Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 LFD 08-008 - Supplemental Item #3TUSTIN Ir~ter~Cor~ . ~ ~ ~ ` '~ ,. ,, ~ DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 ~ ~ ~ ~~.'~~~ r,~a., ': TO: ME BERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ~_,<~ BUILDING OUR FDTU RE HONORING OUR PAST FROM: BETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT. ITEM NO. 4, LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE PERMIT (LFD) 08-008 The Community Development has received additional correspondence from Tom and Susan Muldoon and Toby B. Moore in response to the Report to the Planning Commission dated September 23, 2008 ("Report") regarding application LFD 08-008. The letter from Tom and Susan Muldoon dated September 19, 2008 (Attachment 1), reiterates concerns previously submitted to the City and addressed by staff in the Report. Mr. and Mrs. Muldoon "protest the establishment of any business, day care included, at 14481 [Pinebrook Drive]." However, as explained in the Report, the State Legislature has found that "family day care homes operated under the standards of state law constitute accessory uses of residentially zoned properties and do not fundamentally alter the nature of the underlying uses."' The letter submitted by Toby Moore dated September 20, 2008 (Attachment 2), addresses the following issues: 1) The letter outlines "baseline conditions" relating to existing traffic conditions on Pinebrook Drive and the immediate surroundings. Mr. Moore provides data from a previous traffic analysis and observations of typical daily conditions. 2) The letter also discusses the proposed large family day care facility and use restrictions. Mr. Moore indicates that although the applicant currently operates a small family day care at the property, no public outreach has been conducted by the applicant or is required by the City as part of the permit. 3) Next the letter states that clients of the existing small day care facility are not adhering to the staggered drop-off and pick-up schedule submitted to the City on August 7, 2008, and that the applicant has made no attempt to educate her clients of the use restrictions. 4) .The letter also states that due to illegal parking at the end of the cul-de-sac, traffic from Nelson School backs up, causing a 5-10 minute delay for the residents of Pinebrook Drive. 5) Mr. Moore has observed that clients "use excessive speed down Pinebrook Drive," creating a dangerous situation for other vehicles and children on the street. Mr. Moore closes by stating that without additional controls, unnecessary impacts from the day care facility will continue. In response to Mr. Moore's highlighted comments, staff holds that: Health and Safety Code Section 1597.43.(a) Item 4 PC Meeting Page 2 1) As explained in the Report, existing traffic conditions ("baseline conditions") and potential traffic impacts cannot be considered by the City in approving the LFD permit since the proposed use is permitted in the zoning district and the project is statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 2) Pursuant to the Health and Safety Code (HSC), local agencies cannot require use permits for the establishment or operation of a small family day care home. Additionally, neither the HSC nor the Tustin City Code (TCC) requires the applicant to conduct outreach as part of the application. However, staff has suggested to the applicant that she conduct her own outreach to the neighborhood and structure the LFD operation to mitigate the neighbors' concerns. 3) While the drop-off/pick-up plan was submitted as part of the LFD application on August 7, 2008, the project has not yet been approved and therefore the conditions and use restrictions do not yet apply. Should the Planning Commission approve the project and draft Resolution No. 4100, then the proposed conditions and use restrictions will apply. 4) State law requires local jurisdictions to consider large family daycare facilities as accessory uses of residentially zoned and occupied properties and that they do not fundamentally alter the nature of the underlying residential uses. As such, traffic conditions that may already exist near the project site or as a result of the neighboring school are outside the scope of the proposed project and cannot be considered in the approval of the large family day care permit. Proposed Condition 3.12 of Resolution No. 4100 requires the large family day care operation to comply with the California Vehicle Code and local traffic control ordinances and traffic control devices. If the large family day care home is not operated in accordance with local ordinances and conditions imposed, the project could be brought back before the Planning Commission for potential revocation proceedings. 