)w0bJ Vr n � ou h � I / _ "V"P-W 0 { Agenda Item 11 `t Conumunty Development Centra Costa.County CONTRA. COSTA COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MONDAY. MARCH— g,� 1999 - 1.30 P, M I. MR-CDU CTLt SCK & Ih[DRA EN912 (Applicants & Owners), County File #LP982063: The applicants are requesting a land use pent to convert an existing 2,049 square Feet single fan-dly residence to a 3,95€3 square feet day care with a maximum of 65 children. Variances are, requested for an 8 foot setback from the proposed Bancroft Way dedication(where 15 feet is required),to eliminate the 4 foot landscape strip along the off-street parking spaces and to provide tandem parking. The property is addressed 941.1 Mayhew Way and is located at the north -gest intersection of Bancroft and Mayhew, in the unincorporated Walnut Creek area of the County. (fit-15) (ZA: L--14) (CT: 3381) (Parcel 4148-300-005). 11. RECOM v I DATION Staff recon-n.ends that the Zoning Administrator approve the use permit subject to the attached conditions of approval. III. GENEMAL INFC}R ATION A. General Plan-Land UsI e Edesignation: 'Flee subject parcel is designated Multiple family -mediunt density in the Contra Costa County General Flan adopted ul January, 1991. 13. Zoning: The subject parcel is in the R-15 Zoning District, C. CE-0A Status: A mitigated negative declaration of environmental significance was posted on. February 12, 1999.. D. Prig_ r A lications: Node S-2 IV. MUAREARDESCRIPTION There -is an existing single story single family residence on the property. To the immediate west of the property, is a. single family residence and beyond that house is a single family development on small lots. There is an open rail fence between the subject property and the adjacent property on the gest side. The subject property has a 6` fence along Bancroft. The property is triangular in shape with frontages on Mayhew Way and Bancroft. The surrounding area is residential. V. PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant is proposing to convert the existing 2,049 square feet residence to a 3,950 square feet day care center. An entry/reception area, office area., kitchen, two infant and tree toddler rooms are proposed. The applicant is proposing to have 65 children at the day care between the ages of 3 months and 3 years. Hours of operation are proposed to be Monday through Friday 6:30 am.- 6 pm. access to the day care is proposed of Mayhew Way. Nine off-street parking spaces are proposed. A total of t6 infants are proposed to be cared for and the remaining 49 would be toddlers. The applicant has informed staff`that a maximum of 6 staff members are expected at the facility at any one time. V1. Af(I CY COMMENTS A. Bul din_ Inspection Department: Survey stakes required. B. _Contra Eosta Count�l;ire Protection District: In a tetter dated September 21, 1998, the District representative indicated that automatic fire sprinkler system will be required along with other provisions. C. Health Services Department - Environmental Health INvisio : Must supply public water and use District saritary services. D Northwest Information Center: In a letter dated October 19, 1998, they indicated that although the property potentially contains archaeological resources, due to the nature of the present project, it is probable that no adverse impacts will be caused and no study is reconu-nended at this time. V11- RURUCLMMMENTS Letter dated December 26, 1998 from Art and Sheilah Morrison is attacked to the staff report. They have expressed concerns regarding the compatibility of the S-3 proposed day care in a single family neighborhood, and have concerns regarding packing and traffic. Staff has discussed all the issues in the following section of this report. VIII. STAFFANALYSIS/DISCUSSLQN A_ Appropriateness o se: Day care centers are pen-nitted in residential areas upon obtaining a use permit from the County. The Public Facilities/services element of the general-plan identifies a need for child care services in residential areas. Child care policies of that element encourage location of child care facilities in residential neighborhood, employment centers and along transit routes. The proposed facility is consistent with county general plan policies. B. Siteflan Analysis: 1. Playground : The playground is proposed in the rear and side yard of the property and the total play area is 4,733 sq.ft. The California State Department of Health and Social Services requires a R inin um. of 75 sq.ft of outdoor play area per child.. The tonal required outdoor play area for 65 children. is 4,875 sq.ft. Staff is recommending that the maxinur n number of children permitted be limited to 61 due to the limited amount of outdoor play area. A single farruly residence is located immediately to the west of the subject property. Staff is reconmrnending that a 6 foot solid fence be installed along the western property line consistent with the off street parking ordinance. Staff"believes the combination of a 6 feet fence and trees along the property line will reduce any noise impacts to the neighbors when children are in the outdoor play area. Z. Signage: The applicant is proposing one 6`x6` &eestand€rig triangular sign. The signage area itself is proposed to be 10 sq.ft. The sign provides sufficient identification for the day care and is consistent with the residential character of the area. The sign appears nicht to be located within the sight distance triangle. Staff is recommeadmg approval of the sign subject to final review by the Zoning Administrator. 3. Pan-king;;`1'he applicant has proposed 9 off street parking spaces. The county zoning ordinance does not specify parking requirernennt for day SA care use. The applicant has indicated that 6 staff members are expected at the facility at any one time_ The applicant has submitted an estimated daily schedule of teachers at the proposed facility. The applicant has indicated that 6 staff members are expected only between the hours of 10 arra - 1.30 pm. This is not expected to be the peak hour for pick- up/drop off of children. Internal circulation could be improved by adding a loop driveway and relocating parking stall##5 to near the building entrance, out of the loop driveway. The driveway will need to be signed or painted as "keep clear" to help prevent cars from queuing up out of the applicant's lot and onto Mayhew'Way. Staff`has checked with the City of Walnut Creek and City of Concord regarding their parking requirements for day care facilities due to the project being adjacent to the two cities. The City of Walnut Creek requires 1 space/employee plus 1 space/12 children. The City of Concord requires one space for the first 5 children plus one space/10 children._ Concord's parking ordinance states that additional spaces may be required at the discretion of the bearing body. A, day care facility with 6 staff members and 61 children would be required to have a minimum of 12 spaces by the City of Walnut Creek and. a minimum of 7 spaces by the City of Concord. used on information submitted by the applicant and the parking requirements of the adjacent jurisdictions, staff believes that the S off street parking is sufficient for the proposed facility. All exterior lighting is required to be directed downwards and away from residential areas and public streets so as not to produce glare. A. 6' high solid fence shall be provided along the western property line. 4. "variances: The applicant is requesting variances to allow tandem parking, eliminate the 4' landscape strip adjacent to street right-of-way and also reduce the parking stalls to 1 S' depth. The subject property is triangular in shape with frontages on two streets. Staff is recoaaanaending approval of the variances since special circumstances are applicable to alae subject property. The size of the parcel and the location of the structure on the property preclude the applicant from rneetmg the zoning standards. However, staff is recommending that the applicant provide 24" boxed planters along the front of the building and landscaping adjacent to the sign to soften the impact of the paving. IX Af3-AND DRAINAGE,A�Ii� 1 l NT The attached conditions of approval, based on the plans submitted to Community Development on February 9, 1999, include read and drainage requirements. The applicant should be Billy aware of the County Ordinance Code requirements as they pertain to this development. The following issues should be considered with-this project. 