The URL can be used to link to this page

UP 91-20 - Use Permit - Large Family Daycare - 1991CITY OF CAMPBELL 650 ARAM AVE. UP 91-20 1/1 CITY OF CAMPBELf, 650 ARAM AVFWTF UP 91-20 1 %2 -1\ • :OTeny — OZ-16 d[t OMMA mr..IV OS9 � B O , T � � City Council Minutes of July i, 1992 4. Referral re: six month review of a large family day care facility -- 650 - Aram Avenue (Acknowledge/File) This action acknowledges a six-month status review of a large family day care facility at 650 Aram Avenue. Ah a City Council Report ITEM NO.: CATEGORY: Consent Calendar DATE: July 7, 1992 TITLE Referral re: 6-month Review of a large family day care facility at 650 Aram Avenue. NOTE/FILE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following action: NOTE and FILE this report BACKGROUND Previous Anomvai: On October 22, 1992, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit allowing a large day care facility located at 650 Aram Avenue (UP 91-20). The Planning Commission action was appealed to the City Council. The City Coun^il at its meeting of January 7, 1992, upheld the Planning Commission action approving the use permit subject to a six mont; review of the use by th, Planning Commission. The condition of approval for the review was required due to concerns raised by the neighbors regarding noise and adherence to the provisions of the Use Permit. Staff Review: At the appeal hearing, members of the Council suggested that prior to the six month review, staff conduct inspections of the property to verify compliance with the Use Permit. Inspections were conducted by Staff at monthly intervals. On each occasion the property was found to be in compliance with the Use Permit. Prior to the six month review, no complaints were received by the City. NOTICE OF HEARING A courtesy notice of hearing was mailed to the neighbors within the 300 foot radius of the subject property One letter objecting to the Use Permit was received (attached). City Council Report July 7, 1992 6-month Review -- 650 Aram Avenue Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The six month review was conducted by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting of June 9, 1992. No concerns were raised by residents in the area. Information provided by staff confirmed that the use was in compliance with the approved Use Permit. The Planning Commission determined that no violations existed and that further reviews of the use would not he required. ALTERNATIVE 1. Request that the Planning Commission conduct a second review of the use in six months. Attachments: 1. City Council Referral 2. Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 1992 3. Planning Commission Staff Report of June 9, 1992 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2774, adopted on September 10, 1991 5. City Council Resolution No. 8215 6. City Council Minutes of January 7, 1992 7. Correspondence Prepared by: Gloria S,..,Approved by: Steve Robert Ouinlan Planner 1 Planning Dir. City Manager CITY OF CAMPBELL REFERRAL FORM CITY COUNCIL/ADVISORY COMMISSION/STAFF TO City Council FROM Planning Commission INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE OF THIS FORM THIS FORM SHOULD BE UTILIZED WHENEVER A REFERRAL IS MADE FROM ONE ELECTED OR ADVISORY BODY TO THE CITY COUNCIL OR ADVISORY COMMISSION OR CITY MANAGER. THE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THIS FORM SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE INITIATION AT THE TIME THE REFERRAL IS MADE. THE STAFF ADVISOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETING THE FORM FOR REVIEW AND SIGNATURE BY THE MAYOR OR COMMISSION CHAIRMAN. SUBJECF (A SPECIFIC SUMMARY OF THE REFERRAL) Six month review - Use Permit allowing large day care facility at 650 Aram Avenue - The City Council at its regular meeting of January 7, 1992, upheld the Planning Commission action approving Use Permit 91- 20, allowing a large day care facility located at 650 Aram Avenue. Due to concerns expressed by some residents concerning noise, a condition of approval was added requiring a six-month review by the Planning Commission, The Planning Department conducted inspections of the property and found the facility to be in compliance with the provisions of the L se Permit. The Planning Commission conducted a review of the application at its meeting of June 9, 1992, and noted and filed the attached report, ACTION REQL ESTED X_ _ INFORMATION CNNLY _ _ REVIEW AND TAKE RECOMMEND ACTION ACTION COMMENTS (IF NECESSAR)) Should any complaints be received regarding the use in the future, violations will be addressed by the Code Enforcement Officer, as specified in the Campbell Municipal Code. RESI'ONSI BY (BY WHAT DATE THE ACTION SHOULD BE COMPITTEP. IF NO DATE IS SPECIFIED.) No res nse requested. DAll: June , 1992 SIGNATURE M Y OR ADVISO Y MISSI N CHAIRMAN David Fox, Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 9, 1992 page 1 of 2 hys�rttANEOUS 4. UP 91-20 Six month review of a previously approved Use Permit Staff Report of Mrs. Mary Avalos for a large -family day care facility (7-12 children) heated at 650 Aram Avenue, in an R-1- (Single - Family Residential) Zoning District. Chairperson Fox read the application into the record. Planner I, Gloria M. Sciara, presented the staff report noting the following. • A brief history of the application • Staff has conducted several inspections of the property and found it to be c.)mphance with the approved use • 4 courtesy notice %vas mailed to neighl—rs within a 30ut foot radius of the subject properh • Staff recommends that the Commission continue the Use Permit, note and file the report. and send an informational referral to the City Council apprising it of the Commission's action Commissioner Meyer -Kennedy discussed an issue raised at the City Council meeting, suggesting that an additional six-month review he imposed Ms Sciara pointed out that the suggestion was not part of the final motion Chairperson Fox asked about the letter of objection attached to the staff report Ms. Sciara clarified that the author of the letter assumed that the project had not yet been approved, and was requesting denial of the Use Permit Commissioner Dougherty asked alx,ut the letter which indicated that two additional letters were submitted to the Planning lkpartment. Ms. Sciara suggested that perhaps the author had suhmited letters to the Commission prior to its meeting of October 22, 1991 Chairperson Fox asked it att one in the puhhc wished to address this issue• Puhlic Comment. Mr. Wilham Fulk, 041 Stokes Street. San Jose, previously had Opposed the approval of the Use Permit, stated that the Condition of Approval added by the Commission relating to hinaing the numtxr of children to 6 children in the yard at one time, has decreased the noise levels considerably Planning C innnission Minuft'S Of June 9, 1992 i ' Alk A& Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 9, 1992 page 2 of 2 MOTION: On motion cd Commissioner Dougherty, seconded by Commissioner Meyer -Kennedy, it was unanimously ordered that the report be noted and filed, and that an informational referral be transmitted to the City Council. (6-0-1. Commissioner Wilkinson being absent.) ,rr Planning Crnronission Minu1 1992 14 15. Appeal of Planning Commission decision re: day care facility at 650 Aram Avenue -- UP 91-20 (Continued from City Council meeting of December 9, 1991) This is the time and place for a continued public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Use Permit allowing a large day care facility at 650 Aram Avenue. Planning Director Piaseck: - Staff Summary Report dated 1/7/92. The City Council acknowledged a letter, dated December 20, 1991, from William and Cynthia Fulk, 647 Stokes St., San Jose, expressing opposition to this application. The Mayor declared the public hearing opened and asked if anyone In the audience wished to address the City Council. W:,lliam Fulk, 647 Stokes Avenue, addressed the Council relative to installation of a door in order to meet the Fire Code. Mr. Fulk also addressed a petition which was circulated in this neighborhoo; indicating opposition to this permit, and requested clarification regarding social services guidelines. He also discussed an error in notification requirements relative to this application. The Planning Director responded to the individual points raised by Mr. Fulk. Bob Swanson, 3588 Payne Avenue, urged support of this application. M/S: 'Watson/Kotowski - to close the public hearing. Councilmember Watson withdrew her motion to close the public hearing: Councilmember Kotowski seconded the motion. Councilmember Watson questioned if this facility was in fact the residence of the applicant. Mr. Gomez, husband of the applicant, addressed the Council and affirmed that the day care facility was also the home of he and his wife and children, and responded to questions relative to "off-limits" areas for the children. M/S: Watson/Kotowski - to close the public hearing. Motion adopted unanimously. ITEM NO. 4 STAFF REPORT — PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 9, 1"2 UP 91-20 Six-month review of a previously approved Use Permit of Mrs. Staff Report Mary Avalos for a large -family day care facility (7-12 children) located at 650 Aram Avenue, in an R-1 (Single -Family Residential) Zoning District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission take the following actions I. Note and file this report. 2. Forward the attached referral to the City Council confirming that the use is in conformance with the approved Use Permit allowing a large day care facility BACKGROUND On October 22, 1991, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2774, approving UP 91-20 allowing a large day care facility on property located at 650 Aram Avenue. An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was heard by the City Council on December 9, 1991, and was continued to January 7, 1992. At the January 7, 1992, meeting the City Council adopted Resolution No. 8215 upholding the Planning Commission decision approving a Use Permit. A Condition of Approval for the Use Permit inc.uded a six-month review of the use by the Planning Commission. The review is to evaluate whether the noise and associated activity constitute a nuisance and/or require modification of the fencing element to provide additional sound attenuation. DISCUSSION An inter -departmental review indicates that no complaints have been received by City Staff. Staff has monitored the property on several occasions prior to the six-month review, and did not observe any extraordinary activity or noises emanating from the premises. A courtesy Notice of Hearing was mailed to the neighbors %ithin a 300 foot radius of the subject property. One letter of protest was received by the Planning Department and is attached in the staff report. AM Staff Report-- Planning Commission Meeting of June 9, 1992 UP 91-2% — Staff Review — 650 Aram Avenue Page 2 Ana!ysi5. Staff concludes that the use is being conducted in compliance with the Us: Permit, and therefore, recommends that no further reviews be required. Should any complaints be received, the matter would be considered a code violation issue and addressed accordingly by the Code Enforcement Officer, REFER AL TO CM COUNCIL A referral form is attached briefly explaining the conclusion of the six-month review, and that the operation is in conformance with the approved Use Permit and general provisions of the Zoning Ordinance Staff recommends that the referral be forwarded to the City Council, for its information only RECOMM EN DATIQti,IS UMMA RY Routine inspections conducted bN Staff and the lack of complaints received by th _ Citv determines that the use in compliance with the approved Use Permit Staff is recommending that the Commission note and file this report and forward an informational referral to the City Council. _Attachments 1. Referral form to the Gtv c cuncil 2 City Council Resolution No. 8215 3. City Council Minutes of Januar% 7, 1992 4. Location Map 5. Letter of Protest Submitted by: Glo a ara Planner I cc, City Council Approved by Pi P! inning Director RESOLUTION NO. 2774 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING A LARGE DAY CARE FACILITY FOR 12 CHILDREN, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 650 ARAM AVENUE, IN AN R-1-6 (SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT; APPLICATION OF MRS. MARY GOMEZ AVALOS, FILE NO. UP 91-20. After notification and Public Hearing as specified by law on the application of Mrs. Mary Gomez Avalos, allowing large day care facility for 12 children, in an R-1-6 (Single -Family Residential) Zoning District, as per the application filed in the Planning Department on September 10, 1991i and, after presentation by the Planning Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission did find as follows with respect to File No. 91-20: 1. The proposed facility is not located within MO feet of another large day care operation. The proposed use provides a traditional family environment that will safeguard normal residential uses. 3 The proposed day care operation shall be a secondary to the main residential use of the property. 4. While evidence of the noise from the current small day care home was present, the evidence does not substantiate that the noise would unreasonably offend the senses or obstruct the free use of neighboring properties, so as to unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of adjoining properties, taking into consideration the noise normally created by children in that. a) The conditions limit the number of children that may play outdoors to 6; and b) That the home has substantial indoor and outdoor space to help buffer the noise from the neighboring properties. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: Resolution No. 2774 Adopted October 22,1991 by the Planning Commission page 2 1. The est-blishment, maintenance, or operation of the use applied for will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. 