5) If drivers are in violation of the posted speed limit, the issue would be referred to the Tustin Police Department. Attachments: 1. Letter from Tom and Susan Muldoon, dated September 19, 2008 2. Letter from Toby B. Moore, PhD, dated September 20, 2008 5:\CddV2elna~CUPV_FD 0&008 Letge Famiy Daycare Pinebrook~E6 Memo to PC.AOc RECEI\/~C~ Toby B. Moore, PhD 14451 Pinebrook Drive Tustin, CA 92780 SEP 2 2 2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY _ - September 20, 2008 Planning Commission c/o Reina Kapadia, Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 VIA FACSIMILE 714-573-3113 &EMAIL rkapadia@tustinca.org RE: COMMENTS ON PLANNING COMMISION SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 AGENDA ITEM #4: LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE PERMIT 08-008 REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME AT 14481 PINEBROOK DRIVE, TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Dear Commissioners: I reside and own property at 14451 Pinebrook Drive in the City of Tustin, California. My residence is located within 100 feet of the proposed Large Family Day care facility at 14481 Pinebrook Drive as identified in LFD 08-008. On August 14th, I formally requested that this matter be brought to the Planning Commission as allowed per Tustin City Code Section 9223(6)(e). I am extremely concerned in regards to impacts the proposed family day care center will have on already impacted traffic flow and the resulting safety hazards caused by observed failure of clients to obey California Vehicle Code or local traffic ordinances. Approval of this application must include additional traffic controls to not only protect the safety of the existing residents on Pinebrook Drive but the many students of Nelson School who utilize Pinebrook everyday. Per Section 1597.46 of the California Health and Safety Code, reasonable conditions can be placed upon the approval of this permit by the Tustin City Planning Commission. In addition, Tustin public works staff have been aware of poor traffic flow on Pinebrook and the addition of this family day care is just one more factor causing a traffic "perfect storm". Baseline Conditions: During August and September 2007, traffic impacts to Pinebrook Drive were discussed at the Planning Commission in regards to impacts from the Suncal Mitchell/Browning project. The project was disapproved by the commission and traffic impacts to the intersection of Pinebrook and Browning were one of several Ms. Reina Kapadia September 20, 2008 COMMENTS ON LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE PERMIT 08-008 AT 14481 PINEBROOK DRIVE, TUSTIN, CA Page 2 reasons for the denial. A summary of facts from that earlier traffic study and how it applies to this application are listed below: A traffic count was conducted on Pinebrook Drive on September 10, 2007 by Austin-Foust Associates as part of the Suncal project, and was endorsed by Mr. Terry Lutz, Principal Engineer, City of Tustin. This report determined that between the hours of 7:30am and 8:30am on that day, 187 trips occurred on Pinebrook Drive (187 vehicles per hour (vph)). Similar conditions occur during the afternoon. Between the hours of 1:30pm and 3:30pm on the same day, 145 vehicle trips occurred on Pinebrook Drive (73 vph). • In another letter prepared by Austin-Foust Associates for Mr. Terry Lutz, Principal Engineer for the City of Tustin, it was stated that Pinebrook Drive, with 19 residential units, should have an estimated AM peak volume of 13 vehicles per hourz. • However, due to the proximity of Pinebrook drive to Nelson Elementary School, traffic is forced onto Pinebrook Drive due to inadequate traffic controls. As stated above, the actual AM peak volume on Pinebrook Drive is 187 vph instead of the predicted 13 vph. This represents a 1438% volume increase over "normal" conditions. • In addition, parents utilize Pinebrook Drive to park and walk their children to Nelson Elementary. • Morning AM rush coincides with school drop-off activities at Nelson Elementary School. A crosswalk is located at the intersection of Browning and Pinebrook Drive. There are no stop signs so the crosswalk is monitored by a crossing guard during school drop-off and pick-up periods during the week while school is in session. As such, Pinebrook Drive has become the main parking and turn-around for the school. As traffic builds up behind the crosswalk for traffic traveling north on Browning, traffic diverts and results in illegal turn activity and increase traffic on the small cul-de-sac. This results in increased impacts to the residents of Pinebrook Drive as well to increase safety concerns for the children using this area as a drop-off or the children on Pinebrook walking to school. ~ Austin-Foust Associates memorandum to Mr. Terry Lutz, Principal Engineer of Public Works, City of Tustin, dated September 11, 2007 titled "Browning and Mitchell Townhome Project -School Traffic Impact Supplemental Analysis. 2 Austin-Foust Associates memorandum to Mr. Terry Lutz, Principal Engineer of Public Works, City of Tustin, dated August 24, 2007 titled "Response to Toby B. Moore e-mail, dated August 22, 2007", which states 19 DU x 0.67 AM trips/DU = 13 vph. Ms. Reina Kapadia September 20, 2008 COMMENTS ON LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE PERMIT 08-008 AT 14481 PINEBROOK DRIVE, TUSTIN, CA Page 3 • Better traffic controls are needed to improve traffic flow in the vicinity of Nelson School and more specifically to lessen the demands on Pinebrook Drive. Large Family Day Care Facility: Tustin staff have produced a very well prepared report describing the constraints the city has on approvals of large family day care facilities in the City of Tustin. One area where the City does have some say is such applications in on impacts to traffic flow. I commend the staff for instituting. use restrictions on the permit for both parking and staggered drop-off and pick-up times. However, there must be additional use restrictions to ensure these are followed for the safety of the residents of Pinebrook. Some traffic flow modifications should be the responsibility of the City to alleviate some of the impacts by poor traffic design