1. Road Dedication and Frontage Improvements: On Bancroft Road, the applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, 6.6±m (22-feet) along the frontage for the planned ultimate ball` width of 12.6±rn (42--feet). The County anticipates accepting the Offer of Dedication for recording purposes only, so the applicant may have temporary use of the area, subject to the restriction that no stmeture be placed in the encumbered area... In addition., the applicant must vacate the encumbered arca when. the County fully accepts the offer. The corner of the existing Douse encroaches into the ultimate right of way, and shall be excluded from the Offer of Dedication. A deferred improvement agreement will be allowed for the frontage improvements along Bancroft Road. On Mayhew Way, the applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, 3.0--'- m (10-feet) along the frontage for the planned ultimate half width of 9.0— m (30-feet). pull frontage improvements are required here, specifically curt), sidewall�, pavement widening, including necessary transitions. In the area where proposed parking spaces 6 and 7 encroach into the area to be dedicated, the dedication will be reduced to 2.4± in (8-feet) with a 0.6±m(2-feet) Private Utility and. Maintenance easement. The applicant is also required to relocate joint poles as necessary to avoid conflict with the applicant's required frontage improvements. fn addition, the applicant shalt dedicate right of way and construct a curb return (with curb ramp) at the ultimate comer of Mayhew Way and Bancroft Road. S-6 The applicant's traffic engineer, TJKM, has analyzed the, operation of the intersection of Mayhew Way and Bancroft Road, both in the existing condition, and with the additional traffic generated by the project. `I'JKM found that the operation of the intersection was degraded to an unacceptable level of service(LOS) of F by the project's additional traffic in the morning peak hour.They recommend that Mayhew Way be restriped to allow separate left and right tum lanes to mitigate the negative impacts on the intersection's operation, bringing the LOS hack to C. Staff'concurs with TJKM's findings, but additionally finds that implen►enta- tion of this striping within the ultimate Mayhew Way right of way will.require elimination of parking on both sides of the street. The ultimate right of way is 18.3 - in (60-feet), with 12.3± in (40-feet) from curb to curb. Three 3.7± m (12-foot) lanes (left turn, right turn and westbound) leave 1.2.E in (4-feet) remaining for shoulders. if this project is approved, the Public Works Department will arrange for the applicant's frontage on Mayhew Way to be signed "No Stopping" to prevent any cars from stopping or parking there and backing up westbound traffic. Removal of parking on:the south side of Mayhew is the responsibility of the City of Walnut Creek, and a separate application must be processed through the City. If the City decides not to allow the removal of this parking, the recommended raitigation measure cannot be implemented, and the application should not be approved. Staff has contacted p.afat Raie, the City's Traffic En&eer, and determined that the City will not allow parking to be removed without contmunity consensus. Staff has advisee( the applicant that: he should begin this process with the City, as this 1-and Use hermit will be conditional on the City's approval of the removal of parking on the south side of Mayhew Jay. 2_ Parking and Internal Circulation: The applicant has submitted numerous revisions to the site plan in an attempt to improve the circulation of the parking lot. The site is small for the intended use, and while circulation and parking availability are improved from previous submittals, they are far from ideal. The Public 'works Department's concern is that if the parking lot is not adequate, either in circulation or parking availability, cams will back up onto Mayhew Way and quickly affect traffic in the intersection of Mayhew Way and Bancroft Road. This is not only a level of service issue, but also a potential safety hazard, when stopped cars encroach into the traffic lane. S-7 Various exceptions from general practice have been allowed in an attempt to make this project feasible. These included: tandem parking stalls, a Public Utility and Maintenance Easement instead of the road right of way, and allowing parking stalls to encroach into this public Utility and Maintenance 'Easement. Staff has discussed the latest plan, submitted to Community Development on February 9, 1999, with the applicant, and all agree that it could be further unproved by adding a loop driveway and relocating parking stall number 5 to near the building entrance, out of the way of the loop driveway. The driveway will need to be signed or painted as "keep clear" to help prevent cars from queuing up out of the applicant's lot and onto Mayhew Way. These changes will not make the situation ideal, but will Delp improve internal circulation problems. 3. Site Access, Road Alignment and Sight Distance: As shown on the applicant's site plan., the westerly driveway shall be entrance only; the easterly driveway shall be exit only. Because of the addition of a second driveway closer to the intersection, it becomes ui nportan.t to ensure cars turning right from. Bancroft Road onto Mayhew flay can see the cars exiting the day care facility, and that cars exiting the facility can see cars turning onto Mayhew Way. No structures which block this line of sight will be allowed within. the 7.6± m (25-foot) triangle at the corner of the lot closest to the intersection. The proposed sign has been relocated outside of this area. The applicant has recently proposed fencing and a trellis hear this corner(but outside the required triangular clear area) in order to use as much area as possible for the children's play yard. However, these improvements in this area will have a detrimental effect on sight distance. In order to partially mitigate this effect, while still allowing the applicant maximum use of the tot, anysuch structures within a 12.2- in (40-feet) triangle will need to be constructed witi a visually"open" material, such as wrought iron. Solid fences in this area will be prohibited. 4. Drainage: This project will increase the impervious surface area by ir�ore than 140 in' (1500-teen), so the applicant shall collect and convey all storinwater entering andlor originating on this property. The nearest discharge point appears to be approximately 46± in (150-feet) west of the parcel on Mayhew Way. S-8 C. Sutx malty The following required findings for approval of a conditional use pen-nit as provided by County code Section 262.2008 have to be satisfied. In The proposed projectwill not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the county. The conditions of approval of-the project ensure that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the county. 2. The proposed project will not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the county. The immediate surrounding area consists of single family residences and the proposed day care is consistent with the zoning and general plan for the property will not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the County. 3. The proposed project will not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the county- There is no evidence to support that the proposed. Clay care will decrease property values in the area.. 4. The proposed project will not adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the general plan. The proposed project is consistent with the policies and goals of the general plan. 5. The proposed project wit[ not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. Conditions of approval have been placed on the project to ensure that it does not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problems in tale area. 6. Ttie proposed project as conditioned will not encourage marginal development. S-9 The approval of the project will not encourage marginal development due to the conditions of approval. 7. That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. The subject property is located close to the Pleasant Hill BART Station area of the County and is in proximity to a number of office buildings and other employment areas. D. onclusi Star'is recommending approval of the use permit subject to the attached conditions of approval. A B/amc 3/1193 jUN- 9--99 WED :0.96 CITY O ' WALNUT CHEEK �AX NO, 1 V66b�bbb z4 a W11 lainut city0f May1 , 1999 Jaynes arbara Bray 406 Mayhew Way Walnut geek,CA 94595 Subject: Proposed Day Care Center at 411 Mayhew Way County Pile OLP982063 Dear Mr, and Mrs. Bray, This is in response to your fax transmission on May 12, 1999 addressed to Margaret K.irmnerer, Senior Planner, City of Walnut geek. In your fax, you requested clarification on the reason for the City's non-objection to the project at 411 Mayhew Way. This is because no parking would be toss in the City of Walnut Creek right of way. The parking on the south side of Mayhew Way will not be removed. In a Larch 4, 1999 letter to Ms. Anina$hat, Senior Planner, Contra Costa County, we commented that the Mitigated Negative Declaration required the following.- I. Striping details roust be implemented according to Caltrans"Traffic Manual" Detail 23 for the Centerline and Detail 38 for the Turn Lanes, 2. The striping material roust be ceramic buttons and/or thermoplastic, 3. The curb roust be painted red from Bancroft Road to the first driveway on the north side of Mayhew. 4. Lane designation arrows must be installed. S. A crosswalk must be designated or.Mayhew at Bancroft. The only parking that will continue to be restricted on the south side of Mayhew Way is the emsting red curb starting frorn the cornier of Bancroft to the first driveway at 424 Mayhew. As you are aware, the north side.of Mayhew is in the County. Any questions regarding the panting on the north side can be directed. to Contra.Costa County. A copy of the March 4, 1999 tetter has been enclosed for your use. If you have any farther questions,please feel free to call me at (925) 256-3529. P 0. Box 8039 * 3 666 North Mann Street + Walnut Creek, Callforni-a 94S96-8039 + f925) 943-5800 MaTr-26-99 01 :33P CC Child Ca-re Council P-02 PLAN 2001 bead&Supply J6fC3F'ii"TH CgbMA,L Geographic Area: Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, &Walnut Creek. Area NEED SUPPLE Ache #Slats centem Foca Total %Met NORTH Needed CENTRAL lnfantf 3,267 398 1,182 1,580 4ii% Preschool 3,323 4,368 1,182 5,550 167% chtte�l Atm 7,983 3,489 1,182 4,671 1 59% Total 3,454 : _IIJOS:. 