2. The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and ether development features required in order to integrate said use with uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed site is adequately served by streets of sufficient capacity to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate 4. The proposed use is compatible with the uses in the area Approval is effective ten days after decision of approval of the Planning Commission, unless an appeal is filed. Further, the applicant is notified as part of this application that he is required to comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinance of the City of Campbell and the State of California which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. And, that this approval is granted subject to the fallowing conditions of approval: USE PERMIT 1. Permitted Use: The approved use consists of a Use Permit to operate a large day care facility located at 650 Aram Avenue. a. Number of children o n the premises: 7-12 b Hours of operation: 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday C. Number of employees: 2- residents to property d. Number of parking spaces: 5 (2 covered, 3 uncovered) 2. Location of yard areas: Outdoor play area shall be limited to the rear yard area. Activity shall be prohibited in the front yard area. Resolution No. 2774 Adopted October 22, 1991 by the Planning Commission page 3 Lumber of Children in Outdoor area: No more than six (6) children shall be allowed in the rear yard at one time during regular business hours. Six month review: A review of the use shall be conducted by the Planning Commission six (6) months from the date of approval. Review of the use shall also include determination of whether the noise and associated activity constitutes a nuisance and/or requires modification to the fence element for sound attenuation purposes. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of October 1991, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Alne, Perrine, Dougherty, Mever-Kennedy NOES: Commissioners: Wilkinson ABSENT: Commissioners: f-hggins, Fox, APPROVED: lane Meyer -Kennedy Chairperson ATTEST: Steve Piasecki Sec etary ITEM NO. 1 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEEi7N„ OF OCTOBER 22,1"1 UP 91.20 Public Hearing to consider the application of Ms. Mary Gomez Avalos, M. Avalos for a Use Permit to allow a large day care facility for 12 children, on property located at 650 Aram Avenue, in an R-1-6 (Single -Family Residential) Zoning District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. ADOPT a Resolution approving the Use Permit allowing a large day care facility on the subject property, subject to the attached find:-igs and conditions of approval. 'This item is Categorically Exempt, therefore no environmental action is required. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Jse Permit to operate a large day care facility (7- 12 children) located in an R-i (Single Family Residential) Zoning District, at 650 Aram Avenue. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed day care facility consists of a 620 square foot basement area in the dwelling and a 1200 square foot rear yard area. The facility will provide for up to 12 children. Day care services will be offered from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Employees consist of the property owner and a relative living on the premises. BACKGROUND The use permit process for a large day care home consists of notification to property owners within a 300 foot radius of the proposed facility. Property owners may request that a public hearing be required. Four letters of opposition were received by the Planning Department; therefore, the public hearing was scheduled before the Planning Commission. (See attached letters.) PROJECT DATA Net Acres: .23 Gross Acres: .35 Building: 3,200 sq. ft. Building Coverage: 32% Landscaping: 44% Parking: Required: 5 Provided: S Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of October 22, 1991 UP 91-20 - 650 Aram Avenue - M. Gomez-Avalos Page 2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Under Section 21.61.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code, a large family day care home shall comply with all regulations and restrictions applicable to the zoning district in which it is located. Development standards include: I. Parking and Loading a. Ordinance Requirements: The ordinance specifies that an acceptable means for drop-off and pick-up, and the location of the home and on -site improvements shall provide reasonable vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Discussion: The proposed facility is located on the northeast corner of Aram Avenue and Whitehall Avenue intersection, and is easily accessed by pedestrian, and vehicular traffic. b. Ordinance Requirements: Facility is required to provide a minimum of 3 parking spaces in addition to 2 spaces required for normal residential use. Discussion: The property contains 3 uncovered parking spaces and 2 covered parking spaces meeting the ordinance requirement. 2 Noise Ordinance Requirements: No maximum decibel level is specified in the Ordinance for large day care operations. The ordinance states that the use should not unreasonably offend the senses or obstruct the free use of neighboring properties. Discussion: Two letters received by the Planning Department indicate that the present noise levels of the small day care facility disturb the adjacent properties. Additional letters express concern regarding potential noise levels. The ordinance states that the Planning Commission may adopt mitigation measures that may include but are not limited to: 1) Approved location of outside play areas, 2) Limiting hours of operation and 3) Provision of sound attenuation barriers. Hours of opera inn indicated by the applicant are 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Monday - Friday) The applicant has indicated that drop off time occur Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of October 2z 1991 UP 91-20 - 650 Aram Avenue - M. Gomez-Avalos Page 3 at approximate''-y half hour intervals. The ages of the children also vary and range from newborn to pre -teens. Activity in the rear yard would not be occupied by all of the children at one time. A reasonable mitigation measure would be to increase the height of the rearyard fence to 8 feet and is included in the conditions of approval. Based on the testimony received at the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission may adopt additional mitigation measures. A list of alternative conditions of approval is attached in the staff report. 3. ;?fate Fire Marshal Ordinance Requirements: The proposal must comply with all rules and regulations adopted by the State Fire Marshal. Discussion: The applicant has received clearance by the Fire Marshal. 4. Overconcentration Ordinance Requirements: The ordinance states that the proposed facility shall not be located within 300 feet of another existing large day care center, unless an acceptance is granted by the Planning Commission. Discussion: There are no day care facilities within 300 feet of the proposed facility. 5. Traditional Family Environment The ordinance states that the proposed use shall safeguard normal residential uses and preserve the integrity of the residential neighborhood. and indicates the following criteria: a. Principle Use Ordinance Requirements: The facility shall be the principle residence of the provider and the use shall be incidental to the use of the property for residential purposes. Discussion: The proposed use is secondary to the main residential use. h. Alteration In accordance with the ordinance, no changes of the existing residence shall take place to establish the facility. Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of October 22, 1991 UP 91-20 - 650 gram Avenu, - M. Gomez-Avalos Page 4 c Residential lntegrity Ordinance Requirements: The use of the home as large day care facility shall not constitute a departure from the integrity of the residential neighborhood. Discussion: The home will be maintained in its current condition. The applicant currently operates a small day care operation (up to 6 children). The only addition is the increase in the number of children at the property. 6. Square Footage Ordinance Requirements: The ordinance states that the home shall provide adequate indoor living space and outdoor open space to meet the needs of the children. Discussion: Department of Social Services has indicated that the property is adequate to accommodate up to 12 children RECOMM ENDATION/SU MMARY The proposal meets the criteria of the Ordinance to allow large day care facilities by the property containing adequate open space, providing a traditional home environment and is served by sufficient street and pedestrian access. Therefore, staff is supportive of the request and recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Use Permit subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval. If noise concerns expressed by the adjacent property owners are sufficient, the Commission could adopt additional mitigation measures outlined in the alterna ' e conditions of approval Prepared by: Gloria Sciara',` Approved by: Steve Pia w Planner I Director of Planning Attachments: 1. Findings 2. Conditions of Approval 3. Alternate Conditions of Approval 4 Location Map 5, Applicant's Statement 6 Exhibits 7. Correspondence CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO UP 91-20 APPLICATION OF MARY AVALOS ADDRESS: 650 ARAM AVENUE PC MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 22, 1991 PAGE The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that she is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California. The lead department with which at the applicant will work is identified on each condition. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply w,th all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified. USE PERMl 1. Permitted use: The approved use consists of a Use Permit to operate a large day care facility located at 650 Aram Avenue. a. Number of children o n the premises: 7-12 b Hours of operation: 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday C. Number of employees: 2 residents to property d. Number of parking spaces: 5 (2 covered, 3 uncovered) 2. Location of yard areas: Outdoor play area shall be limited to the rear yard area. Activity shall be prohibited in the front vard area. 4. Number of Children in Outdoor area: No more than six (6) children shall be allowed in the rear yard at one time during regular business hours. 5. Six month review: A review of the use shall be conducted by the Planning Commission sir (6) months from the date of approval. Review of the use shall also include determination of whether the noise and associated activity constitutes a nuisance and/or requires modification to the fence element for sound attenuation purposes. May 31. 1992 Steve Piasecki City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, Ca. 95008 Dear Mr. Piasecki: I am writing in response to the notice that I receicod, dated May 29. 1992, regarding the 6-month review of the previously approved Use Permit for Ms. Mary Avalos to allow a large family day care, located at 650 Aram Ave. (File No. UP 91-20). 1 live next door to the property and strongl% DISAPPROVE of having a large day care located in the middle of ,i residential area. How would you like to have this large day care center located next door to your home' I can't attend the hearing because I commute to San Francisco for work and have to get up very earls in the morning. I have written two letters to your office regarding this day care center. I purchased a home in this area because of the low traffic flow and quiet neighbors. I am an excellent resident and have put slot of work and money into my home since moving here. I feel haying a large day care located nest door will lower the value of my home. It this day care is approved, I will consider moving out of area. Ms. Mary Avalus recently purchased the property at 650 Aram Ave. and should have consulted the neighbors about opening a large day care before purchasing the property, not after the fact. Sincerely, ov oJT,4.1..1J Frank Lema 2492 Aram Ave. San Jose, Ca. 95128 REGEP`# JUN () �11 RESOLUTION NO. BEING A RESOLUTION OF TI fE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CRY OF CAMPBELL UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USF PERMIT ALLOWING A LARGE DAY CARE FACILITY FOR 12 CHILDREN, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 650 ARAM AVENUE, IN AN R-1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT; APPLICATION 7F MRS. M,,,RY GOMEZ AVALOS, FILE NO. UP 91-20. After notification and Public Hearing as specified by law on the application of Mrs. Mary Gomez Avalos, allowing large day care facility for 12 children, in an R-ifi (Single -Family Residential) Zoning District, as per the application filed in, the Planning Department on September 10, 1991, and, after presentation by the Planning Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the City Council uid find as follows with respect to File No. 91-20' L The proposed facility is not located within 300 feet of another large day care operation The proposed use provides a traditional family environment that will safeguard normal residential uses. 3. The prolx)sed day care operation shall be a secondary to the main residential use of the property. I While evidence of the noise from the current small day care home was present, the evidence does not substantiate that the noise would unreasonably offend the senses or obstruct the free use of neighboring properties, so as to unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of adioming properties, taking into consideration the noise normally created by children in that a) The conditions limit the number of children that may plan outdoors to 6; and b) That the home has substantial indoor and outdoor space to help buffer the noise from the neighboring properties. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Citv Council further finds and concludes that 1. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use applied for will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, pp comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. 2. The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features required in order to integrate said use with uses in the surrounding area. 3. carry kind d quante is nttitytofy �e such use would generatestreets of sufficient apaaty to q '(� proposed use is compatible with the uses in the area. Further, the applicant is notified as part of this application that he is required to comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinance of the City of Campbell and the State of California which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. And, that this approval is granted subject to the following Conditions of Approval: UE PERMIT 1. Permitted Use: The approved use consists of a Use Permit to operate a large day care facility located at 650 Aram Avenue. a. Number of children o n the premises: 7-12 b. hours of operation: 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday C. Number of employees: 2- residents to property d. Number of parking spaces: 5 (2 covered, 3 uncovered) lay area shall limited to 2 yard area. ation oyard areas: f shall be prroohibited in the front the rear yard area. 4. Number of Children in Outdoor area: No c,iore than six (6) children shall be allowed in the rear yard at one time during regular business hours. 