80 AY Age The total reed for child care sleets for the North Central area is 14,573. The supply of 11,709 mailable slots leaves 2,8fa4 children without care. 30% of the meed is met. InfantsOToddfers There are 3,207 Infant/Toddler group children in need of care compared to 1,580 licensed sleets. This leaves 1,887 children without care. Preschoolers There are 5,550 slots available to care for 3,323 children. School Acte With 4,871 slots available to care for 7,983 children, 3,312 children are without care. Sett by: STEP AHEAD LEARNING 9259+32235 Ubj7lj/U�J 3U:IJA J00 40v rage � - ibi JAS; IV:u4t.v; OtV 0444V4i =r 5itr AMAU LCAMNINUi we jull-1&-1999 le:25 DEPT. SOCIA. SRV. 510 6222647 P-02 9 EET F" COVER Sm tbldc"o Id UM comcil 3 s coo ff"ny of helpaxg p mx4 fxS 3hful Number of Pcges (indu&In )o —Z— GE t AL fl r ace 41— rbr 0 ® i ��yg �FP66 p s�ppy�pyypy�$i 6 ia9'i �� E 9/oB�f 6m d# rvcA received prod cogs _. i Sent by: STEP AHEAD LEARNI NU 92b94322 e3b L3E+/�Csl�� t L}> ��xtv� race q t tj i,....v,. ..... 77 'vf;Vit; 1'v:VrnM, 4iv 4C GCLS4+ ::y 01tr AMMU LCHKiilMt7i eu .ALN-16~-1535 10-25 DEPT. SOCIAL cpV, 510 6222647 P. provid'", wry A"rt foe "t om CDM 4L uo Fiq pTO waft s City stZig Pt1oft L oontion $tl(+L Btwff�aC3L^..Ib'iL�rtsffi/35[$YT vffiS61t p^.aCRStYWl.+C8t2i?�M11am 19 :34 GilL.0 CAS C� "holy �iW#� CA 04M (WS}6�9•�6151 Calt Q K 9 2SS 42 F IRSr P'!1.£S£3MRIAN PRESCLEAX STRUT CA 94520 j9:'?lS)676-6244 Calc S Fbaw: 7 u NI t. DAY CARE CENTYLVARTA MV0 CA 94'52'1 (4)672-6946 Cads X s 12 44 73 Aldir '.AWES P AILFY RDA4 CA 9 T (M 6»5621 Colt W Awl 9 a p4 1tYTE Gt�1t 1 a ( ) -s0s7 tsr: x e43 7s eAR�AI A ML:IFF CIMER IRKER PASS ROW CA S45ZI (925)671-+�'d'77 Col% X Rowt 9 45 79 MT DIABLO MIS PXT S ECET C,4 "M (WS) 0 Co1; R r: 5 S9 i+2 TE FuORT CHICAW tW CA 9452D (92S)675- 7� Cot t R ftwg 5 go 4943 miss PsAM*$ v4scmiY m CLAYTON ROAD Comm CA 91514 (925)69"168 Colt Q ko,,n, 9 121 227 PIXTC MAYSChOOL 17 7 Aym PW CONDOM CA 94.521 ( 30 Colt x go*: 9 2n 5 3 CLAYMN VALLEY PARM PR 16 5 bEES'T STREET CONCOW CA 94521 (925)680-8770 Col% 5 Raw: 9 272 556 OWNDIA CHRT5TIAN OAK GPMV ROAD CONCOW I'd 9451 t3 it w; 12 273 f1w CONCOoo CF r3TiAFt PRfSCH Z1 OLIv"A Cow CONDOM CA 945M (925WS-"1374 Col: 2 Rowe S 274 952 YWCA SHA 18 0 SZL .101 CA 9.4511 ;9293125-9195 Col: T R"t 7 ?^79 574 ST M EL"S lPIS AL P �ZS KNIFACII3 STREET CL7N RO CA 94519 (92S)685-c"2 £o1, R w" & 329 661 LAOS'S LASSIES SILVEWM 16 9 CI.AYM AVERLIE ootcm CA 2452U (923)687.4550 Cc 1; W mer 9 314 1324 KIDS "ICE 51 CtAyTo8 ROO 6uryE ou4cm C!4 94S21 (925607-O' C61 X Powi 12 554 196 aOWsE MILLEA EAST GPANT STRUT 024mw CA 94521) (523)645••9719 Cala R +tea 5 167 1450 EL. 3 *T( DAY CARE CEtt1'fiR 1 0E44 OtTWE � CONCOft CA 94d914i (9$Ec}d* Colt 8 Rams 9 60S 47 SCOMINE KIDS 04RIVIAN 21 MINCAT *DAD CONCORD CA 94618 (925)4V-2724 CA 1. R Stir. 12 r a I oYa�a � E JE."Yit Uy.olt:r H£7CHU LCtAMNINU ...y+. . rt•r.e :: ',:161,99; 10:U1At.; btU 6222647 — STEP AHEAD LEARNING; X4 luq-16-113139 lea26 DEPT. SMAL SRU. 5le 622264? P.04/08 MDCCCA -B�(y#�.fDWIN PARK (925)798-5027 CONCORD 945' 9 7:00a 6:00p eNTWF4. 0 4. f + CAMBRIDGE COtC4UNITY CENTE(925)798-1078 CONCORD 94520 7:30 6:0Qp >MTWTF. 1 JID& cap: f a f CONCORD CHILD CA CP� ERt9 ti)689-5" 51 CONCORD 94520 7»3Oa 6:00p MTWW. 105 2��U4� ° d d H 5 FIRST PRESBYTER —AN PR--SCHC9 1676-6244 CONCORD 945201 9:30a 12:00p HTWTF. HIGHLANDS € AY CARE C:RA672•-- 6144 CONCORD 9452" 7:00a 6:00p i .MTWTF. r 4130 , J5101 cq L--� Cd. 10 - MONTESSORI SCHOOL OF VON ( Sg )682—P506'7 CONCORD 54520 7:000 6:00p mTwTF. Gapa # LADS AND LASSIES PRESCH09(9 5)666--5621 CONCORD 94521 6:30a 6:00P mTWTF. o 10 r WHITE DOVE SCHOOL (925)689-5067 CO=ORD 94520 8 CO4)3,f� ' ; ! � H 94rt� i BARBARA MILLIFF CENTER 4925 671^0777 CONCORD 94521 8:30a 5 :t1$Ip Mai°WTF. 0 i i 0 i MT DIAB O HIGH f RESCHQOL (925)682-4030 CONCORD 94520 8:30a 11 :300 el+T-T1<'_ 1 � d a � t Sent 5y: STEP AHEAD LEARNING 9259432235 Ub/1bl!J& 1u:1�ANi j1_0 4ou rdcye OI f+t?t:e;..<;[7. t':�•.,:g;,.3:`+� ;f:0:1APA; 510 8222647 -> STEP AHEAD LEARNING; 95 05/08 ,LN-16-1999 10:26 DEPT. IAL SRO. vl X254? PQ SUN TERRACE PRESCHOOL (925)676-4373 CONCORD 94520 7a00a 6,-Oop bMTW°i` I" capf s ; WFtE.idUT COUNTRY PRESCHOOL (925)798-9686 C ONCORD 9452 S MISS NANCY'S 2 671--F2979 CONCORD 94518 6:30a 6:300 F. jV1 4 ,0 aCq ' «Y a miss p&v4,S DISCOVERY Cz'3wl(9 )686-6168 CONCORD 94519 7:00a 6:00p (41 35 Q 4 3 �u - a PIXIN Pt4k�qYSC3�O0�p (925 `i 69-4030 CONCORD 9452 9:0 .Fe' 0a 3Mp oa7� s Cq ,. E KIDS CONNECTION—MEADOW HO(95)680-0151 CONCORD 9452€ 7:00a 6:00p TT b& . B t t WORLD OF ADVENTURE {925 796-7364 CONCORD 94521 6: on 6.300p t+i'r'WT . g A MYRTLE FARM MONTESSORI (925 356--2482 CONCORD 94521 7 :30a 4 000 -MTWTF, FIRST LUTHERAN PRESCHOOL (92 798-5330 CONCORD 94519 6:30a 6: 00p .MTW2`F. BWA CHILD CARE CENTER • (92 13.56--2665 CONCORD 94520 1:00a 6:00p MTWTF. ! Sent by: SCEP AHEAD LEARNING 925943223b UO/10/&& I u. E,)A ,sora 4aJ reye sab:ce; i,t 6;;9 ; 10:0 AM; 510 6222547 -> STEP AHEAD LEARNING; #6 JUN-16-1999 10»271 DEPT. SOCIAL SW. 510 6222647 P.06/06 KIDS CONNECTION—WOODSIM (925)676-9534 CONCORD 94518 7:00a 6.00p d , 4 a d KIDS CONNECTION—MT VJEW (925)689--11713 CONCORD 94521 6,030a 6:00p FITWTF. � ; - 0- } CLAYTON VALLEYPARIENT PRB(9251.6 0-8 7 7 Gt CONCORD 94521 9:30� 3: 3 n a MT'WTF. doz)ld } 0 41u"�w d KIHOERCARR LEARNING CENTZ(925)68 -»9560 CONCORD 94521 6:30a 6:00p CONCORDI.A CHRTST'IAN (925)8 5-4170 CONCORD 94518 77>0£3a 6:000 .WrWTF. J5[tLb cq : 7 F CONCORD CHRISTIAN PRESCHC(325)8 —1370 CONCORD 9 5251 6:30a 6:0tap .4�tdl WTIV. 0 OA YWCA SHADELANDS MDUSD (925)825-9195 25-9195 CONCORD 94519 8:00a 3:30P MrIVTF Ll } f a d g. S 0 CONCC DIA SCHOOL (925)16 --6910 COSCORD 94520 7:00a 6d3 p TF1 a d d } KtXGS VALLEY PRESCHOOL ('925)6 —2020 CONCORD 94521 6:30 . 6:00p IMTIWTF. r a �-o L5 r MDC"CCA—kOLBROOK (925)6 —7950 CONCORD 94519 7:00a 6:00p MTWTF. C4 7) dCd 9 *- 5 a ¢ Sent by: STEP ANLAU LEAHNiNU 92b94322�3b Ub!i b!&& I u: E 0AM uuu 4ou rai�e o, 10:04AM; 610 6222647 => STEP AHEAD LEARNING; 07 LJ. -16-19959 10-27 DEPT. SOCIAL SRV. 510 6222647 P.07'08 ST MICHAEL'S EPISCOPAL PR(925)685-8862 CONCORD 94519 6: 15a 6:00p 6 HTWTF. BI CHI-COWELL kid? (925)680-8600 CONCORD 94 518 6:305 6:00p <NTWTF. JJA_ Cq o d FAMILY STRESS CHR (92526 —0212 CDNCORD 94520 11 :005 9:00P SMTWTFS 8 e 3 LADS & LASSIES SILVZRWOOD((925) 7-4550 CONCORD 94520 6:30a 6: 00p e M TF e $ A CXJR 'LACE-YGNACTO ° AT-LU`� {'925 98-'7125 CONCORD 4518 2.,3 6: 00P TP. 8 a s 3a x a a j && yGNACIC gra Ey HIGH PR1ESC(925)685-5414 CONCORD 9451E 10:300 12: 30p .M.W.F. L5 A (j s 6 8 9 OUR PLACE-WILLOW PASS (92S)g6 -0161 CDNCORD 94520 1 :00p 6: i,p��0p r M�C . HEAD START—GEORGE MrLLgR ((925)6 6-5578 CONCORD 94520 a-30a 4:00P KTWTF. o N: o a I J/t s i LA PETITE ACA0V4Y--CC N00RL)(`325 )676-44' 6 CONCORD 94516 6:00a 6:201 -MTWTF. i 9 jo4 a ° ➢ � �- CALVARY VARY CHRISTI N PRESCHO(925)652-672# CONCORD 94519 7-00a 6:00P s i d 1%,[LA-v�k'af Sent by: STEP AHEAD LEARNING 9259432235 06/15/99 10 a 17AM., Job 450 Hage 919 -0eue.v; 6"'6i9l; 10 t,04AN; 510 6222647 -> STEP AHEAD CEMNING; If DEPT. SOCIAL SW. MO 62-2264? P.08/08 KIDS CHOICE (925)687--0983 CONCORD 9452 605a 6: 15p MITIAWTIr. i-j j JJA*: 14e a u— . f _jo 41 ot GEORGE MILLER EAS' (925)646-5710 CONCORD 94 520 9:30a 3:30p .NTWTF_ ja f a a 1 # EL i'4ONTE DAY CARE CENTER (925)682-5060 CONCORD 94516 6:45a 6: 30p �MTWT '. CHILDREN'S DISCOVERY CZNT(925) 27--9939 COOC€ RD 94520 6:300 6: 30p MTWTF. r t joA- AYERS DAY CARE CEKTxR (925)671-.4922 CONCORD 9452' 7 :00a 6:00p MTWTF. JA Orki I " a k : OUR PLACE-SUN TERRACE (92s) t7-1344 CONCORD 945213 390 5:00P MTWTF. C a CALVARY T+gE,�yyY PPE CHRISTIAN m(9255)a 6: 00p ss��'��vvst�s8 -9872 CONCORD 94520 Cq , JIA- d 39 aCq ; e� 0 SONSHINE SCIDS CHRISTIAN (9.25) 7-2724 CowcORD 94518 6:30a 6: 00p knnw. jjrz TOTAL P_ Sent by: STEP AHEAU E.LAKNING UO/ 3 tar" 'juu Lorna E. Merrell 120]-sigh Eagle Road Alamo, CA 94597 929-314-0444 .liaise- 16 1999 IC Caaaiciamillaa. elliiir Board of Supervisors C%c)Clerh of the Board (,51 Pine Street 11viaartane/- Cit 94553 Oc<ar Mr. Caanciianaillaa. .:€€ st riti€: dais setter to express Illy support fflr the Step Ahead 11 &%caam cculcr There is a high deinaaaul lilt qu alitr d<ayc{arc; in *he Mast B3 ivy When ally children were tirst born<a fety yeaars<ago. the search for claaaality cfil.\c;ari teas both disappointing and frustrating. Many of the faacilitics we looked at tyercaa't t.lae cttaality we %v asated for ow children, and the fazcilitic;s we liked. were either not in as c:onvenicaat location,or were full and had long waiting list.S. As you can imagine. t4hc a you have to return to work r fter M'<atcrnit_y ieme. there isn't 111.13ch time im tNaaiting lists. Mt husbaaud and 1 tare both emploved in Walnut Creck and arc wry phased to by using Step Alic;ad for bolli cit c zar s c OUgste.-s. 