5. Six month review: A review of the use shall be conducted by the Planning Commission six ((,) mo-,ha from the date of approval. Review of the use shall also include detei.nination of whether the noise and associated activity constitutes a nuisance and/or requires modification to the fence element for sound attenuation purposes. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of January 1992, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Kotowski, Conant, Ashworth, Watson, Curr NOES: Councilmembers: crone ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None APPROVED: i Donald R. Burr, Mayor ATTEST: • - . , _ , Barbara Olsasky, City Clerk -- CITY OF CAMPBELL FIRE DEPARTMENT 1 2 3 S O U T H U N 1 0 N A V F N I CAM PBE LL. C A L I F0RN IA 95008 (t08) 866 2189 FAX 0 IA081 371 7371 December 12, 1991 Gloria Sciara Planner I City of Canpbell 70 North First Street Campbell , a Abell, CA 95008 HE: UP 91-20 Gloria: On November 13, 1991, 1 .-,.)rdu(-'ted an ITu-Pec-tion at 650 Aram in order %o determine fire code ernpliarxe for a large Family Day Care Facility (.R-3) at this address. At the time of this inspection, which was conducted at the request of Commzity Care Licensing, the above mentioned facility vats in compliance with all the requirements established for this type of occupancy. The appropriate records were subm tted to the Department of Social Services (see attached copy). On December 5, 1991, I conducted a re -inspection at 650 Aram due to a report from a local resident indicating that the facility had insufficient exits. The re -inspection again determined the facility at 650 Aram tc }x' in compliance with the exiting requirements specified in the Uniform Building Code, Section 3327. Specifically, the basement area which is used for day-care purposes has two required exits, one of which opens directly to the exterior of the building without entering the first -floor area. The exit leading into the first -floor area of the house does have an expandable barrier installed to prevent: accidents caused by children using the stairs without supervision. However, this type of device is not considered to be an obstruction to a mreans of egress. The exit leading directly to the rear yard doesn't have any stairs on the interior of the area and therefore has no expandable barrier. On December 12, 1991, at the request of Fire Chief Bruegman I re inspected 650 Aram a third time and again found the facility to be in compliance with the requirements for a large Day care Facility (see the attached Fire Safety Notice indicating that "a reasonable degree of fire safety exists at this time"). If t can be of any further assistance to you in this matter please contact me at the Administrative Offices of the Fire Department. Steve Franklin, Captain Fire Prevention Officer aTAra PW AAARaFEAI •bn' OWTV NUTIM k an REVERW OF Conn ! AM a MR Iti-STATE FIRE MARSEMI FIRE SAFETY INSPECTION RE iT 2—F RE Aurnwn or.mR2CTroN/ FOR CdM1.aTFOFF amrwEREv.s esi -s-4jcENseq AmIev 111-12-91 �'F109 • w..+D. cow.wc, ...o.. w .w.ro. De t of Social Services (40R)277-1296 ' r J. Bent I� �01. 350 �a 430756732 3 RESPONSE REOI'ESTOD a.es rDept of Social Services a ew..an a..Nr •D.��w..w • .so.w aullo. N .MD. Community Care Licensing a YY. e.•.� wwF� 4030 Moorpark Ave 4216 ...�n.o.I..Fr LSan Jose. CA '5117 •-e..� Y Y .IIN ,,..Iru.wto.. 12 wowwww.a.. ro.0 eu COD.• Family Day Care .....M. �...MI ...Y. ro �. .. ro � ..D C• C S 5 C..•DI.. .w ..M. i.Yv� ...YM>VTt .D �• I ' �D OWP _ MarT Sonez- .4valos I GACN 2. IDNOT ,a wao.... 1-1 .00-. o .D. �. v.+.•wn 2. GACIUR a ICFIOD 650 Aram Ave. 5 SH E. ACK . APN ID. OLM awl.i. cow San Jose, CA ?5117 68-6D 5 of II. Ua a. SNF IE. KF/WN . ►-a Dew. —.o. -- Mary Gomez-Avalos I(pn4`2o?-"G6 la one rCampbell Fire Dept —' ...CnM ..«..,..�. coo. 12? So. Union .Ave. I FIRE CLEAR, GRANTED Campbell, CA 980; A.IC 2. FIRE CLEAR. DOM ...I.. I L� 3 FIRE cam wrr'WLD f�iPT SrFV1C F +•1NerN�{p 86C-Z186 43o-05 fj 2 coNamucTloN 'ONSS 5 FIRE ALARM ....C.D.. �.. ;,.r SPRSEa.ERS 5. HMAENEEPNG c.n •. ow .....u.� cD..,w . a. SPECM HAZARD T onEsl I EOOUnow imspE-00 011E2010h ausiness Ilaae: MAR= S0'\FZ - AVA1-o,� Address: VS�' RA I11 AJE U Cy�P7� r N Data: t2 I Inspector: STFV& FR��Fr U G Each box must be checked by inspector. Use '/' for Ga. a' for violation. and ' for not applicable. ,7 1) pppan for day-care . kindergarden. first and second grade students shall not be {CJ 1OCate d above the fimt floor. (Esc*Pt'Oh: Spr/nk lered building) 2) Cat strucssonha itor Closets tst ydibollerom m shall be of e-hour fire res'stire olid- c re 7) Travel distance within coma to an exit door shall not excmed 7S feet. ♦) R, uired exit corridors In E-1 occupanciour es a n'nru of 6 f.et Ir ndN. with all openings protected by 3/ 5) )nano^ rooms which must Dam` •_•. __ Yn tote wooing. ?o�w �.. ant YY require a smoke detect+^r, system instilled. Oars tic• Fir. " eau. 6) Exit doors frOM classy oAS Shall nave stanoard doorknob -type locks only. Doors shall open easily. 7) Exits from libraries, mrltipur9ose rooms, audimrien is qea. etc., where occupant load exceeds 50. shall meet the following requi re�nu. L/ a) 'w0 *zits are required. /_/ D) Doom shall living In direct'm of exit travel. L� c) Doors shall nave no locks eaceot panic hardware d) Ex't signs are required. B) Exit doom froclassroom and other rooms $hail no "blocked or oDs tructed. wn 9) Gates are not permitted across Corridors and Ca$$agewaY' teb" - •o saf• dispersal areas from buildings. 10) All school buildings shall nave a means of sounding a fire alarm. rM 11' yearly o,ilesd arel regu,red 11 nlgnt ichoce i`ftS tsry shouldt ke p records Ofsanlltr- 12) l"Mctor shall Activat* the lire alarr system arc conduct a fire drill. 13) No flammable liquids snap be placed. stored, or used except in minor quantities in 1,D oratories or utility r""' 14) Loose seats shall be bonded Looether .hen there are more than lot, Chaim in use. 15) All decoratims and oernrative materials shall be non-`lanwable or treated with a flame-retardAnt solution. �—� 16) Open flamu devices such as candles are prohibited. 17) Room capacity signs shall Or provided to room with an occupant toad of 50 or Mm 1) Gas appliances shall be provided with .hutoff wives and be adequately versed. be used In place of /t tad wiring 19) Extension cords and multi -plug adapters shall not 20) All wiring shall to in metal conduit. All electrirSl boas shall be covered. (Z% 21) Stgrage is not pe wonted in e"t ways, heating and MCh AnicA1 round, electrical m panel roo. or under stairways. (�22) Basements. Attics. Closets, end similar Spaces Sha11 De kept clear Of combustible rubbish. FD/Sb7 •Tlli 6 GALfO1W I�-�IEYiH 41° WE.F�RE 1GEN[:v XPAWW W O •DCUL •F• S couuuNm G1RE IICENSNG LICENSING REPORT REFER TO: See other side for explanation of form F�cam NIA 4&DMECTOA '6�w FAc►m alal•Ea -- �¢EnrnE TYPE OF VISIT. O OFFI U RENEWAL ❑COMPLAINT ❑ MANAGEMENT ;i'ANNOUNCED TMF n •FWN r R PREUCENSING O EVALUATION ❑ FOLLOW-UP ❑ OTHER ❑ UNANNOUNCED *NE wePLETFD DEFT: IENCY INFORMATION: qVl� PENALTY WfORMATION: gQdo Dat�eianq Cited ❑ D•1Ki•nry CNarae 0 Pena Ass•aaW C] Delici•nry Cked M ❑ Penalty Notic• cn•n ❑ Penalty CNand fd'IJoI �-olicaple COMMENTS / DEFICIENCIES RECOMM'_NDATIONS /CORRECTIONS w EYILU�TCV 59WNAE DF "vao, r ux m — _-- f TELEP1gNE 011R — I I understand my licensing appeal ngtlrs. TFLEPNDNF EM tIO11NTU11L WTF AGENCY COPY Pape o1 Qeoe City of Campbell FIRE DEPARTMENT 3� E°<< UNION AVENUE FIRE SAFETY NOTICE (406) 866-2189 BUSINESS NAME MARy Go CZ-,AVALOS ADDRESS c) � RAA^ _SUITE, CITYLAMPULL PHONE f 4.g ;2 93-20&.5 C OCCUPANCY _ F 3 PERMITS PAY CARE 1 2 2 NOTICE /� W OWNER/MANAGER MA MFZ - A✓AIOSINSPECTION NOTICE RECEIVED BY -XA. A REASONABLE DEGIIEE OP PIPE SAFETY EXISTS AT THIM TIME CODE B. CAMPBELL AIMArrm• M. 11.M n",,N, q., 94— w11A BIM. E•nw ..No~ IMI- 1. ELECTRICAL: IMEFIEMENCE ADoom o-—.1..wilt Odb_.......... ..... _............_........... ..... ....... .... ....-........ ......._................. .............._.._ ........... ..... An100) D M-- •Imp w 9- 0ortsoo.l M-A.1111Yw. wo BIB EMM MR QB..110 vow etr. IAI1..w........_..... ....................... a. EER71: _.......... a1a.1M) .. R.naw .. IKnPr IOCA. a LRCM I-t, 1100r11 .•n pw.o nYd•B1B._.............._....._........._.._..................._�...._.......__._..__.�It1O1D) BP.Ilay..Lr.p• w oMrvnvN A- ..Ib..wIM. Mmao,A w aYawBll.................... _.._._...r._......._.___�......_....................m lost) c Un All . o"""' wMn tlw Dun01r10 m An...r.M Is •DL1pE............................__.......... _.... o Wn.vI'•wi[w Ip-- (mu tMNdl ... wont w •w." NOMI 1B............._....._...._......._..............._...._.._...._......................................{1a. a. PIE_......._____..................................{Ia.1O.q AURM : 1131 MMntm t- w- Ilywwn a a,.'otP Oo MAen........ ............... ... ....... .................. .... ._...... _..._....... .............. ......._ ,w.>Q1c) c _ D KwI w 1- An .L,m .p.l•m moMAy w .IIBYl11Y BB.PIW IB.BIft... __... ._.._..........._...._............ _..._..._... wrm c Wn.ry .nluM................. _ ._......{10.�1q Fm RATIO S: R.na.• oM,unan..M .n•.wm, w er..00n w IMAtI.•t ml,p w RAlcltlrp aw1Ar................. _........_........._.... _ _..._. o M)B. a a n 0 B. mitt— w npw MI z. wMI. .M nnit Pm, ._. _._...... __._............ .............._._..._... (10..0II) c KwF tmc Aaw. .M rutlw apmrp. rb.0 .._ __.._................................................ 1. FN1E [KTINOUISNEIIB: .1 .411 4" Prpl0. .n„pWwr(.I a • _ IIIw111A.. I.Yq 1 a.) _ D Moues •nl,pw vMn I•.wb .r BIM t1p la hqPW BIAn 1IML....................-...----_...-.-......_................_......... ... 00 . _. 110 aotA) c I I.n IMKAmp waAlan •Mn MxpalwtMl An .IMBL.....l...................... _........... ._..................... W r•py _.................. It0.]OtU . _ ! III— CTION IN T LL(by SlIeTIO LlpnMl o•N A.DnpI.M, Am.IB.Y w ABw Iw................. .._........................ W I 1. SIRE PIgT[C7gN INE7ALLATIOMB: ...........- ...(Io 7ow _ A .m Mwn .cc.0 a .M oWM- ol a.noPDw' w. tar .M ApnrWw e0ltlr•I wN� ._., _.._.......... ......... ..............- oo10e) D R-- oWtructaryAl aw,Marw a Mw n•m. •..,NrMp oIN tM VroW ".M. a uw I M,. "N . ........ Ito 7DSU c Alo, Im-Im l oon00M a WnM ....... 0 Proved .p.,. .pnnkl•n la minimum) w MIrIMLr wwan •... ... _.10.� _ • IMm�ly No-w -1ml rarer .M MCan M o0.n ODwA.It ........ -. _. _... ..... ...{ . I InM•ot AM W, wn.w AygN- o..," ..,,omwnLm r•oarb ..._ _..........._....••...••••••..Iro.a01.) -- p ArvK• taco .M Oun .nlrpm.nm0 .yw.m o.., coat Mlllprrl.m Awn "p .Annuury w M1Ar Ir .. ..............__..................{1O]t1) n wwn a PIP-o•e .1. Al. I>um-in It'. gwlrnan .r.wm.........(TILIMI IwW •'•,Y .v Isl yAn.. ....._ _.. ..._ _._-...._........... T. PLAl1YABLE L*UID1. . ............. • 01.I.H 1 Il..ro I IA n.mmw>t. I,pu,O. M •.ow w 10 MAo,+.NA a notM w Aa0,B... IaYwYY..... .. ...... ...{1110t) Flo— ft TM l aual rat w ",, on"I oo,, r. or ROAM rr.wtl LMw _..._.. _.. ..... ..... ...... ..... .....(1/.1M) R.mav c . 11AmmAb4.14 mmDuwlY•.0u- ral uwl0 to, rryint•nrtty a AA.•mDly.11111 ", am-, Ap.,lt,telb AM IItttwitt .. .{11A1.) o St....mm.Dl. I�.u,C..•.r Dom 0004on. rryin ..W .Linnp Ma ..n M.A. __.........................__. ..._. ...__ _...-.{II]O1, - • D.oa Z: owp•nwnp hOm OMW IwrA •.uMlnp a p.IloA 0 proves• .pump t•A1111 OB1sI 1.I. BL I14.....................................{1 so-) _ t. DAC 1: INI. N w W-lt pnwto ftmm n or awnb m w wNw Lrw. e. WAY PRODUCING APPLIANCES. .................................................................... ..........{Il.pt) A P1--t Oo b-,bQN` .ro ww.p. Pt- mMrYnld•I w AOuP^•nl roorr..l........................ ......................... ..._.................... {711oic1 D PrwIM cNMAna twlwMn 1r.1 prooucvrp .pplurKM w mMuwlO1. nw1ArW..............................................___........................ .{11..MBI 1. NMI9EKEEPEq: _ A R.— a won IUODRn rAw. -twnl w'IT t1g. It, clo wO IIrM mtWlw._.__................. -.......-........................................_..{11 It Q•.n prN.. M1A•r..ro IIoro .M t Kt .w-. ov.r ooa.lrp App..—...................................................._........{70]1S1 .. .___. 1 _ c PnMO. Mncoln0u.U0N 0, amw Am—.M1. r.oNANM.. At rt•Arry ........................................... o. 1TORAOE: . An.np..tonp. In m0.ny rtwnnw w wwa. Im ..Mrp w Fln DAWtmwn AIMM ......................... _.......................... ........(111®) It R.mov A1m•9. up 10 11 Incttw GPlov tlt M a .pn.w,l (W 1- 1m A-.p pAM ov.r It IMwoo .......... ... ................. . ...... 470.:0aq c Ii.000• .Io,Ap. ItuOnl to .1 SAW T l.P1 boo, m".._. _... __ __... ._ .._ .__........__.....................____............ .. .. ...{11]p701 -_ O ZA Aro a•nlny oonlw•.tM 0.. Ly.nEA,. will, el prOAai............ _.__ 11. [aTF111O11 MAaARDa: ... .................... ......................(M.1O1 a 7.dO1) _ . RIAmw• wAn•. into AM 7oln w wan M clot.. mwM oonL•rt•_............................... ...................... _............ _._._ ............... {I11/Al. a 01 - D RyovM. • mMlmum of to w•I u•.,Altq 1>♦rM.n wmpww. w euS..p •P•ItA1P, Mb. IMM SOM....._......_......{11 is IroK11D0-ft I.IB : ...«.. ]Dlm A laPlRIII71Pmw "'tom"No SMOKING' .I . . --........_._._.........._......___........ . : ........ _....__ _113 lot) A Ott-. W-t- IM Fln Pr•v "t, BII , lott1w wor.p. w MI nAlAr.olw m.1.ItAY........... . ............................. _ 0 El,emn • .AVIA.a NA1.,0ou. M.1.rW MAnBlwn.n PIP,........ ....................... _. (,Too) O - - C M•In . coy UuwnAr Ilo•nw _........ ........... .............. _. (ie In - a omwnCO. Wmn arAND_ eBln er ... - -- __ (n.M) 11 ADDITIONAL YYENT/ROR REOIKR7/BY111 - GA L•nw MII 'ot- II-0-110 rpw,wn•nt. •M IptWlwnlnB A Iltw.pMlLn d._-- W ALL VROLATIONE NOTED WERE CORNECTED C REFERRED TO F P [+ ISSUED BY va -_ _ DATE IZ �/ / I h snaereILFMN-"� *BF..W v .- ovra�rtwros�ocwLEm� carrVen cAm Low". LICENSING REPORT REFER TO: See other side for explanation of form. secLm erYE -- NfcnJA un n r mE TYPE OF VIS O OFFICE REN L O COMPLAINT ❑ MANAGEMENT C ANNOUNCED TYE Ven eewn ❑ PREUCENSING O EVA_UATION ❑ FOLLOW.UP ❑ OTHER_ I ❑ UNANNOUNCED TYs cornnco DEFICIENCY MIFORMATSON: CIVIL PENALTY INFORMATION: O No Deficiency Cited ❑ Deficiency Cleared I ❑ Penalty Assessed ❑ Penalty Notreven Gi rJ Deficiency CMed O Penalty Cleared ❑ Not AmAcuble COMMENTS /DEFICIENCIES RECOMMENDATIONS / CORRECTIONS .IV" e LC M al"rUYLT emTE6hI.OmK eNDNEiFRItwE LICENSING REPORT ' See other side for explanation o_ I form. NMIF _— �_ � D•DR Dep.9.EN1 OF soC eww" DOW-�f%JFLRINEMD REFER TO: Nw�r��FFR �K�mTrR— ndln r TELF NF � 1 1 DRPKT' NlUS W1E TYPE OF VISIT: ❑ OF ICE ❑ RENEWAL ❑ COMPLAINT f)k:PRE1JCENSING '-'� EVALUATION ❑ FOLLOW UP C MANAGEMENT ❑ OTHER YANNOUNCED UNANNOUNCED ME vOn eEMN O Twf cmwL o DEFICIENCY INFORMATION: CML PENALTY INFORMATION: C ND Deficiency Cued O Dafidenq Chimed i ❑ Penalty Ms. od ❑ Penalty Notes Given 6-Deficiency Cited ❑ Penalty Cle gNW Applicable COMMENTS I DEFICIENCIES RECOMMENDATIONS I CORRECTIONS Ater CiV1Al�z - � ?/!R -__�Q �/sri �7yJcp rI CiiL/ �u EMILWTDN IOMNRE RLeND�ILF wh I understand my licensing appeal rlphfs. PFe R IELE)NDiF FK RFSENTATIVF IMR111E GTE' �_� Mcs �uua Pap 1_ol bepes AGENCY COPY SUn O: naWMVA-r�+w YO W&FAM&o0oo., 1 NofvomeFe Coeurn CAM LCUOR M LICENSING REPORT REFER To: TYPE OF VISIT. O OFFICE O RENEWA✓ ❑ COMPLAINT ❑ WINAGEMENT ❑ ANN O PPELICENSING ZMALUATION ❑ FOLLOW-UP Cl OTHER �VNA OEfl Y NFOEN RMATION: CML ►ALTY 11FORM Y" No DK�nry Chid C DNwnry CNwO I O Penalty Aaawd ar ❑ Defcy Clod O PemYy Owed 1 undsn2hn0 my AcslLtinp appeal roles. sr� w mEworE AWAM ICPF&SENUTM SCMTU — am LCMPea Pepe _L of ---/— payee FACILITY COPY Traffic Report Wednesday, December 18, 1991 — 5:10 - 6:10 p.m. Time Number of Vehicles Parking Location 5:14 p.m. 1 Driveway 5:20 p.m. 1 5:35 p.m. 1 5:46 p.m. 1 5:56 p.m. 1 Thursday, December 19, 1991 — 6:00 a.m. - 8:00 a.m. Time Number of Vehicles Parking Location 6 15 a.m. 1 Driveway 7:25 a.m. 1 7:53 a.m. 1 *Duration: Each vehicle was parked approximately 5 minutes on the premises. � I � ORAL REQUESTS PUBLIC HEARINGS 13. Appeal of Planning Commission decision re: day care facility at 650 Aram Avenue -- UP 91-20 Gloria Sciara, Planner I - Staff Summary Report dated 12/9/91. The Mayor declared the public hearing opened. Cynthia Fulk, 647 Stokes Ave., expressed opposition to the application for this use permit., stating that she disagrees with the finding that the noise from a large day care home would not unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of adjoining properties. Mrs. Fulk stated that this applicant has violated the State law with respect to maximum number of children under her care with a small day care license. She questioned compliance with regarding State Fire Safety Standards and escape routes from the facility, and indicated that the Campbell Fire Department has not approved the lower level of this day care facility. Councilmember Ashworth questioned what the City's involvement is with respect to the State fire standards. .. The City Attorney explained that what is required is that the day care facility comply with the regulations set down by the state Fire Marshal. Campbell Fire Chief Breugmann recommended that this matter be continued until such time as the Fire Department could confirm whether or not the lower level of the home was inspected and approved. Senior Planner Tsuda stated that Planning Department staff was of the understanding that the day care operation was being conducted in the lower level, but agreed that the matter should be continued until such time as the Fire Department has confirmed that this application met with State fire standards. William Fulk, 647 Stokes Avenue, expressed opposition to the application for a use permit to operate a large day care center, questioning the number of infants being cared for under the age of two, and also, the issue of parking standards in relation to a two car garage. Gloria Sciara, Planner I, confirmed that the site inspection indicated that parking standards were met, including a two -car covered garage. Anthony Bakarich, 1517 Pyramid Court, San Jose, referenced his letter concerning this appeal, dated October 29, 1991. This letter has been acknowledged and made a part of the file concerning this issue. Larry West, 636 Stokes Avenue, San Jose, expressed opposition to this application for a large day care center. Juan Avalos, 650 Aram Avenue, San Jose, stated that the Fire Department has reinspected the home and it has met the requirements. He stated that their own family is growing and it has become necessary to obtain a large day care permit to cover family expenses. He stated that the home is clean and well maintained and meets the City's requirements; therefore, urged the City Council to approve this application. Mr. Avalos responded to questions by Councilmember Ashworth relative to number and ages of children cared for. M/S: Ashworth/Conant - to continue this hearing to January 7, 1992 to allow staff to confirm compliance with State Fire Code regulations. Motion adopted unanimously. 14. Historical Building Code (Introduce Ordinance/Roll Call Vote) Building Official Cauthorn - Staff Summary Report dated 12/9/91. Councilmember Watson stated she would abstain from the discussion and the vote due to conflict of interest. FINDINGS I OR APPROVAL OF UP 91-20 The Citv Council finds as follows with regard to Use Permit application UP 91- 20: I The proposed facility is located ,t the northeast corner of Aram Avenue and Whitehall Avenue in;,-rsection, and is easily accessed by pedestrian and vehicular traffic; 2. The corner location maximizes available on -street parking for pick- up and drop-off; 3. The site provides three (3) uncovered parking spaces in addition to two (2) covered spaces. Those uncovered parking spaces are so situated that they have direct access to a public street; 4. There are no employees other than the property owner and a relative who lives on the premises; 5. Due to the corner location, there are no adjoining homes on two (2) sides of the property; 6. The children will be cared for primarily in a depressed 620 square foot room located approximately 40 feet from the nearest neighboring property, and 65 feet to the nearest residential structure; 7. The outdoor play area is an approximately 1200 square foot rear yard, which directly borders only one adjoining property; S. By conditions of approval, no more than six (6) children at a time will be allowed in the outside play area; 9. The ctmrating hours of the day care home shall be from 6:00 a.m. at the earliest to 6:00 p.m. at the latest, Monday through Friday; 10. The application has received clearance from the State Fire Marshal; 11. No existing day care center or large family day care home is located within three hundred (300) feet of the property site; 12. The use will be located in a traditional single-family home; 13. The operator resides on the site, and occupies it primarily as her Ah a Findings for Approval of LT 91-21 Page 2 home; 14. No structural changes are proposed to the residence; 15. The home is approximately 3,200 square feet, and is located on a lot of .23 net acres. Based on the foregoing findings, the City Council further finds; 1. A safe and acceptable means of drop-off and pick-up is provided. The location of the home and the on -site improvements provide reasonable vehicular and pedestrian circulation. 2. The site provides for three (3) parking spaces in addition to those required for residential use pursuant to Section 21.50.050 of the Municipal Code, including at least two (2) spaces for the loading and unloading of children and one (1) for each employee. These spaces are so situated that they have access to a public street without passing over another parking space; 3. Although there has been testimony that the current small family day care operation generates some noise, the Council finds that no noise generated from the day care use will unreasonably offend the senses or obstruct the free use of the neighboring properties so as to unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of such adjoining properties taking into consideration the noise levels normally generated by children, given the location and dimensions of the property, the conditions of approval, and the hours of operation; 4. The proposed day care home must comply with all applicable regulations adopted by the State Fire Marshal 5. There are no day care centers or other large family day care homes within three hundred feet (300') of the proposed site; 6 The development is designed so that normal residential surroundings are preserved and the integrity of the residential neighborhood is preserved. 7. The facility is the principle residence of the providers and the use is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the property for Findings for Approval of UP 91-20 Page 3 residential purposes. 8. No structural changes are proposed which will alter the character of the single-family residence. 9. The large family day care home provides adequate indoor living space and outdoor open space to meet the needs of the children. In light of the foregoing findings, the Council finds and concludes: 1. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use applied for will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvement in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city; 2. The proposed site is adequate in size ark :.Nape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and load;ng facilities, landscaping and other development features requires' to order to integrate said use with uses in the surrounding area; 3. Tne proposed site is adequab•ly served by streets of sufficient capacity to carry the kind -.:,a quantity of traffic such use would generate; 4. The proposed use is compatib.^ with the uses in the area. The City Council finds as follows with regard to Use Permit application UP 91- 20: I. The proposed facility is Iecated at th; northeast corner of Aram Avenue and Whitehall Avenue; 2. The surrounding area is a quiet residential neighborhood; 3. The property currently is used for a small day care home operation; 4. Several of the nearby residents have complained that the noise from the current small family day care home prevents them from enjoying their property in the customary manner; 5. The addition of up to si . (6) more children N,,l only exacerbate the noise problems. Rased on the foregoing findings, the City Council further finds that taxing into consideration the noise levels generated by the children, the noise generated from the day care u.e would unreasonably offend the senses and obstruct the free use of neighboring properties so as to unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of such adjoining properties. The-efore, the Citv Council finds and concludes as follows: I. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use applied for will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or genera; welfare of persons residing o, working in the neighborhood of such proposed use; 2. The proposed use is not compatible with the uses in the area. city Council ® Report WILE Appeal of Planning Commission re: UP 91-20 a ITEM: CATEGORY: Appeal DATE: December 9, 1991 day care facility at 650 Aram Avenue -- RECOMMENDATION The City Council can take one of the following actions: 1. Upholding the Planning co:, mission's action and approve the Use Permit allowing a large day care home, subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval. 2. Overturning the Planning Commission's action and deny the Use Permit to operate a large day care home, subject to the attached findings. DISCUSSION Back¢rounJ: A Use Permit to operate a large family day care home at 650 Aram Avenue was issued by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting of October 22, 1991. The Planning Commission determined that the proposal met all the development standards se, forth in the Zoning Ordinance. The owners of property in the area and some neighbors opposed the use, citing that no mitigation measures would adequately address their complaints and concerns such as noise and reduced property values. Two appeals of the Planning Commission's decision were filed with the City Clerk. Analysis: The applicant currently operates a small day care home with six children. State law and the City Ordinance do not quantify acceptable noise levels for a large day care home. The Ordinance states that the use shall not unreasonably offend the senses or obstruct the free use of neighboring properties so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of such adjoining properties. State law does not address subjective matters such as loss of property val,ie. It has identified the need for more day care facilities in a traditional home setting. The Planning Commission concluded that the evidence presented does not substantiate a significant noise impact. The Planning Commission adopted additional conditions of approval based on the testimony of the neighbors that limited the number of children in the outdoor play area to six. The Commission also required a review of the facility in six months to determine if sound attenuation is necessary and whether the expanded use constitutes a nuisance. A summary of thL _.wain City Council Report -2- November 19, 1991 points raised at the Planning Commission meeting is attached in the staff report. ALTERNATIVES I. Modify the Use Permit. The City Council can adopt additional conditions of approval, such as additional fencing, further limiting the number of children on the premises, and/or requiring additional review periods and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Attachments: 1. Findings for Approval 2. Findings for Denial 3. Main Issues - Planning Commission Meeting - October 22, 1991 4. Conditions of Approval 5. Minutes - Planning Commission Meting of October 22, 1991 6. Large Day Care Home Ordinance 7. Letters of Appeal S Location Map PrepareCL� d by: ' Approved b Manner I amm�g Dir. City Manager gs:lb a:up91-20 Planning Commission Minutes of October 2.2, 1991 ` a� PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. UP 91-20 Public Hearing to consider the application of Ms. Avalos, M. Mary Gomez Avalos, for a Use Permit to allow a large day care facility for 12 children, on property located at 650 Aram Avenue, in an R-1- 6 ( Single -Family Residential) Zoning District. Chairperson Mever-Kennedy read the application into the record. Ms. Gloria Sclara, Planner 1, presented the staff' report noting the following: • The applicant's request. • Letters of opposition. • The site has been reviewed by the Planning Staff and the Social Services Department. • She outlined the criteria for review of a large day care facility and the applicant meets all the requirements. • She noted that the fence height could be raised from 6 to 8 feet for sound attenuation. • The hours of operation will be from 6:00 a.m., unul 6:00 p.m. • That there are no large day care facilities within the 300 square foot radius outlined by State law. • There Is adequate indoor and outdoor space available for the children to play. • The staff recommends approval, subsequent to Commission's review of the noise concems expressed by neighbors. Commissioner Alne presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting discussion of October 9. 1991, as follows: There was no technical reason why the proposal for a large day care facility should not be approved. • '-hc ,ommittee recommends approval, subject to Input from the rt.