'l'lae ncw site platincd fear ttic SEc:p Ah-id ll on M ayliew is both convenicaat and safe Please keep In €itwd tOwn considering this case. that as daaycaarc center is a Nyondcrful place that is Rall of fife. young energy. hnipp, slairits aand responsible teaachers aand paerents. The Stcp ,clic lad II d<aycai'c facility will not by<a prcablcaai t:ir the neighborhood. but aaa; cnhaancetment. ti;€accacit. l.CSB fl:i l:. I�,�tC'ri'Cll sent oy: SIEF AHtAU Lt.AhN1NcxG7°J' Jc'GJ� Uv0 tl i7/ �� Z7. t Wrvw =j: jw r v y to I o: Contra Costa Board of Supervisors 65! fine Street Martinez.,CA 94:153 Dale: Jute 15, 1999 RF: June 22, 1999 Meeting Step Ahead 11 Daycare Center I am a 25 year resident of Contra Costa County and have worked in Concord for The last 10 years. I currently have 2 children in Step Ahead Learning C'e'nter ore Las Juntas Way. Indra Senguptea and her staff~provide the highest duality of childcare in a caring environment at Step Ahead Learning Cent:. I request that the Board oi'Supervisors approve the placement of the Step Ahead 11 Daycare Center at 411 Mayhew Street. This item is under consideration at your June 22, 1999►nesting. -tfaere:is a dire need for quality childcare ir, Contra.Costa County. I am a working parent oft preschool children and have experienced the effect of a lack of quality childcare in this county, In November 1991,than Pleasant Hill licensed daycare facility that r7ay 10Nrnottth-oId infant and 2 year old toddler attended declared hankruptcy. This facility carer) for;approximately 60 children(twelve of these children were infants/toddlers under the age of 2). Parents were given a 3-week notification that they had to snake other childcare arrangements due to the closure. At the time(anti the representative from the Child Care Council can confirm whether this condition still exists)there was not 12 or ever 6 openings in the other local licensed daycare facilities to accommodate the displaced infaants ll'onra the closed facility. Of all the Central Corina Costa facilities that I contacted at the tante, I found only 3 openings. 2 were at Indra's Step Ahead Learning Center and one was at a center in Pleasant Hill. I was able to take one of the Step Ahead Learning center slots because it happened to be the Veteran's Day holiday and most of the affected parents did not realize Haat Stets Ahead was open on that particular holiday. tris experience taught the that one of the; worst fears of a working parent in this county is to lose your daycare. For infants and toddlers,you usually have at least a 6-month waiting list at a licensed daycare facility. Il'you have additional restrictions of trying to place ars older child tat the sarne facility, your choices become more Nnited and your waiting;time longer. At thea May 11, 1999 Planning Commission meeting,many of those opposed to placement of the daycare center at I 1 I Mayhew cited traffic concerns as the primary reason for the opposition.1'Lstirnony at theearlier hearing indicated that traffic at this intersection has been a longstanding issue;. I believe that this daycare facility will not ,nificantly increaase the high volume of traffic that already passes through the Bancroli 1 Mayhew intersection. It is relevant to note that the previous daycare center that I used was at the edge of'a residential neighborhood in Pleasant Hill. Tine daycare facility and all of the parents were very conscious of the fact that our traffic patterns affected the neighborhood. We were mindful of this and did our best to minimize any daycare-derived through tr=affic in the a;e ightx)rhood. 11 is imperative that as elected officials,the Board of Supervisors do all that it can to ensure the availability of quality LICENSED 1Jvaycare facilities for working parents in our county. I strongly encourage this hoard to approve: the expansion of Step Ahead Learning Center. . t. k.aThy Heath 26 19 Menorca Court S..n Ramon,CA 94583 CC: ',-"Indra Seng:rpta John Gioia Gavle t Eilkema Donna Gerber Mark DeSaulnier Joe Canciamilla Sent by: S€Et' AHLAU LtAhN!NU U2OV4JeeOO vv; tvlwll) -r-r..a y� k(ff/ ,I y June 15._ 1999F. 1 L t Mr. Joe Canciamilla, Chair VIA FAX 925-427-&112 Board of Supervisors c/o Clerk of the Board 651 Pine Street Martine, CA 94533 Dear Mr. Canciatnilla: I a#;i writing this letter to express to you my support of the proposed step Ahead InfantfToddler Care Facility at 411 -Mayhew in "Walnut Creek My.husband, myself. and our then 2 year old son Nicholas moved to Pleasant Hill in April, 1397 t interviewed and/or toured approximately 12 daycare facilities in the local area. The only facility that met our expectations was step Ahead. We have never regretted our decision to place Nicholas at step Ahead. Indra sengupta runs a first rate center and always puts the needs of the children at the forefront of any business de vision she makes. Her desire to open a much needed infant/toddler center reinforces my belief that she truly cares about the level of care available to the children in our community. She handles the day to day operations of Step Ahead in a professional and diplomatic way that is unmatched by any other facility in our area. The residents in the nearby area of 411 Mayhew would be fortunate to have a school the caliber of Step Ahead in their near vicinity € would like to also comment on the level of trust that I have in both; Indra and her teachers My childs happiness and safety are the most important priorities in my life. I am t'ortunate that 1 am able to work a short work day at ;ray job and have been able to spend more time with my son than most working parents. I go to work each clay knowing that my son is safe and nurtured in his environment at Step Ahead. His behavior as well as social and academic skills have thrived under the balance of his attendance at Step Ahead and time at home with his parents. It is a true partnership and we work together through rough spots that my son may be experiencing dither at home or at school. For the majority families in the Bay Area; two incomes are necessary in order to survive the high cost of living I can honestly say that, even if I dick not work; I would stili enroll my child in Step Ahead. My sora would be devastated is he did not get to attend his school and i appreciates and respect the gifted teachers that are preparing i .y son for elementary school Please do not think that my absence at the meeting on June 22 weans that I arra any less committed to the successful opening of Step Ahead ll,. I arra currently halfway through a nigh risk pregnancy and. per doctors orders, spend the majority of my day lying down. it is my sincere hope that the baby I am carrying will attend Step Ahead II and know the same level of care that his/her big brother has received I would be happy to discuss this issue with you further and encourage you to contact the at the phone number below. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerelv. Sally Graham 8112 Morningside Way Pleasant Hill. CA 94523 925-691-1772 Sent by: STEP AHEAD LEARNING 9259432235 U6/I //!J,9 I U:z JAM JOU 40a rade ,ut i i Kathi Hamilton 825 Oak Grove Rd 451 Concord,Ca. 94518 025)682-5573; lune ib. 1999 .lav Canciatnilla 315 E Leland Rd Pittsburg,CA. 94565 Bear Sir: € have been a Concord resident for twenty-eight years. I an:a single parent, it teacher but more important, I Lara a mother first. As a Resident, i vote in Concord, pay attention to campaign promises,vote according;iy and then watch to see what promises were real and what promises were just dangling carrots. 4s a single parent, I am raising my child aione, which forced me back into the work farce. I3efiore my divorce, € was a stay at home smother,although, for social development, I sent my daughter to preschool half days. When I became a teacher, I becatatc an advocate for children. As a teacher, I have studied child development continuously for eight years while working. As a mother, my daughter has always been my first priority, making;sure alae decisions I make on her behalf, are the best within my circle of knowledge Combining;all the hats I wear, the common thread is children. Children are our fixture. We bring therm into this world with a "read between the lines" responsibility ofcarirtg for and nurturing them until they are of legal age. That is at €cast how I brought my child into this world. f ant a teacher at Step Ahead Learning;Center. I stay there because out of all the centers I have had the opportuctity to work, it is the one center that notonly puts the care and needs of,the children first but,the care and needs of site teachers as well. I have a health plan, a dental plan and a retirement plan, keeping;in mind I am single woman raising nay daughter alone, therefore I need to plan for our fixture. Working for Step Alread Learning Center allows rate the l arnfo,t,of knowing I am able to care for hath my self and my daughter. We are not just a day care center ire area Preschool We teachers have gone to college and continue to do so i;= order to provide for the children, to the best of our ability, the tools they meed to grow and develop. I do not know if you trusted the care of your children to preschool teachers but it is a huge resopnsibility front both the teachers and the parent perspectives and I thank God, each day, that my daughter had trustworthy and caring,teachers. They gave her a beginning, a foundation by which she was allowed to develop into the young lady she is now. Parents do not hap hacardly chose a center to leave their children. A conscientious parent visits many. asks questions, and makes a decision based on their findings. ( €lave been involved, in this "fight" for the right to further the opportunity for our children to attend a duality school at tete proposed ;'Mayhew Site, since the beginning;. I believe just about everyone who spoke that hast