-':rents In the area. Chairperson Perrine asked that tt.e City Attomey to explain how State Law allows the Commission Is to a aluate this type of use permit request. Mr. William Selign:z!nn. City Attomey explained that the State has set forth a policy favoring child care facilities to be located within a home cmIronment, and chat 7 to 12 children would be allowed in a residentially zoned area. Fu ",her, he said that relative to noise, the State is supportive cf raise levels normally generated by children. Chairperson Meyer -Kennedy opened the public hearing Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 1991 Commissioner C:)ugherty asked the applicant if the day care license specified an age group. Mrs. Mary Avalos, the applicant, stated that the license states that children between the ages of newborn and 17 years of age. She Indicated that she would prefer to care for children two -years old and up. Commissioner Perrine requested information regarding the exact location or. the site where the children would be cared for. Mrs. Avalos and the Planning Department staff indicated locations of interest to the Commission. Specifically discussed as the location of the 600 square foot basement or split-level portion of the indoor play area of the home, the a sternal entrances to the lower poruor, of the home, and fencing curr--ntly present In the outdoor play area. Commissioner Perrine asked If Mrs. Avalos minded having outdoor activity being limited to six children at a time, and in response, Mrs. Avalos stated that she would be favorable to that condition. Discussion ensued relative to whether the indoor play area was a basement or a split-level design. Photographs of the home were circulated. Mr. Anthony Bakarich, property owner at 993 and 995 Whitehall Avenue, noted his objections to the day care center. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Dougherty, it was unanimously ordered that the Public Hearing be closed. Pursuant to Government Code Section 5400.956.9 (c), the meeting was adjourned to a closed session at 8:20 p.m., to discussion possible litigation regarding UP 91-20. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m. All Commissioners were present, except Commissioners Fox and Higgins. Commlceion Di-c uccion: Corlmissloner Alne indicated support for the proposal noting that although the Commission could consider the noiF as a reason for generated t_ noise 12a erageachildren. aboveted was Further, that the State law protects day care cem^rs against litigation due is traffic Increases. and, that a xinlation of th,� noise level as outlined by State iaw has not been provided. Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 1991 Public Comm n Mrs. Elizabeth Bakarich, 1517 Pyramid Cou:'.. San Jose, property owner of property adjacent to the subject property, addressed the Commission In opposition to the proposal citing the following: • Noise levels are unacceptable. • A day care facility Is a business and does not belong In a residential district. Mr. Ronald Wakefield. P.O. Box 110876. Campbell, 95011. property owner, of adjacent property to he subject property, addressed the Commission in opposition to the prcposal, citing the following: • Approval of this facility will cause his renters to move. • That renters have requested that their rents be lowered, if a child care facility is approved at the subject location. • Pointed out that the Staff Report contains findings that state that this proposal shall not depart from the integrity of the neighborhood, and Mr. Wakefield stated that approval of this proposal would disrupt the Integrity of the neighborhood. • He suggested that the subject use would devalue his property and suggested that if approval of the proposal caused him to lose money, he would sue the Planning Commission, the applicant, and the City for allowing this t-,-ve of use. Mr. Seligmann informed the Commission that since there was threat of litigation. It would be appropriate for the Commission to adjourn to a closed session to disci,G� this item. The Commission declined to hold a closed sessic,i, at this time. Mr. Lam West, 636 Stokes Street. San Jose, 95128, addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposal noting the following: • The proposal would increase traffic in the area. • Property would be devalued by at least 5% if a large day care facility was approved. • Inferred that currently the home Is caring for more than six children. Mr. William R. Fulk, 647 Stokes Street, San Jose, 95128. addressed the Commission In opposition of the proposal noting that: • Noise generated from the site currently Is excessive. • A sound wall would not buffer the sound enough for day sleepers. He stated that he contacted a masonry contractor and was told that a double hollow block concrete sound wall would be required to buffer sound of this type. • fie circulated a petition containing 26 names of local residents Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 1991 opposed to the proposed day care. • He read a letter of opposition from his wife. Cynthia Fulk, voicing opposition to the proposal, noting that she has seen 8 children outside the home. current home was purchased due to the tranquility of the neighborhood, she cannot read in her back yard any more because the noise is now intolerable. • informed the Commission of another day care facility at the corner of Stokes and Spruance. Commissioner Perrine asked if the Commission decided to look favorably at the proposal, would there be any conditions that Mr. Fulk Would like to see implemented. Mr. Fulk stated that he would not like to see a large day care facility at this location under any condition. Ms. Gerry Goodman, 1003 and 1005 Whitehall Avenue. property owner, expressed concern that: • Renters would move due to t1he noise and increased traffic. • Renters driveways would be used as tum-arounds. • Decrease In property values. Commissioner Perrine asked if the Commission decided to look favorably at the proposal, would there be any conditions Ms. Goodman would like to see put into place. Ms. Goodman stated that limiting the amount of children would be helpful, however, she would prefer none. Mr. Juan Avalos. the applicant's husband. spoke In support of the proposal. noting that: • Most of the children are Infants, and make very little noise. • Adequate turn -around space is provided on -site. • Property values would Increase if people living In the area would clean up their yards. Mr. Kyong Ko spoke for his father the property owner at 657 Stokes Street, noting that since his father is a day sleeper, the children would disrupt his sleep time. Mrs. Elizabeth Bakarich spoke again about the potential drop In property values, due to this day care facility. Mr. Wakefield and Mr. West spoke again requesting denial of the proposal. Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 1991 Commissioner concurred with Commissioner Alne's statements noting his support and expressing concern regarding fire safety of the premises. Further, Commissioner Dougherty noted his concern that our society is unsupportive of Its children and does not believe that property is devalued by the presence of a day care center. Addressing the concern regarding fire safety, Ms. Sciara stated that an on -site inspection was done of the home and It was found to be appropriately maintained. Commissioner Wilkinson asked If Mrs. Avalos had children of her own. and If so are they considered at part of the twehr allowed under the Use Permit. Mrs. Avalos indicated that she does have children and that they are considered as part of the twelve allowable, however, that occasionally her mother provides care for her own children. Commissioner Perrine noted that he would be supportive of the day care home at this location. He said that parking, traffic circulation, and the size of the play areas were appropriate at the site to handle 12 children, however, he requested that the application be condlUoned to allow only 6 children at a time outside. and that a review of the facility be conducted after six months. These suggested conditions were acceptable to the applicant. Commissioner R'llkinson Indicated that he would not be supporting the request for twelve children due to the impact It may cause to adjoining residents' quiet enjoyment of their homes. Commissioners .dne and Dougherty made the following arguments in support of the request: • Current society has a great need for day care facilities. • Future population trends indicate future need for day care. • Over population and increased density cannot be addressed by denial of day care for children. • she request will address future needs of the community. MOTiON: On motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Perrine, It was ordered Resolution No. 2774 be adopted, approving a large day care facility for 12 children at 650 Aram Avenue, Incorporating the attached findings, adding one Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 1991 finding, as follows: while evidence of the noise from the current small day care home was present, the evidence does not substantiate that the noise would unreasonably offend the senses or obstruct the free use of neighboring properties, so as to unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of adjoining properties, taking into consideration the noise normally created by children in that: as The conditlons limit the number of children that may play outdoors to 6: and b) That the home has substantial indoor and outdoor space to help buffer the noise from the neighboring properties. Further that the approval be subject to Conditions of Approval. amended to include limiting the number of children allowed to play outside at any one time to S. and the addition of a review of the facilitles and the fence for sound attenuation after six months of operation. Commissioner Alne indicated that It Is not his intent to burden the applicant with the provision of a double concrete fence after six months of operation. AYES: Commissioners: Alne, Perrine, Dougherty. Meyer - Kennedy NOES: Commissioners: Wilkinson ABSENT: Commissioners: Higgins, Fox. (j J. FH ir, A;kPCW� 4 0> �`� /4r1/ ANrme /O WNCRs vF 443 -945 W�a��NAcr. Apt RC1.: fe1W ELi 1517 py�Am'OCovlT OCT 2•) 1991 5ANJ1156, C,a. '? l.3 CITY CLERIC'S OFFICE CITY CLERK OFFIcc CAm(�BBLL C'A 9SOOB RE: .Ty /r eso 7o N. ,asr C.L UPO ; Ito poR ABLE R]gyoc ANo C,Ty CoofXIL: t.•G DECi SioM of TMc (•..ANN'NEl C'um�*•SS.D.vA MEaT�nCT of OcT7i �( WE WA"T To ROPGAL foR I�eSa ARAM ��E• REGARD INE PAY CARE FA _ry PCAm.r_. mADE yHE.c UEc.5.cN $ASLV oN To JTr rE 9ND C.Ty ,tAw5 AND Rm*o-ar.oN5. Tway TNe PC, of THE w,gjo•tlTj OF ING AlE/QN OKS v" NDr Co'4s.DEa— or- NEC OS iiuo lUAwr t; NL'14N&'RS. s Laws NU ire (!ay C4ae F+�.� Ty�Ak 3—Tu• By T»E Tr<sr F..'Ca .A ELV 3..• a 'fNC lmm v r I 4,�pn �aaE F.x.wrr wNo it, NArreaev ay . N �:n..rE 0,.17E Al • I"00c i AN GTA.�7�2 5. A iNE 1?Ar 7.E /i5 NE •f A NfywT Wod KEa• CN/LORE.N Notl C- tUNE.v' NE nf`5T SLEEP V'6An•�Y' oN rNE P, C, iwtl�FiGO TwAr L-HI'VAEN SN"'o MvE R16 Mrs AS SE,v.CdS� NA..,OrCA�tO A10. AL WNAT THE CN.LDRE.v WILL Bc yErr.NFl s A r&Vo"(A. _ ,..•5 .SA fAL4.AC11 �' DES /, "M4LL A».o�NT of T. wri F'oR PAL? T-6 SoR2oc.ATE-1'+AaENT T..Ar F0." NcRTllZWC� ITEM /�ti0 A L. f cF wAcE Nooi•Ny i1..5 15 Ev.JE.vT Ry TNe CN/.-0a E✓J h)as'E I NNT Coe" FaaH I we (NE ,NTENf OF'A / L-A�•C MEL`iIVCj REP1S('NS )tiff ,iIAK.NGI DEVIAI�Ouy HNO StY�[CSf.N C� VRF h1 vCc (o TNe LLra,TTE.v LA.v'S I7NH Q T./LAf.awS AS b'EEO0E Br NE,GMg�r,Anon. r14E nlrcr.uC� mil- Cc i 7_L Iq4/ O.n Ncr uSrLy �icr ow THE TN E ' WE '67 M6Or y h'c"E[ r M1O wAM1T5 /zP4 u . L'L • Ah ITEM NO. 1 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 1"1 UP 91-20 Public Hearing to consider the application of Ms. Mary Gomez Avalos, M. Avalos, for a Use Permit to allow a large day care facility for 12 children, on property located at 650 Aram Avenue, in an R-1-6 (Single -Family Residential) Zoning District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. ADOPT a Resolution approving the Use Permit allowing a large day care facility on the subject property, subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval. *This item is Categorically Exempt, therefore no environmental action is required. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Use Permit to operate a large day care facility (7- 12 children) located in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District, at 650 Aram Avenue. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed day care facility consists of a 620 square foot basement area in the dwelling and a 1200 square foot rear yard area. The facility will provide for up to 12 children. Day care services will be offered from 6:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Employees consist of the property owner and a relative living on the premises. BACKGROUND The use permit process for a large day care home consists of notification to property owners within a 300 foot radius of the proposed facility. Property owners may request that a public hearing be required. Four letters of opposition were received by the Planning Department; therefore, the public hearing was scheduled before the Planning Commission (See attached letters.) PROJECT DATA Net Acres: .23 Gross Acres: .35 Building: 3,200 sq. ft Building Coverage: 32% Landscaping: 44`70 Parking: Required: 5 Provided: 5 Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of October 22, 1991 UP 91-20 - 650 Aram Avenue - M. Gomez-Avalos Pa;,? 2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Under Section 21.61.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code, a large family day care Nome shall comply with all regulations and restrictions applicable to the zoning district in which it is located. Development standards include: 1. Parkine and Loading a. Ordinance Requirements: The ordinance specifies that an acceptable means for drop-off and pick-up, and tl,,± location of the home and on -site improvements shall provide reasonable vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Discussion: The proposed facility is located on the northeast corner of Aram Avenue and Whitehall Avenue intersection, and is easily accessed by pedestrian and vehicular traffic. b. Ordinance Requirements: Facility is required to provide a minimum of 3 parking spaces in addition to 2 spaces required for normal residential use. Discussion: The property contains 3 uncovered parking spaces and 2 covered parking spaces meeting the ordinance requirement. 2. Noise Ordinance Requirements: No maximum decibel level is specified in the Ordinance for large day care operations. The ordinance states that the use should not unreasonably offend the senses or obstruct the free use of neighboring properties. Discussion: Two letters received by the Planning 'iepartment indicate that the present noise levels of the small day care facility disturb the adjacent properties. Additional letters express concern regarding potential noise levels. The ordinance states that the Planning Commission may adopt mitigation measures that may include but are not limited to: 1) Approved location of outside play areas, 2) Limiting hours of operation and 3) Provision of sound attenuation barriers. He urs of operation indicated by the applicant are 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Monday - Friday). The applicant has indicated that drop off time occur Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of October 22, 1991 UP 91-20 - 650 Aram Avenue - M. Gomez-Avalos Page 3 at approximately half hour intervals. The ages of the children also vary and range from newborn to pre -teens. Activity in the rear yard would not be occupied by all of the children at one time. A reasonable mitigation measure would be to increase the height of the rearyard fence to 8 feet and is included in the conditions of approval. Based on the testimony received at the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission may adopt additional mitigation measures. A list of alternative conditions of approval is attached in the staff report. 3. State Fire Marshal Ordinance Requirements: The proposal must comply with all rules and regulations adopted by the State Fire Marshal. Discussion: The applicant has received clearance by the Fire Marshal. 4. Overconcentration Ordinance Requirements: The ordinance states that the proposed facility shall not be located within 300 feet of another existing large day care center, unless an acceptance is granted by the Planning Commission. Discussion: There are no day care facilities within 300 feet of the proposed facility 5. Traditional Family Environment The ordinance states that the proposed use shall safeguard normal residential uses and preserve the integrity of the residential neighborhood, and indicates the following criteria: a. : rinciple Use Ordinance Requirements: The facility shall be the principle residence of the provider and the use shall be incidental to the use of the property for residential purposes. Discussion: The proposed use is secondary to the main residential use. b. Alteration In accordance with the ordinance, no changes of the existing residence shall take place to establish the facility. Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of October 22 1991 UP 91-20 - 650 Aram Avenue - M. Gomez-Avalos Page 4 C. nRYMM nts:The use of the home as large day care itute a departure from the integrity of the residential neighborhood. DISCGSsion: The home will be maintained in its current condition. The applicant currently operates a small day care operation (up to 6 children. The only addition is the ncrease in the number of children a; the property b. Square Foote Ordinance Requirements: The ordinance states that the home s:iall provide adequate indoor living space and outdoor open space ;i meet the needs of the children Discussion: Department of Social Services has indicated that the properi, ie adequate to accommodate up to 12 children. RECOMMENDATION/SUMMARY The proposal meets the criteria of the Ordinance to allow large day care facilities by the property containing adequate open space, providing a traditional home environment and is served by sufficient street and pedestrian access. Therefore, staff is supportive of the request and recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Use Permit subject to the attacl,ed findings and c mditions of approval. If noise concerns expressed by the adjacent property owners are sufficient, the Commission could adopt additional mitigation measures outlined in the alternat' e conditions of approval. Prepared by: Gloria Sciara ' Approved by: Steve Piase kt/ Planner I Director of Planning Attachments: 1. Findings 2. Conditions of Approval 3 Alternate Conditions of ,%pprova' 4. location Map 5. Applicant's Sta; n,ni h. Exhibits 7 Correspondence Citv of Campbell Plan ina Commission 70 N. rust St. Campbell, CA 95008 OCT Li iS.i CITY C1 ERK'S OFFICE RE: UP 91-21:1 Avalos, M. Appeal of decision by Plannina Commission, 10-11-91 Gentlemen: Perallse of Unresolved negative impact en the community that was not addressed by the Plannina Comris=_ion and inaccuracies in describing this facility, and because the tape of the meeting was garbled and has omissions. we the undersigned wish to appeal the vote of th+ Plannina Commission. �L// ^ '�FteA i" 1) ' �OV 0 41991 ur. DEPppTMENT r: c dwNlNn O•JO pC- 1 Y i Ik 'A • I VA[0 � S Y r� Y J • 1A 1.7 ILA' . e i5S ASAAI AVE., SANM51. -2 ••, 6. SVAN Tagt OF,[Aoj�eC4 N- Ig�n Aran Ave. Ell Ztr3e TN BAIrAR IC FI /O'er �y p0. 'Be. ?O2 p Communication item No 1 S,p , ,lo crryoF „ I� r�Ti��T:'il 70 �R:N,',4 �..rm.cfacn OCT HC4 C� / SOOEj CITY 0;7 .. ,�• _ Rep. F,Lr A," Y ARt FACIE, ry FoR /1 .=,'+.l-�7.0 PLr oAy �a� �,�•�, r,,� v�s� b� 7-17Eq TN>� RES.OG" CH/t_ �tirJ QL•Ie� TI.Ir It.G.y,. ycR rB`"ry�+T IN Tis,t /�RBq iv,e FFRCN W/�.E_ Nor Jv/1 LC'F O""FC L��/tLrRas ev rr Li.it. E�es,ZC '�' TN,s R�•oe,<, r, A•L i An o QGL/ev�i rT I✓,LL gt Ma Ti+ �i riE KrL e� 41 ^'EK o�ii �E"7A/A/ r-rs'a �1r LE,vGTw eFoT �egE<-q<-sE �FvA.b soo N+vFC'rc.�rTVBrvjs y.w Res, L I'rSKc-o dVE OF ntr R1=5, Darn Tt fr✓/� ,y NoarC WqS rf,PnR r ar E„ ,,I �%D/S� S,Ni C lHG CN IIU I Aqe /S w Tu,r7 l OPt'RrrroaJ i►e' S.tr ✓�orMc TIwCS J�H� %rou,vV /C /t/Or D Sy. wi'e— r T,/Lv tyER of irsE. pck /4,T P U Iz cN,�oK eti WA _r"Ai 7tfE IVCe Ow Ng c'R HooD 1!.•OC�L r] f)E .I,oRC IVO/Sy IQti.d NN cT.a,v r IN�urkCo e F Ti+E NE TI*ey "Oui-O A1.10ugq�-our ri4CrL/T}r� /in,Il 3/4oKE 4rrT/.I"IrsQS rsrr.rrC�D/.}TCcy '�'�,O %NC CMrLDrF HrLos. rwcLiz) 1=Aer a ry/ on,c rF,ro NO op//v,o 7I� orxe Ayr�r.rsr TnE %}OC Up T/RH LE , OA1 a� %HE ry/ W0 S.<7 rp L;/9 T eC��E was STQeGT /yvU FC['12 C4Jl{e�SCS rl�.nT»� �gC,lrT �ge53 SHE T.r1sc FRcry i , y 4w,q LC 14caosr Tine do04rss 657N p, O 7' � �^ S . t.(eS o- G3 44 l.e �� fi4E: 2y7'2<ryN = �GEZ487 ``C I�aE 9G 3 yiS3�2vy�/OnI/ 4� LSD �/ 2'412 f .2 93 J i.r c ane L 44-W Councilmember Conant recommended that if this application is approved, tAet it be monitored more frequently than at the end of six months. The Planning rirector assured that any complaints received prior to the end of the six-month period would be responded to, and if necessary, nuisance abatement procedures could be implemented. M/S: Kotowski/Ashworth - to deny this appeal on the basis of findings relative to this application, and adopt Resolution 8215, Including conditions of approval. Notion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Kotowski, Conant, Ashworth, Watson, Burr NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None C'iti, Council Repwl ,,,,.E Appeal of Planning Commission re: UP 91-20 IMM � .%TEGORY Appeal DATE Novemtrr lv, 1441 day care facility at 6-50 Aram Avenue -- RECOMMENDATION The City Council can take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt a resolution upholding the Planning Commission's action approving the Use Permit allowing a large da,, care home, subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval 2. Adopt a resolution overturning the Planning Commission's action, denving the Use Permit to operate a large day care home, subject to the attached findings. DISCUSSION Backeround: A Use Permit to operate a large family day care home at 650 Aram Avenue was issued by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting of October 22, 1991. The Planning Commission determined that the proposal met all the development standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. The owners of property in the area and some neighbors opposed the use, citing that no mitigation measures would adequately address their complaints and concerns such as noise and reduced property values. Two appeals of the Planning Commission's decision were file± with the City Clerk. Analysis: The applicant currently operates a small day care home with six children. State law and the City Ordinance do not quantify acceptable noise levels for a large day care home. The Ordinance states that the use shall not unreasonably offend the senses or obstruct the free use of neighboring properties so rs to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of such adjoining properties. State law does not address subjective matters such as loss of property value. It has identified the need for more day care facilities in a traditional home setting. The Planning Commission concluded that the evidence presented does not substantiate a significant noise impact. The Planning Commission adopted additional conditions of approval based on the testimony of the neighbors that limited the number of children in the outdoor play area to six. The Commission also required a review of the facility in six months to determine if sound attenuation is necessary and whether the expanded use constitutes a nuisance. A summary of the main City Council Report -2- November 19, 1991 points raised at the Planning Commission meeting is attached in the staff report. ALTERNATIVES 1. Modify the Use Permit. The City Council can adopt additional conditions of approval, such as additional fencing, further limiting the number of children on the premises, and/or requiring additional review periods and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Attachments: 1. Findings for Approval 2. Findings for Denial 3. Main Issues - Planning Commission Meeting - October 22, 1991 4. Conditions of Approval 5. Minutes - Planning Commission Meeting of October 22, 1991 6. Large Day Care Home Ordinance 7. Letters of Appeal 8. Location Map Prepared by, Approved by: Planner I Planning Dir. City Manager gs:lb a:up91-20 G. Appeal to Ci Council. Any decision of the inning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by submitting a written request to the City Clark within 10 days after the determination of the Planning Commission. The City Council shall then, hold a hearing in the same manner as set for the Commission in Subsection F. Section 11.61.07' - Large Famliv Dav Care Homes. A. Purpose. This section is designed to provide for, and to regulate the establishment of Large Family Dav Care homes in residential toning districts. The purpose of permitting large family day care homes is to allow the establishment of child care facilities in normal residential surroundings to meet the child care needs of individuals and families, while preserving the integrity of the residential neighborhood. B. Definition. "Large Family Dav Care Home" Mears a home which provides family day ce:e for 7 to 12 children, inclusive, including children who reside at the home, as defined by State regulation. C. Location. A Large Far..ily Dav Care home shall be allowed in anv residential zoning district. subject to the provision of this section. D. Development Standards. Except as specifically permitted in this Section, the premise on which the Large Family Day Care Home is located shall comply with all regulations and restrictions applicable to the zoning district in which it is located. 1. Parking and Loading. a. A safe and acceptable means of drop-off and pick-up must be provided. The location of the home and the on -site improvement shall provide reasonable vehicular and pedestrian circulation. b. A large Family Day Care home shall require a minimum provision of three (3) parking spaces in addition to these required for a residential use, including two (2) spaces for loading/unloading of children and one (1) space for each employee, parking as set fonth in Section 21.50.050 of this Title. These 3 spaces shall be so situated that they have access to a public right-of-way without passing over another parking space. 2. Noise. A. Regardless of decibel level, and taking into consideration the noise levels generated by children, no noise generated from the day care use shall unreasonably offend the senses or obstruct the free use of neighboring properties so as to unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of such adjoining properties. -8- b. M1 .ation measures may be requirec''"'�butare not minimilg noise imp-cts. These measures may includ— limited to, approved location of outside play areas, limiting the hours of operation, and the provision of sound attenuation barriers. Stated day are withe alle Marshall. The applicable reg lationss adopted c by the mState t Fire lv Marshall. Overconcentration. Ne Large Family Dav Care home shall be locate within 300 feet of another existing day care center (12 or more children) or large family day care home (�-12 children) unless an exception is granted by the Planning Commission. The Planning commission, in granting such an exception, must find that the proposed concentration will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working i-i the neighborhood of such proposed use. Traditions! Family Environment. The development shall be designed so that normal residential surroundings are preserved and the integrity of the residentiai neighborhood is preserved. a. The facility is the principle residence of the provider and the use is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the property for residential purposes. b. Fo structural changes are p—posed which will alter the character of the single-family residence. c, The fact that a home is used as a Large Family ray Care Home shall not, in and of itself, be construed to constitute a departure from the integrity of the residential neighborhood. Square Footaite. The Large Family Day Care Home shall provide adequate indoor living space and outdoor open space to meet the needs of the children. A Large Family Day Care Home must comply with the provisions of Chapter :1.53, regulating signs in the City of Campbell. E. Permit Prueess. All persons seeking to operate a Large Familv Day Care home shall apply fore xa euse e ,it rwti sec provided wiinithis Chapter 21,72 of this code, p as section. Upon det mining that an application for Large Family Dap Care Home is complete, the Planning Director shall mail notices, by first class mail, to all property owners shown on the last equalized assessment roil as owning real property within a 300 foot radius of the exterior boundaries of the proposed Large Family Dav Care Home. Said notices shall inform the property owners that an application for a Large Family Day Care Home has been filed with the City, any shall list the address of the proposed day care home. The notices shall further state that if any persons wishes to have a hearing on the proposed day care home application, they must notify the Campbell Planning Department within fifteen (15) days from the date of mailing stated in the notice. Said notice shall specify an address and telephone number at which to contact the Planning Department. _. Notwithstanding Chapter 21.72, In the absence of a timely request for a hearing, no hearing or review by the Site and Architectural Review Committee or Planning Commission shall be held concerning the application. Without holding a hearing, the Planning Director shall act on the application. 