tints had children, children who were givers every chance at the hest of their parents ability to provide a caring;and nurturing setting, to grow and develop. They would be fighting with equal fervor in support ofthe proposed center, had their children been still young and in the nest, but for a:aost of them their children are not around as much any more and they have last their vision of making this community of people. parents and educators alike, the best place to raise our children. The future belongs to theist, and we own thetas that. Sent by: STEP AHEAD [.EARNING 925943223b Ub/1 I/ }U:e4AM U00 403 rage i s 1 s Fiic vision should not stop when our chi.dren are no tomer dependent on our care. It should continue fir our children and their children and so on. i he day 1 spoke at the hearing it was to the audience ofthe opposers. They laughed at ane and ethers to embarrass and harass, 1 have twenty-four three year olds who have better manners. These opposers can beat round the bush about traffic and safety problems but traffic happens whether you build gas stations,shopping centers, apartments or schools. The people behind the wheel will make or break a traffic problem. You can get fait pulling,out of your driveway, with just one care in sight. Vhe bottoms lime is they do not wart "joyful noise" in their neighborhood Boni 6:30 in the morning to ti at night, even though most of there work. They don't want to take a chance on being partially responsible,that because they remembered what is was like when their children were young and because they buy into the belief that as a community. We are all responsible for the future of the children. As a teacher it is my dream to make a difference in the lives of your children and their children. 1 urge you to male it your dream as well and vote in favor of the proposed site on Mayhew. Read between the lines of the opponent,; ..put children first. Thank you f2sr your time and consideration. Sincerely, P r� �'��2`, -��' ���`7th if�''�•� Kathi l4arniltoss NY. -10' 99tIkN) 15:0 P. 002 Riad Kattuah, PE 1051Beach Tar!! Blvd, Unit 210 Faster pcit y, CA404.34t54 TeL 1-650-571-8684 10 May 1999 lirv'aluat(on of traffic circulation at 411 Mayhew Way,Walnut Creek Application for Land Use Permit—county file# LP982063 1 have been requested by Asok & Indra Sengupta, to evaluate the proposed traffic circulation in heir proposed child care center at 411 Mayhew Way in Walnut geek. I am a registered civil engineer in the Mate of California, license number C 17601, with 33 years of experience mostly in the design and management of general civil and publio works projects. My traffic engineering experience Is inherent to the civil works where traffic was a consideration. I reviewed the following documents for this evaluation. 1. Pleas prepared by M. Naraghi, Architect, dated 09l08t99 with the last revision dated 04/20/99. 2. Traffic Operations Analysis dated December 3, 1998, by TJKM Transportation consultants. 3. Fax Transmittal dated 2/10/99 from Paul R. Detgons, Public Works Department, to Asok Sengupta, M. Naraghi, and Aruna Bhat. 4. Report dated Mar-^h8, 1999 by Community Development. 5. Memorandum dated March 6, 1999 from Bob Brake, principal Planner, to Aruna 8 gat, Senior planner. The application was recommended for approval by the Community Development staff, subject to cartain conditions (item 4 above). However, it was denied by the Zoning Administrator for reasons explained in item S. Following are_tttyndgpondent oaervat1ons on these Issues: Tandem Parking Spaces. The tandem parking arrangement is not likely to cause any special inconvenience. The day care center staff will use the inside stalls for long term parking, while the parents will use the shorter term parking on the outside stalls to drop off and pick up children. Maneuvering. I have checked the parking ares for maneuverability using AASHTO standards and they satisfy its requirements. Vehicles will be maneuvered one at a time and there is ample space for this without interfering with the Mayhew Way traffic. S of 2 K,4 Y. -10'` 99 00N.) 1 5:02 P. 005 Health, Safety, and General Welfare. I do not see any evidence that the project may be detrimental to health, safety, and general welfare. Iruck trMlc from Bancroft to Mayhew Bir. Sengupta also asked me to investigate if there are any potential issues with large volumes of tacks from southbound Bancroft turning right an Mayhew Way. An Independent traffic count was wade on Wednesday, May 5, 1999 during the morning rush 'hoar between 7<30 and 8:30 AIRY and between 4<30 and 520 PM during the evening rush hour. Only one semi and one tree service truck were observed to have turned right onto Mayhew from Bancroft in the morning. No trucks turned from either street to the other In the afternoon, The existing turn is sharp and the project does not alter- the angle between the two roads. In fact proposed changes to the intersectlon Improve the situation. Aiad Kattuah, PE 2012 GAIL MURRAY 3535 CASSENA DRWE WALNT UT CREEK, CA 94598 (925) 937-0841 FAX: (925)9372261 E-MAIL: CrainGai[2@aol.com May 8, 1999 Contra Costa County Planning Com fission Community Development Department 651 pine Street,North Wing, 4h Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I am writing to urge your approval of the application by Step Ahead Learriing Center for an additional child care facility near the Pleasant Dill BART station. An opportunity for child care near a transit center should be enthusiastically embraced to help the County meet child care needs that all levels of government have identified as critical. In the 1980s I was a member of the Pleasant ill BART Steering Committee, representing the City of Walnut Creek. In the Specific flan, the County made a conscious effort to change the area from low-density residential to planning designations that would attract offices and mixed use. Throughout our discussions, child care was incorporated as an essential support service to make the plan viable. By definition, child care will require a change in existing residential uses. This change is completely in keeping with the goals adopted by the County for the BART station area. I have recently been involved in Contra.Costa County's Welfare-to-Work Transportation Action Plan. This study documented the barriers faced by women returning to work who must first travel to child care centers, often on lengthy bus trips, to drop their children.off' Child care near a transit site was identified as a key solution to assist welfare mothers in achieving self-sufficiency. Since this solution is dependent on the private sector's willingness to locate sites near public transit, the planning Commission should welcome Step Ahead as a partner in helping to meet the County's social service mission. The decision to change the Pleasant Dill BART station area from low-density residential was made years ago by the County. Therefore, the decision before the Planning Commission is haw to fulfill the goals of the adopted plan and of the County's larger mandate to meet the critical needs of all its citizens. Step Ahead's application can be approved with conditions to meet the neighborhood's concern while still making the project feasible for the applicant. I urge you to approve this application. Sincerely, 1250 Mountbatten Court Ma l0 1999 �` 3 Concord,California 94518 <. Y , _ d To:Contra Costa County Planning Commission r 651 Pine Street ~' d � Martinez. CA 94553-0095 From: Rob Andrews , Chair,Colony Park Neighbors Association(CPNA) 1280 Mountbatten Dr. Concord,CA 94518 Subject: County fie#LP982063 Day Care Center at 411 Mayhew Dr. Dear Commissioners On March 8, 1999,the County Zoning Administrator denied the project for failure to meet three of the required seven findings. 1.The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general'%relf`ase of the county 3.The proposed project will not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the county 5.The proposed project will not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community The staff report states, "There is also insufficient space can site to allow for necessary maneuvering without resulting in hazardous back-up maneuvering onto Mayhew Way." The corner of Bancroft ltd. and Mayhew Way is a high-speed comer where drivers can safely tum onto Mayhew from N.bound Bancroft;at 20mph. The light industrial area bordered by Mayhew and 1-lookston generates a significant amount of truck traffic. Ashby lumber appears to receive the bulk of its deliveries during and after the a.m, peak hours in addition to their own delivery(egress)of product.'There are numerous businesses in the vicinity that also generate truck traffic with shipping and receiving. Staff recommends that a 20'radius curb for the Bancroft-Mayhew corner as a condition of approval with the option of 30'radius,which would facilitate truck turns with minimal encroachment to oncoming traffic. 1t is important to note that 30'radii corners are common in this residential area. We would hope that any alteration of this coater would include the 30'radius. The recommended mitigation measure is a lefb turn pocket from Mayhew onto Bancroft ltd. This will require elimination of on street parking on both sides of Mayhew. 