3. Based upor the standards set forth in Paragraph lD) of this Section, the Planning Director shall review and decide the application. If the proposed dal care home fails to comply with the criteria set forth. in Paragraph (D) of this Section, then the Planning Director shall find that the proposed day care home does not satisfy the factors set forth in Section 21.72.050 and deny the application. If, within the time period specified in subsection E, the applicant, or ar,c affected persons, requests a hearing on the application, a hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning commission at the eraliest possible date. Notice of such hearing shall be given as provided in Section 21.72.050 of this code. At the hearing, the Planning Commission shall hear all relevant evidence concerning the application, and shall render a decision in accordance with the standards set forth in subsection D for the Planning Director. F. Appeals. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary, the decision of the Planning Director or Plarning Commission may he appealed pursuant to Chapter 21.80 of this code. In all such appeals, the standards set forth in subsection D shall govern. G. Severabilit}. If. for anv reason, anv provision of this Section is found to he unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. H. Mandatory Requirements. It shall be a mandatory requirement for owner and/or operator of a Large Family Day Ca,e home to full comply with the requirements of this Section, and to maintain the home in conformance with the standards set forth in subsection D. Failure to comply with this Section shall be punishable in accordance wit.i Section 21.88.040. -10 .:k cop r Sept embr`r 4, 1.1 �11 I� i_' 'ir ('� 11 !?!; 1"' jr„• Cif. of ramph,•.I ._ ill Yuri it Ftrst �t,,,..r (1,'J 11 �9n1 (.amphell, f-a. 1408) 866-2111) Dear Mr. piaserk, This letter is in t R,lyds t,. tlu a;,j 1. it tam for I!,.. Marc Gomez Aval0s Uso permit !or a 1.1i g,• ,i.f% , ar,� I,if , ! f r � 1- -11 `d at 6so Aram .Avenue in cam 1,h..II. When I move in t,, tilts nf• i µhh_ t jl_,l I Chou` i t bef-ause of the quiet and lack nl throuµh trat11,. I tef-l h,lvinµ a Iarµe day tare tarilitc next door will add tratttr and nuts„ to the neiµhborhood. 1 do nut think a rosf�t„nti II ri iIRhborhuod is the place for a husinf`ss. T .m t.rttinp. Ittts I(.tt,;- t,) pf ,,_t th., .1ppl tf,lt inn tiinr„rely, Frank Iemn 2492 Aram At — San Jose, fa. 951_B CTTY OF CAMPP-E,L, 65(� ARAM, AVFWT UP 91-20 2/2 FILE COPY 256 S Wren Way Campbell, California 95008 Steve Piasecki, Director ID1 Planning Department 70 North First Street Campbell, California 95008 t` Dear Mr. Piasecki: 1 am responding to the Notice of Proposal regarding the application for a day care facility by Mary Gomez Avalos at 650 Aram Avenue. My only concern is where the children will play. will they be confined to the fenced back yard or will they be allowed to play in the unfenced front yard? Our duplex is directly across the street and ur renters d0 not o have children. 1 know 1 would ob)ect to having twelve children running through the yard wtile I was at work. Incidentally, the front yard should be mowed when the weeds begin Ito grow. They usually are ailowed to grow to a height of three or four feet. It becomes an unsightly fire hazard every year. Sincerely, Ione J. Marvin B:Aram Comityot Santa c :lara IIX) IX\fa.,t (40- jl,tc 1\ct-) SAV' I IC , V, (I rt NG�L) ok:( �Xta;,ll �c'I�;rz A �4: 1� ''� Tz•y � r, l`t <�,� r,: r �-•��1 I 1 '? , i4<< � Ita c ti �..•,=' h COT (�16•l Y� •l-+� 1AIQ ILf �L�L11♦ J � �1 J Cap'7,I tto, tv H- 'YCJ;..Xt' . 4�I 1� 1 I,I;1i t}\� Iic1114L 6k1,)11,� tj Its, tl� ►\2.�,C—C �.�X:er C1\t,y A +,c6- if j-.�d 1: 14 (,�... 11\ t'i t.l (L 1r1 i�' it-b�y 11114 J J u�t<• cNl i�L i6�.lct\XX.N".� l., I.,I hc�.XS -„-% Q.�)leY IX'1'lI -T V\ tc co t'Irl t1C1- I 'T tXa, P1\.Vn IT k 1"'.r C71t I (" (-I\ d6r, c"I\ 1'�.} � i)Jn7 , Jl\ fc�l\iX�1.,\ Q.u- WA( ►�,� ZT (� Ec r h � � X� J Tkc `�c','YXr ht:l I.., c�\t �c.L� i��ji n`.;Fc�. 6.X�' C(k%,z fUI 'AIn, tt 14 C.Vl Idk�,,\ li�l.',t y1\tl r �r, 1p 11) _j \N:CX,2ld � p CkUStr, fr .� '.f 17 cf X, �tA /LOB C✓✓vv h'wLLf, (lull VI, 1,r X k 1 l J-4t ttu., ii ir�lv&* Ill 6 `Yl ikL-rl C iX) CI*'K"tn.k (_( I RIw�,j ICXtI� Stott N'jcLX'X ltiISr IIeH tuujItcu &,*,kI 12h,-,? Nl,nnl n11U1Mnlwlrv: \Iu l,.nl\I II•xul.I /: x'I:dµn'tt 14 nl l::nii.tll. l0-I ll,ixl. xi Ix.nnn'.I, h, lvl.l pcto I,'--f 1'1„Iril\ li>tYl'1,11. Y: !..III\ li IN ..I Planning May 29, 1992 NOTICE OF HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell has set the time of 7:30 p.m., or shortly thereafter, on Tuesday, June 9, 1992, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California, for a 6-month review of a previously approved Use Permit approval for Ms. Mary Avalos to allow a large -family day care (7-12 children) located at 650 Aram Avenue in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. APN: 282-14-038 File No. UP 91-20 A Categorical Exemption was previously prepared for this } roject. Plans, elevations, legal descriptions, and/or other supporting documentation is on file in the Planning Department, 70 North First Street, Campbell, Cahfornia. Interested persons may appear and be heard at this hearing. Please be advised that if you challenge the nature of the above project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this Notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Campbell Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Questions may be addressed to the Planning Office at 866-2140. PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL STEVE PIASECKI SECRETARY PLEASE NOTE: When calling about this Notice, please refer to File No. UP 91-20; Address: 650 Aram Avenue. 1611V 111 1WA11PItEII PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION PLEASE NOTE: STAFF IS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO NOTIFY APPLICANTS OF THE COMPLETENESS OF THEIR APPLICATIONS. DF[P'TFOSC�PPLICATIONS WHICH ARE FOUND TO BE COMPLETE CAN BE POSTED ON A PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. PROPERTY LOCATION/ADDRESS: __ . i APN: IRAs >•e/`/4`Ie(tr �2 DATE FILED: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: _ TYPE OF APPLICATION: Architectural Approval _ _ Use Permit _ Planned Development Permit Zone Change _ General Plan Amendment Variance Othe- APPLICANT: NAME: �l , I ' I, l _ `_ _.._ __ _ _._ _ TELEPHONE: _ ADDRESS: ZIP: CITY/STATE: PROPERTY OWNFR: NAME: TELEPHONE (ope l 193 -174.5 ADDRESS: L f7Q CIS CITY/STATE: ZIP: _ PLEASE ATTACHED SEPARATE SHEET FOR OTHERS THAT YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF STAFF REPORTS 6 AGENDAS. AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE(S): The undersigned person(s), having an interest in the above -described proper�y, hereby make thit application in accordance with the provisions of the Campbell Municipal Code; and, hereby certify that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of �y/our knowledge and belief. p�pTic +cis Sl,, ur` re U. t< rop�" erty�wner unet�re Date OFFICE IISE ONLY 2 P ANNING COMMISSION MTG. DATE: ICI' R P — JI FEE PAID: _ 30 Jn PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: CLO / RECEIPT CITY COUNCIL 446TING DATE: CITY COUNC I L ACTION: y _�_ - n��- l' i%%!-� •, DATE PUBLISHED IN NEWSPAPER: PROPOSED USE: FILE 1 �)''20 City of Campbell - Pianning Department - Steve Piasecki, Planning Director 70 N. First St., Campbell, CA 95008 (408) $66-2140 'totice of Exemption T ITY OF CAMPBELL i 0 N O R T M F I R S T S T R E E T CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95000 To: _ Office of Planning and Research From. City of Campbell 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Plandnng Department Sacramento. CA 95914 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 County Clerk's Office 0copies + cover sheetd out by planner) Santa Clara County 191 North First Street San Jose, CA 95113 Projerd Title Project Location - Spoclfk: Santa Clara e.,:.w f nr•,•)nn . (`try — -- — — - --- Project Location - County: -- — Description of Project: ";p n1,rn,:• Ills r n ,.; a ;,:,.,17_t2 Name of Public Agency Approving Project _ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Prolect: �f — Exempt Status: (check one t ❑ FhnLctenal (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268); j ❑ Declared Emergency (Sec 210M)(3): 15269(a)). ❑ Emergency Project (Sec 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)); n CaLcgoncal Exemption State type and section number ❑ Suvton Exempuonc State code number . r� � R_3scnsW�iyprOje ,.aE-aTyt. �",o lc Sarni-.= , _'nn*i,,l t1.0 dlw I- •\ Strucure• e i s Lead Agency Contact Person: _ y, Y . _ _ . Area Codelrelephmn 'Lxterwon frilled by applicant: I. Anach ceruCed document of exemption finding 2. Pa a notice of exempuon been filed by the public agency appm.mg the project? t] Yes []No Signature. ,c^7ta .1 Dale:,_.__ Title Q Signed by lead Agency Date received for filing at OPR: ❑ Signed by Applicant 9— ed Octo5o 1989 &mite 011nrn Cluimtn Otfuo of tln• � l wort• Clod, t� IV Nr Ml'f°vv tilnV•t 11 �- San )ow• i.oawn.,ta i_� � \ lt (408) 299-2968 — - *ENWRO"ENTAL DECldlltAT10N - FOR COURT USE ONLY NAME OF LEAD AGENCY: City Of Campbell NAME OF APPLICANT: Mary Gomez- Avalos :FILING NO. CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL. DOCUMENT 1. r ) NOTICE OF PREPARATION - NO FEE - 2 1xx) NOTICE OF EXEMPTION/STATEMENT uF EXEMPTION - NO FEE - 3. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ( I A - NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 21080(C) OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE $1.250.00 (Twelve Hundred Fifty Dollars) - STATE FILING FEE $25.00 (Twenty-five Dollars) - CLERK FEE ( l B - CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION PF. MINIMIS IMPACT FINDING - NO FEE, - 4. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ( l A - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PURSUANT T,� rF.CTToN 21152 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE $850.00 (Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars) - STATE FILING FEE $25.0o (Twenty-five Dollars) - CLERK FEE 1 p 'I-RTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION PE MINIMIS IMPACT FTNDINO NO FEE - *'1'll l s FOHM Mule HE ('OMPI.F'I'KD AND FILED WITH ALI. ENVIRONMENTAL. I)!H:IIMRNTI; FILED WITH THK SANTA CLARA COUNTY CLEW-; OFFICE. MAKI? (lllh.')K:; PAYAHLF. TO COUNTY CLERK tit RF:V 1 SF.D 6/91 City of Campbell FIRE DEPARTMENT 123 AMSOUTH BELII CALIFONNI 99000 FIRE SAFETY NOTICE (408)866-2189 BUSINESS NAME Md�_ i M r z— A' A r., ADDRESS c- G/I RAA"\ SUITE A — _ CITY [�(NP_6FU p�pR'y2 OCCUPANCY PERMITS rAY L A PL _ 1 2 3 NOTICE OWNERIMANAGER MA AY INSPECTION NOTICE RECEIVED BY XA A REA:;'INABLE DEGREE OF EIRE 'A' Tv EXISTS AT THIS TIME 6 CAMPBELL orornante nn r' Oa rpu«M comPilance wnN INoa111ame ndicalad bMM ELECTRICAL i c ,ondtan m —tot lce -11 Me Eleclncal C— en0 wotsc• - ] E%ITS � I'n • ,. HDry art. nIA navvs o P..srlv r .r n ng 3 FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS � Repa. . a I. •..d1a ncurne FIRE SEPARATIONS Hem'"" on5 to ere .loom era mlein Cbarp awn MICNIrry MNtgs •. L<amra ' Ana aan stnFa KeUV .. , .� ., u1lMsoparenye <ioseo S. FIFE EXTINGUISHERS , Or D Poetdc�on. , ,. �n . ... lop ral NplNr iMn SeIMI A FIRE ►ROTECTICIR INSTALLATIONS. Remo 1n obslrucianls^ noon a .. ... .. �. ' co^Led vNves r eo .. 1;.oper operarar .r IRA apmebr avetem Replace Mmaye0 or•drIs IT'wM spare apr•nxle,s IF m ... 1ewnN eprnxler comml .amee e a sw .n Inspect anIT 1.11 wrmxler SYe,e,.. p Semce eopal era nuo asvrwu.c' ene• ur AI. pure-m era proletnon .. p i51 vaersuallr a o FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS' � Cldseee 1 II and ILIA CODE 1ERENCE IBS SS 10RI 02 104b) 112 '03.) 02 10a1o1 (12 1131 I,0 307e) 0 MI.) 00 307C) 110 402. A DI 10 4011 I A0S hpal I,0301a 6 p) 110 301.1 1,0301e1 00 30241 .1,^., .I - cn,1 c! — In apprdvep c.DIMM D Remove gammaDk I,9un. Remove Ile ado r ..••c..,.n.. .veemply puiamge onlcee. apanmenla ano moiela 0 Sore aam—bw meDN Aguas Ors<Onllnue tis(Ienam� ndm .. ..., • sumo MYIr1g euctan rrom 1M IOp deconllnue Ine use aM.r .. HEAi1ES APPLIANCES Remove cdmpuaoDles n„ .•� , b P.clegrdnre nerwe.. ... ,glerrel 9 MOUSEKEEPINGBWI. Remo ruDDisN w ••.lanera p C eanvgrea I enara a � PdvrM non:nnpuetiM« n uu. 1 . +; 1 10 9TORAOE'. ' 1 •. �� -.. .. -' 1 Anange sto•gge in .>I$ mgnrrgr Bro '., .. b Remove storage .N toTB ncn.orage pMC wer '. ' RMu<e alorage I", to et lee -sr T real Gei.rw r«ieny�e last egnl Secure qra IOennN commeegea yes cyl M— I,n m dr prMucl 11 ERTERIOR HAZARDS a e p ovrOe a mmemrum oialo IDeelmleergnr• e • EMT mnlel combrMre 1: SMOKING a tr«Irreen nun. Peters era b.-N ryenrngr r unrpusedw wells eno naves '- an0 -to— NC, SMOKING signs 13 PERM ITS -1 r�ia a permrl r Im iN« (i.e P anlian Burequ. for IRA sloregP nl dl� M[erMus m p SuL,n�r a ,ITI uus Md~igl Manegemenl Men al« ieN C — d myV o ,, sa licenx a ON— a COMMENTS To,COm IRA e,e 1a ADDITIONAL YMENTB AND1O11 REQUIREMENTS 11Bo1NIEMENTB. Lauer wm IdlnY eeplemmy repwrements are eaob'nnmy a renntlpeclan Gale ALL VIOLATrONS NOTED WERE CORRECIEL 00 206) 'TO 302.) t0 302a1 110 302.T 110 3o2a1 la 301a1 TO 3151 .119041 9201) 9 79 20y ' '9 20, a.al 19am, e 502) 111 203c) 111 40601 ' • 201p1 1' 0 3151 201 b) III 203b1 00 302.) III 203b) ;a9 IN A 7. 107) 111.2014 A DI (1T 2010) 113 101) (1706) 11708I 11 WI ,a) L] REFERRED i0 F P.D. ISSUED By DATE _� aTAIE6 CALFORNY�FMTe 1ND vIFFTARF AGF-1 JF-1WNT OF—G SEW— COYYUNIT' CARE LCEN NG LICENSING REPORT REFER TO. See other side for explaration Of torn. _ I OIRECTom 'AC:' Ni.YxFe CENSUS TVPE OF VISIT OFFICE RENEWAL COMPLAINT MANAGEMENTT ANNOUNCE PHEUCENSING.. EVALUATION FOLLOWUP OTHER UNANNU�`..•.�uF coYOLE*Fo t DEFICIEIjCY INFORMATION: CIVIL, ENALTY INFORMATION. �( I No Deficiency Cited Deficiency Cleared Penalty Assessed Penalty Notice Given Deficiency Cited �_--_-_ Penalty Cleared 41ot Applicable COMMENTS I DEFICIENCIES RECOMMENDATIONS i CORRECTIONS LICFNaBq CVALUATOR aBWAIURF— I understand my licensing a�ppeall rights. WYEuaUPF i:VieOR �_-_ EIFPNtN1E 1I11I'M.I—ITV RTPeF �t •. A•vF .v'iGNAnigE IpAfE LC BOO IyEal M191 w --- - Pape -of _� popes F,C�ILITV COPY Adk RESPONSES TO LETTER OF OPPOSITION- LARGE DAY CARE-650 ARAM AVE 1). NOTICE OF PROPOSAL: Residents within a 300 fort radius of the subject propety are noticed. Fulks were omitted from original list. Intern prepared list -oversight only. First notice was to notify neighbors that Pl. Director would approve Use Permit unless objection was filed by one or more neighbors. Objection was filed. Public Hearing ensued. Outcome was the same. 2)NO CHANGES TO STRUCTURE: Mrs. Fulk mentions that a second door to the basement constitutes a structural alteration and is in violation of ZO. The ZO states rather that in section 5b- that - No structural changes are proposed which will alter the character of the single family residence." Staff concludes that if a second door which is not visible from that street was added by the applicant- this would not constitute altering the character of the single family residence. 3 and 4) REPORT OF MORE THAN 6 CI ILDRE-N and VARIOUS AGE ROUPS PRIOR TO UP IN EFFECT: No evidence or documentation indicates a violation existed. Further the use itself and its appropriateness on the subject property is what is subject to review. The City is not responsible for enforcing conditions of the commercial license, but rather review the use in terms of meeting criteria in reference to land use issues. The Dept of Social Services is responsible for enforcing terms of the license. If there is a problem anyone can file a comptiant and it will be investigated by the Dept. of Social Services. A recent inspection was performed by the licensing Rep who found the home to be in full compliance with licensing requirements. 5) INADEQUATE INDOOR/OUTI)OOR TO BUFFER NOISE: Staff concurs that there is substantial outdoor and indoor area to buffer noises- the home contains approximately 3,000 square feet. The yard contains approximately 1200 square feet. When I went to the home to conduct an inspection, prior to entering- I could not hear any noises emanating from the child care area-6 children were present. 6) SETTING PRECEDENT -The purpose of a large day care horse is to encourage day care in a traditional family environment. Further- the ZO states that the fact that a home is used as a Large Day Care home shall, not in of itself, be construed to constitute a departure from the integrity of the residential neighborhood. The use is clearly secondary to the main residential use of the property. a 1991 /,. Y CITY OF CAMPBELL 70 NOR TH FIRST S': R E E T rJa i rV 9 CAM P9E LL, CAL I F 0 R N IA 95008 11� i9 (408) 8 6 6 - 2 1 0 0 i t�k. FAX • (408) 379.2572 Department: Planning December 10, 1991 Mrs. Mary Gomez- Avalos 650 Aram Avenue San Jose, CA 95128 Re: UP 91-20 Dear Mrs. Avalos, Please be advised that the City Council at its regular meeting of December 9, 1991 continued the appeal hearing regarding Use Permit 91-20 allowing a Large Family Day Care Facility located at 650 Aram Avenue. The issues brought up at the City Council meeting that need clarification were in reference to fire safety requirements, location of the day care operation in the home, and the number of children cared for on the premises. It will be necessary for the appropriate City representatives to meet with you at your home to review these issues and verify that the r;operty meets requirements of the codes. We also need information regarding the most recent inspections by State and County Social Services agencies. Please contact me at the Planning Department at 866-2140 to set an appointment dme to review these matters prior to the January 7, 1991 City Council Meeting. Your prompt attention in this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, Gloria Sciara Planner I cc: Steve Franklin, Fire Department CITY (IF CAMPUM 7 0 N O R T H F I R S T S T R E E T CAMP BELL, C A L I F 0 R N I A 95008 1408) 866-2100 FAX t 1408)379-2572 Department, CITY CLERK November 11, 1991 Cynthia and William Fulk 647 Stokes Ave. San Jose, CA 95128 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Fulk: RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision - UP 91-20 - 650 Aram Ave. This letter acknowledges receipt of an appeal which you filed with the City Clerk's Office on October 28, 1991 regarding the Planning Commission's decision relative to a day care facility at 650 Aram Avenue. The City Council will consider this matter at a public hearing scheduled for December 9, 1991, at which time you will have an opportunity to discuss your position. The meeting will be held ir. the City Council Chamber, City Hall, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, California, and will begin at 7:30 p.m. A copy of the staff summary report and agenda will be mailed to you prior to the meeting. Sincerely, Barbara Olsasky City Clerk cc: Planning Director CITY OF CAMPBELL 7 0 N O R T H F I R S T S T R E E T CAMP BELL, C A L I F 0 R N I A 95008 (408' 866-2100 FAX t (408) 3 7 9 - 2 5 7 2 Department. CITY CLERK November 11, 1991 Larry and Juanita West 636 Stokes Ave. San Jose, CA 95128 Dear Mr. and Mrs. West: RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision - UP 91-20 - 650 Aram Ave. This letter acknowledges receipt of an appeal which you filed with the City Clerk's Office on October 28, 1991 regarding the Planning Commission's decision relative to a day care facility at 650 Aram Avenue. The City Council will consider this matter at a public hearing scheduled for December 9, 1991, at which time you will have an opportunity to discuss your position. The meeting will be held in the City Council Chamber, City Hall, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, California, and will begin at 7:30 p.m. A copy of the staff summary report and agenda will be mailed to you prior to the meeting. sincerely, Barbara olsasky City Clerk cc: Planning Director k L L-. Lj 1517 1 JAN Af-,L , L CITY CLERK'S OFFICE C 17'/ Ll dRK - 1-t 7c f, je 4 t fil,47,- c hEtiNRU roe L),4y ME u 4 t, Oe lz" Wy f7y 4 Ta 0,0w—ll PAY A -1nil i-- oA E,., f4l- 7,,e I PPIL-T -j'ArE.,r jv.p,rvszw,, j4 ko-w A", THE n1E rC ",3,, B-96- 4/21/81 NOTICE TO APPLICANTS REGARDING EFFECT OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY ON LAND DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS PURSUANT TO DEVELOPMENT OF APN -'Ae'r r 4;,r17 Please take notice that no vested right to a building permit shall accrue as the result of the granting of any land development approvals and applications. Pursuant to the adoption of Ordinance 9.045 by County Santitation District No 4 of Santa Clara County, the agency providing the above described parcel(s) with sewer service, if the District's Manager and Engineer makes a deter- mination that the issuance of a'sewer connection permit to a building, or proposed building, on the above described property, will, in his opinion, cause the District to exceed its ability to treat adequately the wastewater that would result from the issuance of such connection permit, then said permit may not be issued, and, hence, no building permit ma:• be issued by this agency. If the sewer connection permit is issued, it may contain substantive conditions designed to decrease the wastewater associated with any land use approval. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 8v signing below, the applicant acknot,ledges, at the time of application, that he/she .fully understands the above. Applicant's Signature, Site address of Proposed Deveiopment Distribution: Original to County Sanitation District No. 4 100 E. Surnyoaks Ave., Campbell, CA Copy to Issuing City, Town or County Copy to Applicant Campbell Planning Dept. File 0 UQ 91. Z� � � !! FPf•/VP�f of ire --_ d, -. a large NO Aran, Family Resid— tl. l No. LOP 91-7O. N:)ddres• 6s7 y c // w 44 c ��, ' -S; �� )��•-.E_` .�a-.�..1..• -� C`� •..1J`~Cs%S-�i�/ .ice �Ycs 'J,S-T _ �p,�►.r..;.�� ;�V�f �k�,� � Riau. _ _��-4_�J�+a % o� � 2Y52 09"q,r) 411L aBN -epCA_ -duauc. . OUic ' y E �/ R Ply n� i� v f .7 • c i•' - a LISP Permit Or We do not want the L't, 01 C&MO—11 • a large day ( ", v fac III t v for up to I children 10c A ted at 650 ArAm Ave. III's propert, is located In an Family Resxdentia] I ZonIn', No. OF Name L4dd ct� Communication Item No. 1 11-11 - 20 COPY October it), 19,lt Cit, of camphell 70 North First Sire,,Campbe l_I , i a . ',1008 Dear Gentleman: 1 am writing my se,und I.•tt,•i io ,, ,t.• I of th. PI'm it to allow a large dac are ta, ilitg .it n-,n \•,,m ,\,.•. File No. lip 91-20 ) next door to m, h„us,,. I am writing this letter to Ii_i "t ,..trI , r II, Hearing since I have in get up verg vat I% in tI— mo:nrnks lot work. 1 moved into this neighborhood be,.+us,- I w,, yut„t Prof hdd a low tratfir flow. If this "Large Dov Car, F,, tl it," is apprv,ged, it will lower my propert% \alte and I will lose the quietness which attracted me to this neighbothood. 1 d„ not want to tome home after a hard dac it work and listen to kids gelling and screaming in the vaid, nr linr,•n to the it.itti, while kids are h(,ing picked up. TrY to put vour m, position. w:wld coo Irke to have a large dac car,• la,rlii, """ door to \'our home' My hum,, is the largest in„•stment I will make in my lifetime. ,p until now. I thought 1 had made a pre'tg good choice. Your derision ,,,)I h.ic,• , great impa,t n nn 1114. 1 t .it i,rm.i 2492 \,.m, 4ge. San J„sr, Ca. 9i128 (408) 297-7815 op /o r oo/ CL ,ZtEJe rM L�%Jk AR rcN '7f= P(J f3c.r go2Y 'ommunication Item No. i UP 91-20 r-L Y'LAA'M1'IL'C/ fr%+/{:IMrSJ�C,L 18 Oci1991 7o Atm- T:Ks,- 5,-Krer :ITV e,*-PU.' �r-`i �'►J cl Song FILE � narm.,r. :>, • _ . r.. GGPY rA.,+ (`fJpuseu T+ ya Dray �.+a� F,ac,cr;y F-c'R /.Z Cr.r,c;> �f+/OVeet) i,R OAY C,gr(e TO NEAcc An.O C^ / c1c� 7HE FE,C,1 CNI�oRe,lr w1c� /Uo� Ac= �a.�r� T, Y .acJ(„ 4.rrry l� 14RaN rE"cc�c r'ST B+S,.ess !Nr.: PRD E.1T /a' TN If h'ESrOG.vPr}L U✓ LC-} Lit rtI CTL .9 P y /Tc2�r,s c,ar r112 I'3�!>< rNc,� Tr.E Bei-, c=v1•s ,T R� nrvR : J R riI' tr � ,r= Ft c-c'a_-r 4> �E.•l i n v !'rriv[: RrS yvEwr f yi+�C-r+JArN /r,a AM1r LEA.e,Try n� T, r.,� R/=.'HcSr cF- A.Y•rSc. L/4SKEr) LVvE OF My R2�r LJ�•>->-s ur1. r5 Nc,.r�. .4 OArtr aF E.Ic'M :iAy ,�,� I / r WNS 4/O/SV 5,ni c !,*c �N ra r, CAQC !4RT Sr'ryc T,weS lNE /=vcn.ri r� /I; crrSy. WNFn. L r Tc:c r.a Ia BR of irl E. rR /a /J1-<kel- IZ :'.rrao,�c.c /=Ee Re-�Cr.U,V k.NS 7,rAT THE NE,�MAu4 Hrr`U +a'c'a+c,J RF ,rk,r1� IVJ,Sy "'Or T,.er 4YY! U ra+c lc -our T INQ'�'rkC--vff of Tac NGrc�r.HpQS rra..rr'�Orr{TFcY /aaca�n.fJ TMF CNrc !' FAC-1 rTrvU O A4'e T%, :�r'OKE w rw /5 /'/oc';AN.-coS. r4•F�, -r -14C, LlT C'rvc HHu N !j� E,A,rvST i,vE CC C-O A13�c f�-'h�r= Alt, rr F }T-•4'P�/•�!<a+/orN Hr <5 /1r'r /NE /Nc•r l,Tr u.'AS �i1c'RrJciS i HE C4� MnvS['S /-ae .,r Tne FAC, l,T 4v i 14 TrrlB Fi¢a.v i . iv Sir R*•o G5<,7,4 nn,Ni, Hrinlr+a,41-n /Y�QE: cea Se /cJaer Gi� tc/T Ly/ LS'/ 041K: 2V7 8ti aab�C2^ILv Irr�[ fIRF *'•' Jfi'3 f12y4. n,,hia:N.n v� 9 zY 77 R � 48 � -2491 � r MW nIZOR" n Bowan Ifl; rnw1Y c, SUM JOS[. [A rfl]0 C/ EIR-1 CITY ' CAMPBELL, CALIFnRNIA INITIAL STUDY ENV',RO'MENTAL INFOR.*JATION FORM - TO BE CO%TLETED BY APPLICANT Date Filed. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor 2. Address of project. " Assessor's Block and Lot Number ,CA,-- 0 2 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains Cif _ 5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: u;,Ne_ 6. Existing zoning district: _ 7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed) 1,N4tf 14µ4-I ,CE1Ii PENriA4. �.,tY,i�i�..a .ti./7-/ :'r�'/[J%+('C itN!f�' W PROJECT DESCRIPTION (ATTACHED ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY) S. Site size. r.tkil x �> A 'a 4u 1L ,d .rr y�. h ti .I- (, 9. Square footage. (u 3 �,a r r. 10. Number of floors of construction. 11. Amount of off-street. pL-king provided 12. Attach plans. 13. Proposed scheduling. 14. Associated projects. "A 15. Anticipated incremental development `ii 1 of 3 pages 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of urit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. , v-f-, , •- : 1 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regio- Ily oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading i, 'lities. 18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. 19. If institutional, indicate the major function„ estimated employ- ment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and co=unity benefits to be cerived from the project. 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes No 21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands o- roads. 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general -- _ area of project. _ 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. _ 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quanity, or alteration of existing drain- age patterns. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10% or more. 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (el>ctricity, oil, natural gas, etc.) 32. Re ionship to a larger project or series of projects. 2 of 3 pages E: V1',OA'YENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photoFraphs of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set -back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photo- graphs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibitb present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge end belief. to Signature o� r 3 of 3 pages AlFrr.rr A.rIIr41W t 0 9 39 RORM AHMCNN TITLEOD*—I.I Lt 9: ,t RECORD ESWM AD. TWW17►j RV QUEST Of AI�.I. ryW �w�1Al1NKY 0. Anus E 1E�A1�S"TAi A" tovar,.�RIED1 CWL- jm. (yLlf. 9i10rrm M reovr L�y �.YIY�AeCIEA/W�E TNY lIM FON RIOoROlR1 UM -- ' lFEdIYI UM �ETt Deed Tbl vR& +l/N'a OAnIorlAl declral.) j> f 96 Oa„�RAtnr vAnrla tar l 1 1 mrl f+ed on !uO Nue eFprF^7' �`�' °� t nllr d �k IR 1 gRIFrtTd on fuO Nrle,•vW.of lrlr .ed Ticllmt"Anm .c�+unulF. d l 1 u n,,Np ted FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION. —IPI o! w4-h I• h—t"-lk—'lydled e� ALAN YERYL JONES Alp OIRI STINE 88L J04E S, wISBA'D AW olFF `' GRAN1151 ro 'WJ6' N. ANU[7B, a mental ..men er Nrt role etd t rate ptopeTtY BneN �E k AEC M� I�.yyl. t.�ul n•lf ". ell er lotnt ta�en[e a♦Id FRBOIRL/R. dY IoRovrll dT.tTllNd rr.l plq+mY m tM I'LtY nt ca S."1 0l Cahl— �Y°! ^TRACT NO. 1949". WMIOI MAP *AS FILED Srnte fl ere LOT 7. AS gplN 0M TrdT QRTAIN MAP ENTITLED, FOR RECORD IN TIE OFT IQ Of TIE RECORDER OF ;N, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. STATE Or CAL IFORNIA ON Am IL 2., 19,51 IN BOOK 146 OF MAPS, AT PAGE !. EXCEPTIIG TIERFNRO.I TIC UNEROROUNG WATER OR RIGNTSAT�IfORNT" NO RIGHITS OF 11 A ODWORATION. RfODFM IN BOON ASGRANTED Of WICI AL 1RECORDS, P" 356. PrALrl R. In" and M ry 'Negro, AY end wi Cr. IYnrlry a'�I U= �ntnt talent. with NAry N. AYRIor. 1nt.Irrt Ieneln mrANW N tlrm rt" Dyed T Alen YrrYI Jo-./ STAY! Or CALIFORNIA santl Clere WVNTFY or ��--- l a tA-M� wiy.re a 'e' Cnr Iet Ina Bel 1 Jonas _ _ -- ��..,.��R�.r,.. yy�y�on IM U / wT rs.Y+• i�lyriy Iy �� r eAor w"r a t Olnl l R A W I_ �r M wAs raw—raI I .m WRe ly rnnretm— tltTMt� I"I Ad W dAeY al !ten. a IeAA w _ TAN UAn N. _ _— AMIL TAR WTATIYINt{ N ol1CTI D AI An a cALIPCH IA of smaA aA- } ss 11SIPAGE0313 uI M+— ON .1VI8 10 19 me. dl. eudir �ro••� _krd,md. a Nw.Y Public m ud Im mw Co t ."i tr.re. Prr"• Paw�4 it, tsdel W4 1,AUY Wdmwe --f Lary ..Idrnr. to be tM P•""n a wMrt n.me are •ub.crib.d W th,• ,n•trummt. •nl •cMnn»ledard rn m. rh•t �WY .•crutdv