'The report states: " Staff`has contacted Rafat ltaie,the City's (walnut Creek)Traffic Engineer, and determined that the City will not allow parking to be removed without community consensus." We understand that with the exception of the applicant, no one is willing to eliminate their on street parking. This addresses the Walnut Creek side of Mayhew Way. Contrary to staffs report,the project is within the SOI of Concord. We have verified this with LAFCO. We assume that elimination of on street parking on the Concord side of Mayhew would require a separate application with the City of Concord. Condition,of approval#5, page 3, addresses on site parking. The application shows 9 stalls 8 of which are tandem. Staff requires the removal of stall#5 from the driveway loop. 'There does not appear to be room to relocate this space. Temporary and a handicapper) stall totals 5. This leaves 3 stalls(or 4 if stall#5 car..be relocated)for employee parking. The project requires 7 employees. The project is underparked. Condition##8 calls for 24"boxed planters to be provided along the front of the building. "There does not appear to be room to meet this condition. At our April Board of Directors meeting the CPNA voted to oppose this application for the reasons stated above. We support day care and are aware of 1-8, and 9-14 in home day care facilities in our area. Neighborhoods are able to absorb these facilities,as the scale is reasonable. Childcare centers however, present far greater impacts as evidenced by this project. While there is no ordinance to prohibit these large facilities in residential zoned areas,we question their appropriateness. All of us are aware of the need for day care, we are not aware that it is a crisis situation that might warrant a multidimensional set of variances and relaxing of standards. Perhaps a better location for a facility of this size is at the Pleasant Bill BART station as mitigation for development. Sincerely Rob Andrews Clsair CPNA May 11, 1999 TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C.C.C. BOARD OF APPEALS THIS LETTER IS REGARDING COUNTY FILE #LP982063 AT 411 MAYHEW WAY. I All CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF ON STREET PARKING. NOTED ON PACE S-3 IX #13 SIS PLT . THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED 9 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES, ONE BEING DESIGNATED HANDICAPPED USE WITH A NEED FOR ONLY 7. THESE NUMBERS LSO NOT CORRESPOND WITH THE REAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES NEEDED TO STAFF A 60 CHILD DAY CARE. THEIR CHART INDICATES A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF TEACHERS AT SEVEN. THIS DOES NOT COINCIDE WITH THE RATIO OF EMPLOYEES TO CHILDREN AT THEIR CURRENT FACILITY. THESE ARE THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF OFF STREET EMPLOYEE PARKING SPACES NEEDED AT THE PROPOSED SITE. 12 INFANTS=4 EMPLOYEES 43 TWO + YEARS=7 EMPLOYEES CIIIECTOR = 1 EIIPI3°YEE TOTAL #= 12 EMPLOYEES I ACHIEVED THESE FIGURES BY ASKING THE DIRECTOR AT "A STEP AHEAD" THEIR RATIO FOR TEACHERS TO INFANTS AND 2+ YEARS. THEIR RESPONSE WAS AS FOLLOWS" INFANTS 4-1 , 2+YEARS 6-1 RATIO" FURTHERMORE, I ALSO CALLED 7 OTHER DAY CAFE CENTERS THESE ARE THESE ARE THE FIGURES THEY PROVIDED ME . SONSHINE KIDS CHRISTIAN RATIO= 5.96-1 925-827-2724 6 INFANTS=2 EMPLOYEES 79 TWO + YEARS=12 EMPLOYEES DIRECTOR = 1 EMPLOYEE TOTAL #= 15 EMPLOYEES FIRST STEW LEARNING CENTER RATIO=5.3 -1 925256-7294 32 INFANTS=--6 EMPLOYEES 92 TWO + YEARS =14 EMPLOYEES DARE OR = 1 EMPLOYEE TOTAL #=23 EMPLOYEES TWINKLE STAN INFANT RATI0=3.66-1 925-947-2952 22 INFANTS=5 EMPLOYEES DIRECTOR= 1 EMPLOYEE TOTAL #=6 EMPLOYEES ABC CLUB DAY CARE NATIO=5.83-1 925-587-4922 5 TWO+ YEARS=5 EMPLOYEES 121RECTOFI= 1 EMPLOYEE TOTAL #=S EMPLOYEES BABY STEWS RATIO=2.54-1 925.258-9529 24 INFANTS=7 EMPLOYEES TOTAL #= 8 EMPLOYEES BIANCHI SCHOOLS RATIO=7.57-1 925-943-5777 53 TWO + YEARS EMPLOYEES DIRECIQB -= f EMPLQYEE TOTAL#= 7 EMPLOYEES CLAYTON CHILDREN'S CENTER PATIO=5.17-1 145 TWO + °YEARS=27 EMPLOYEE C IRE T P = `I EMPLOYEE TOTAL#= 28 EMPLOYEES IF APPROVED, THE DAY CARE WILL TAKE UP AT LEAST 4 ON STREET PARKING SPACES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR EMPLOYEE PARKING. THIS WILL DIMINISH THE PROPERTY VALUES AND INCONVENIENCE THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. BY CREATING A GRID LOCK ON MAYHEW WAY AND SURROUNDING STREETS. IN ADDITION, THE NEARBY ON STREET PARKING FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS S AND THEIR GUESTS WOULD BE DIMINISHED GREATLY IF THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION JAMES ANIS BARBARA BRAY 446 MAYHEW WAY W. C. 94598 925-935-2374 Sent By: RICHMOND EIRE DEPT, bit) 3Ut bU4b; may- i -tea 3 e-;.atirm F ;e- GERALD 0. PANT C) 1925 St Louis Drive Concord, CA 94518 jbpando@hotcoco.infi.net Ph- 510 756 6360 May 10, 1999 VIA FAX: 925 335 1222 Dennis M, Barry, ACIP Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Subj: Land Use Permit (LP962063) Dear Mr. Barry, I ars in receipt of the Contra Costa Land Use Permit Notice for the Sengupta Large Family Day Care Permit for up to SIXTY (60) children at#411 Mayhew Way, Parcel 146-300 005. This would allow a commercial activity with SIXTY (60) children in a LCD's DENSITY residentially zoned Single Family neighborhood. I find the application to be of no benefit to the neighborhood and hereby denial of the application at the May 11, 1999 public hearing! For the record, 1 would like to provide notice that the property has traditionally been used as a Single Family residence. The is now requesting a change in the zoning to allow SIXTY (60) children, without consideration on the impacts on the Single Family nature of the quiet neighborhood. The issues regarding increased density and further development of the Colony Parr neighborhood have been raised in the past. When the City of Concord considered extending Bancroft Drive to Monument Boulevard, Colony Park residents expressed their concerns about increased traffic. Allowing a SIXTY (60) children daycare would increase the use of Bancroft Drive and increase traffic in the area and therefore, I request a full traffic study be completed to determine the impact on the neighborhood and surrounding area. Thankfully, my property is not adjacent to #411 Mayhew way but as a neighbor, I feel I have the responsibility to stand with my neighbors to pretest the lack of ivacy and increased noise level SIXTY (60) children will present. is lacy of orivacv and increased noise Will mean loss of 12rogerty values for all dim c�t�t orooertBrs, solei for the monetary benefit of the owner! Sent By: RICHMOND FIRE DEPT; 510 307 8048; rage �f� This neighborhood was developed and is for single families and is located in moderately priced neighborhood where family members are at home during the daytime with an infant, sick child or having a day-off during the week. Often trines the primary wage earner may work evenings or nights to earn a living and rest be a day sleeper, SIXTY (60) children would preclude a resident and his family who works at night from sleeping or otherwise enjoying the quiet morning hours. This lack of ouiet will mean loss of use and en'o vent for adiacent pL2perty owners, sole!y for the n2prgtarybenefit of the owner. I purchased my property with the intent of it being my retirement home and tyre are other residents in the area who are retired. Issuance of a day care permit for SIXTY (60) children would detract from enjoyment of the property, sow for the monetary benefit of the owner who proposes to operate a bus iness from a residence in a LOW DENSITY Single Family residence) There are many reasons NOT to allow a large family daycare home for up to SIXTY (60) children at #411 Mayhew Way, a general plan designed LOW DENSITY single family residential development. Even the terminology of a Large Family Daycare in a single family residential development is contradictory} By copy of this letter, I am advising my adjacent property owners of the threat this application pisses to our privacy, loss of peau; and quiet and property values. I art alerting them this application is soler for the benefit of the owner 2f#411 Mayhew Way, possibly in direct conflict with their interests and requesting they attend and make their feelings heard at any hearing held on the matter. I appreciate the opportunity to have a voice in this matter and look forward to the opportunity to address the Contra Costa County Manning Commission Zoning Review Board. I would appreciate notice of any future hearing on this matter. Sincerely, Gerald 0. undo Copy: Colony Park Homeowners Association All property Owners adjacent to ##411 Mayhew Way, Walnut Creek,, CA May 10, 1999 TO: Contra Costa County Planning Commission SUBJECT: Traffic Plow, Intersection of Bancroft and Mayhew .Appeal Hearing, band Use Permit, Corner Bancroft and Mayhew Dear Honorable Commission Members: On Friday May 7 and Monday May 10 I conducted my own hand-count of vehicles passing through the intersection mentioned above. This hand count was conducted daring the time frame of 4:50 PIM to 5:50 PM. Please be informed that the traffic count was definitely higher at 5:50 PM than at 4:50 PM, so these figures are conservative to say the least. From my count I found that: 1. Approximately 1,954 separate vehicles pass through this "T"type intersection during this hour. This number equates to I vehicle every 1.84 seconds. 2. 527 vehicles proceeded south bound on Bancroft through this intersection during this one hour period.. 3. 416 vehicles proceeded north hound.on Bancroft through this intersection during this one hour period. 4. 573 vehicles east bound on Mayhew turned right onto Bancroft. 5. 91 vehicles east bound on Mayhew turned left onto Bancroft. 6. 241 vehicles traveling north bound on Bancroft made a left turn onto west bound Mayhew. 7. 106 vehicles traveling south bound on Bancroft made a right tura onto west bound Mayhew. Mayhew is a narrow two lane road. During this period oftirne 1,011 separate vehicles passed on Mayhew in one direction or another, or about I vehicle every 3.56 seconds. I would assume that many of the vehicles traveling east bound on Mayhew carne from BART patrons. What effect would an additional 65 cars passing on this roadway have? My own opinion is that these 65 vehicles picking up children each evening would equate to much more than just adding a certain number of vehicles to the count. These additional vehicles will be slowing, turning into a parking area that may be crowded, thea reentering a roadway slowly, not up to speed. I would suggest to you Commission Members that the actual effect on traffic will be at least double this 65 count. Taking into account the number of these 65 vehicles during this one hour period that arrive during,this time,the effect of slowing to park and speeding up to reenter, I think it logical to assume that there would be a minimum of a 5%+ increase in traffic during this period of time if you were to approve this appeal. I would further suggest that you inquire of your County staff, or any traffic survey staff, how a 5% increase in traffic flow would erect any area. In this particular intersection, a"T"type intersection, controlled by only l stop sign, the results I believe would be greatly enhanced over any other type of controlled intersection. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that any hand count was as true and accurate as possible. I thank you for the ability to present this information to you. Fours very truly, NEC el Alexander 1233 St Louis Drive Concord, C.A.94518 Gene DeMar 1313 Cragg Lane Concord, CA 94518 May 11, 1999 To: Contra Costa Planning Commission Item: ASOK & INDRA SpNGUPTA (Appellants &Owners) , County Pile #LP982063. Please find the following attached: 1. Drawing showing the on-street parking as it alight look when Mayhew is 40 feet wide with the centerline stripe at the center. People park along the street now, but the pavement is only 32 feet wide. The concensus in the neighborhood is that this parking should be retained. A left-turn lane would require removing an undetermined number of parking spaces depending on the striping details. 2. Drawing showing the proposed project with the 10-foot property line setback and the additional 4-foot landscape setback. Please note that spaces 5, 6, and 7 encroach into the landscape area and that space 5 even encroaches into the public 10-foot setback area. The appellants have been asked to move space 5 to a location near the building entrance. This has not been clone because it would probably make internal circulation worse. 3. Copy of Assessor's Map Book 143 Page 14. This map shows that 20-foot radius right-of-way corners are the norm in this neighborhood. Most of these right-of-way corners result in a 30-foot radius at the face of curb. The right turn from Bancroft to Mayhew is the most difficult in the neighborhood, being less than 90 degrees (55 degrees). Why would this corner be designed to a lower standard? Truck traffic will remain part of the mix in this neighborhood, this corner should be designed with that in mind. The 30-foot radius will make it easier for trucks to make a safe turn at this corner. `'ours truly, if f L i l a a ! t tiE ti 1 , 3 6 �._. . . � d ��o r,aa•b, r� aa,+i� � •,w '� '� �'~Y "/7J � u. irb 7 S+. �.A %��°i,J b `S •? 15 N!5 55 b o� b ear co rr8 'o aq� O a$ ae.4 N o i S N A rk *` S � 7` OY � • . W W YJ by 4✓ �e °gyp 2 lJ,y,•3d 2'� ^� ,d � °- b$.8'�` g;s Lf L \.✓ a .,p 'S •w, 4 1.w a '0 1 t � vs. a^ `? `e`Y. 699j .y•°.. S "+' cry s �:.� '�sr s'7 :V Eo' Nr yo. vb � '✓: ,p ��y�� D� �,2 X o N � * 64.1! t �x}*, c•a^ r � � ,w a E6 .,�; r. b' .. Eg 64• 'S+u � �� `n `....' ` �� 9 N y �� '�iQ��`�ne., 4. m a Cf W m .*? N JJ.r Yss d74y k 84 i' r•`} w •,. l,.,a. w two �, w �•+, \.�.f 3\..�,J to r� �t 0 .'a.",• �$,, c, qa -b.`, v ° .� 1 •1e'Y4a �6N CG at m / wyw m a E �, Ayres Q S tl S 4�° v $�,�.e /rG. i• �.; Nd.as t ..a.'.l" C\V �`"G a w`. NA � p� 00,/ �Ip* IPA 'Y,�� s u o 0 Environmental Cheekllst Form 1. Project Title: County File#LP982063 -Proposed day care 2. Lead.Agency Name and Address:Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,4th.Floor,North ding Martinez,CA 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Aruna Bhat(925)335-1219 4. Project Location:411 Mayhew Way-northwest corner of Bancroft and Mayhew in the unincorporated Walnut Creek area of the County. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Indra Sengupta 1338 Las Juntas Way Walnut Creek,CA 94596 6. General Plan Designation: Multiple Family Residential-medium density 7. Zoning: R-15 8. Description of Project: Asok and Indra Senuupta Applicants and Owners)County File 4LP982063_: The applicants are requesting a land use permit to convert an existing 2,049 square feet single family residence to a 3,950 square feet day care with a maximum of 65 children. Variances are requested for an 8' setback from the proposed Bancroft Way dedication(where 15'is required),to eliminate the 4' landscape strip along the off street parking spaces and to provide tandem parking. The property is addressed 411 Mayhew Way and is located at the north west intersection of Bancroft and Mayhew in the unincorporated Walnut Creek area of the County(148-300-005)(R-15)(CT:3381)(ZA:L-14) 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: predominantly single family residential development 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required(e.g., permits,financing approval,or participation agreement). California State Department ofHealth and Social Services-day care license DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed prosect COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environ.-hent, and a NEGATIVE IECLARATI€ Nveli be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A M`TIGATEI?NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 2 — I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as describes)on attached sheets,if the effect is a"potentially significant impact" or"potentially significant unless mitigated." An EN\( ON'TvIENa`AL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially si&m1ficant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Elft., including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. JJ S gn ture Bate Aruna Bhat Printed Name For EVALUATION OF ENVIR®NME-NiTAL IMPACTS: SOURCES In the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation, the following references (which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Dine Street 5th Floor-North Wing,'_Martinez)were consulted: I. Contra Costa Resource Mapping System-Quad Sheet Panel Walnut Creek,CA 2. The(Reconsolidated)County General Plan(July 1996)and EIR on the General Plan(January 1991) 1 Field review November 1998 4. Traffic analysis prepared by TJKM for the proposed day care dated December 4, 1998. 5. County zoning ordinance Potentially Sip sficant P�mtially Ulless Less than Significant Nfitigation sig icant No In2pan2morati hmad I=3act 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general Plan designation � — _X_ 01 zoning? b. Conflict with applicable environmental — x — plans or policies adopted by agencies 3 with jurisdiction over the project? C' Be incompatible with existing lard use in the vicinity? _ – d. Affect agricultural resources or operations(e.g.,impacts to soils or – farmlands,or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement — — x of an established community(including a – _ low-income or minority community)? SUMMARY: The proposed day care use is consistent with the general plan, zoning and con dpatible with surrounding development. California State Department of Health and Social Services requires a minimum of 75 square feet of outdoor space per child. A minimum of 4,875 square feet of outdoor space is required for 65 children. As conditions of approval,a portion of the property along Bancroft and Mayhew will be required to be dedicated. The applicant may be able to utilize that portion of the property to be dedicated for outdoor play area until the County is ready to go ahead with the road widening project. However,it cannot be counted towards the required outdoor play area for the day care. The proposed total outdoor play area is approximately 4,733 square feet. However, a minimum of 4,875 square feet of outdoor play area is required for 65 children. This reduction in outdoor area is a significant impact.Due to the limited amount of outdoor play area, as a mitigation measure,the maximum children at the day care should be limited to 61 children. Mitigation,Weasure: Due to the limited number of outdoor play area, as a mitigation measure, the applicant will be limited to a maximum of 61 children at the facility. fl. POPULATIO?v AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional _ x_ or local population projects? b. Induce substantial growth in an area — — _X_ either directly or indirectly(e.g.,through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? C. Displace existing housing,especially J — — _X_ affordable housing? SUMMARY: The proposed day care will convert one market rate single family house to a day care and will not displace any affordable housing in the area. 4 111. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a. Fault Rupture? — — — –X– b, Seismic ground shaking? C. Seismic ground failure,including – liquefaction? d. Seiche,tsunami,or volcanic hazard? — — — _x– e. Landslides or mudflows? f Erosion,changes in topography or unstable — — — x– soil conditions ftom excavation,grading,or – – fill? g Subsidence of the land? — — — _x h. Expansive soils? — — — _x– I. Unique geologic or physical features? SUMMARY: The property is not in the Alquist Priolo (earthquake) zone and is subject to low to moderate amount of liquefaction potential and the impact is minimal. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Change in absorption rates,drainage — — — x patterns,or the rate and amount of surface _ runoff`? b. Exposure of people or property to water — –X– related _ — — x_ related hazards such as flooding? C. Discharge into surface water or other — — — x alteration of surface water quality(e.g, temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in — — — –X– any water body? e. Change in currents,or the course or — –X– direction – — — x_ direction of water movements? f. Change in the quantity of ground water, — — — –X– either _either through direct additions or with- drawls,or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g. Altered direction or rate of flow ofground- — — — _x_ water? h. Impacts to groundwater quality? — — — –X— Substantial _Substantial reduction in the amount of x groundwater otherwise available for — — — _ _ public water supplies? 5 SUMMARY: The day care may increase the impervious surface and may change the drainage pattern in the area. However, as a standard condition of approval,the applicant will be rewired to collect and convey all drainage. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or — — — _X_ contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? — — __ _X_ C. Alter air movement,moisture,or — x– temperature or cause any change in climate? d. Create objectionable odors? — — — x_ VI. TRANSPORT ATION/CI CLTLATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increased vehicle trips or traffic — – x_ — — congestion? b. Hazards to safety from design features _x_ _ — (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous inter- sections)or incompatible uses(e.g., farm equipment)? C. Inadequate emergency access or access – d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? _ e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or — — — x_ bicyclists? f Conflicts with adopted policies supporting — _ _x– transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g. hail,waterborne or air traffic impacts? — — x_ SUMMARY: A traffic operations analysis prepared by TJKM dated December 3, 1998 is on file with the Community Development Deparvnent. It states that the proposed day care is expected to generate 55 am peak hour trips and 57 pm peak hour trips.It indicates that Bancroft/Mayhew intersection will continue to operate at LOS C during the pm peak hour with the addition of the project traffic. The report indicates that during the am peals hour, Bancroft/Mayhew intersection may operate at Level of Service F under the existing plus project scenario. This is a significant impact unlessmitigated.Mitigation nneasure requiring restriping eastbound approach of Mayhew to allow for a left turn only lane and a right turn only lane will allow the intersection to operate at bevel of Service 6 B during the pan pear hour. Trois mitigation measure will eliminate the on-street parking on the south side of Mayhew Way.This would require approval of the City of Walnut Creek as the south half of-ayhew is in their jurisdiction. Mitigation Measure: Restripe eastbound approach ofMayhew to allow for a left turn only lane and a right turn only lane, This mitigation measure will require approval of the City of Walnut Creek as the south half of Ifgyhew is in their jurisdiction A total of 9 on-site parking spaces are provided. The parking spaces are provided in tandem. Four of the off- street parking spaces are proposed to be used exclusively for staff parking only. The applicant has informed staff, that on an average the facility would have 6 employees. The remaining five spaces are proposed for parents to drop-off the children. proposed parking space#5 may create circulation conflicts on the property. Relocating parking space#5 to the front of the building will reduce the circulation conflicts Mitigation Measures: The proposed parking space 95 shall be relocated to the front of the building so as not to create circulation conflicts. X11. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result an impacts to: a. Endangered,threatened or rare species or — — x_ their habitats(-Including but not limited to plants,fish,insects, animals,and birds)? b. Locally designated species(e.g.,heritage — — — x_ trees)? C. Locally designated natural communities — — — x_ (e.g.,oak forest,coastal habitat,etc.)? d. Wetland habitat(e.g.,marsh,riparian and — x_ vernal pool)? – e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? — — — x_ VM. EINE'ROY AND NERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation — — — – x_ plans? b. Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful x and inefficient manner? — — — – – c. Result in the loss of availability of a known _ � — x 7 mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? I. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of — — — —X— hazardous substances(including,but not limited to: oil,pesticides,chemicals or radiation)? b. Possible interference with an emergency — — — —X— response _response plan or emergency evacuation plan? C. The creation of any health hazard or — — —x— potential health hazard? d. Exposure of people to existing sources of — — — — x_ potential health hazards? e. increased fire hazard in areas with flammable x brush,grass,or trees? — — — — — X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? — — —X— b. Exposure of people to severe noise — — —X— SUMMARY: —SUMMARY: The property is subject to less than 60 dBA noise level and is within acceptable noise level. The day care operation may result in a larger number of children being outdoors at the same time and may result in a higher noise level than a single family residence. However,not all the children will be outdoors at the same time and the increase is noise level will create a minimal impact. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Woald the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? — — — x_ b. Police protection? — — — —x— c. Schools? d. Maintenance of public facilities, — — — —X— including roads? C. Other governmental services? — — — x_ S XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? — — — _x— b. Communications systems? — — — _x— c. Local or regional water treatment or — — — —X— distribution distribution facilities? — d. Sewer or septic tanks? — — — —X— e. _e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste disposal? — — — — g. Local or regional water supplies? — — — — X1bI. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic _ — —X— effect? C. Create light or glare" — — — —X— SUMMARY: Any exterior lights are required to shine away from adjacent properties and not create glare to motorists driving on Bancroft or Mayhew. XlV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? — — — x_ b. Disturb archaeological resources? — — — _x— C. Affect historical resources? _ _ _ x d. Have the potential to cause a physical — — — —X— change _change which would affect unique cultural values? e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within. the potential impact area? SUMMARY: California Historical Resources Information System indicated in a letter dated October 19, 1998 that, although the property potentially contained archaeological resources,due to the nature of the project, no adverse impacts will be caused and no study was recommended. XV. RECREATION, Would the proposal: 9 a. Increases the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational — facilities? b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? SUNRAARY: 7"he proposed day care will not increase the demand for neighborhood parks or affect existing recreational opportunities in the area. 1"he State Licensing Board for day cares has established a minimum useable space requirement for indoor and outdoor spaces and the clay care is required to comply with that requirement. XVI. V_kNDA'fORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, — substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to elinninate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals? C. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively — considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? to MITIGATION MEASURES: e to the limited number-of outdoor play area, as a mitigation measure, the applicant will be limited to a maximum of 61 children at the facility. Restripe eastbound approach ofMayhew to allow for a left turn only lane and a right turn only lane. This mitigation measure will require approval of the City of Walnut Creek as the south hatfgjIl-ayhew is in their jurisdiction The proposed parking space#5 shall be relocated to the front of the building so as not to create circulation conflicts,