that is already in place. Below are several points I would like to summarize: The applicant has been operating a small family day care facility since approximately April 2008. The exact day is not known to me or any other residents within a 100 foot radius of the property, largely since no outreach to any neighbors has ever been conducted by Ms. Berrios or the property owner Mr. Jose Martinez. I must point out that several cities such as the City of Santa Monica, CA require outreach as part of the permit condition. The City of Tustin does not require such outreach. Clients of Ms. Berrios are regularly seen disobeying vehicle code by double parking, parking across other driveways and speeding up and down Pinebrook Drive. Even after submitting a staggered drop-off and pick-up schedule on August 7, 2008 to the Tustin Community Development Department, multiple offenses of double parking and multiple client drop-off at the same time have been observed. It is apparent that Ms. Berrios has made no attempt to educate her clients of the use restrictions. If she can't implement them while running a small day care facility, conditions will only multiple with the approval of a large family day care facility. • When clients illegally park at the end of the cul-de-sac during peak AM or PM hours, which is regularly observed, traffic from Nelson School backs up and it may take 5 to 10 minutes to back your car out onto Pinebrook Drive. Ms. Reina Kapadia September 20, 2008 COMMENTS ON LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE PERMIT 08-008 AT 14481 PINEBROOK DRIVE, TUSTIN, CA Page 4 • It has been observed that clients in their rush to drop-off and get to their job sites, use excessive speed down Pinebrook Drive. This is extremely dangerous to both other vehicles and our children that are playing. The addition of up to 30 or more vehicle trips per day to Pinebrook Drive as a result of the operation of this Large Family Day Care facility will impact the residents. Even though this project is categorically exempt from CEQA, traffic impacts will occur. For a street that is predicted to have 13 vph at AM peak to add a possible 12 additional trips increases the load by 92%3. This addition to the already increased demand of 1438% by Nelson School results in 199 vph or a 1530% increase to "normal" Tustin residential streets of similar size. • It is very much apparent that without additional controls, unnecessary impacts from the day care facility will continue. Recommendations: As per section 1597.46 of the California HSC, reasonable conditions can be placed upon the approval of this permit by the Tustin City Planning Commission. I would like to provide some recommended mitigation conditions that could be placed upon this permit and some recommendations for the City of Tustin to implement as well: • Require the applicant to provide an updated drop-off/pick-up plan on a regular basis to the City. • Require the applicant to maintain adrop-off/pick-up log to ensure compliance with use restrictions 3.3 (hours of operation) and 3.6 (drop- off/pick-up staggering of 10 minutes at minimum). This log would be available to the City upon request and could be used to confirm compliance should complaints be filed with the City. • Require the applicant to develop and implement a client education program that informs them of proper drop-off and pick-up procedures as well as maintaining appropriate speeds along Pinebrook Drive. • Modify use condition 3.12 to ensure that clients of the large family day care operation, in addition to the facility itself as currently stated, comply with the California Vehicle Code and local control ordinances and traffic control devices at all times. a Assumption that one car arrival at the day care facility per 10 minute interval equates to six arrivals and six departures through the Pinebrook/Browning intersection resulting in 12 vph. Ms. Reina Kapadia September 20, 2008 COMMENTS ON LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE PERMIT 08-008 AT 14481 PINEBROOK DRIVE, TUSTIN, CA Page 5 I also recommend that the City of Tustin to consider the addition of traffic control devices to be added to Pinebrook Drive to slow the traffic. These could include any of the following: • Add signage to Pinebrook drive to slow traffic, such as "drive slowly, children playing" or a set speed limit. • Add speed bump or ripple strips mid block to encourage safe speeds. Install an LED Digital Speed Sign mid block on Pinebrook Drive like the installation by the City of Tustin in the Peppertree Development on Raintree Lane at the intersection of Basswood Court next to Magnolia Tree Park. These signs are effective at lowering speeds and can also maintain a database of speed groupings per unit time. • Implement regular police watch of the Pinebrook Drive/Browning intersection to control illegal parking at the intersection and illegal U-turns. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and please enter my letter as part of the administrative record. Sincerely, ~~-____ Toby B. Moore, PhD Cc: Tustin City Council Mr. John Nielsen Mr. and Mrs. Craig Oberlin RECEIVED sEP z z 2ooe C1N{TI' (~VELOP~ENT ~ ~--- q - ;3,,.~~,~.,~ ~~.~ \ So..~.'\o~. ~~a ~ CPS °1'~.`t o 5 S~ • \'~ , "Lary S 3 ~~ c,~-~-a..~.,~.:a\ ~,,a-y ~ ~.. 4.0.E `cti-~s. ~o~o..d,:~. , ~- = l...o~,rc~+... -~a..m;~ Y ~Q-y cm.Y .~.. c...~c 1 y y g \ 2 ~ re~ r ad ~, ~ ~ Fc~ 0 8 - y n a W~, aac o-.. ~'~~ ovJ~r,~.c s 4~ ~~Q.. `cQ.s~'d,eY,~.a_ o~ \`-\y1 \ 'Cv~n~hccoll ~~vw.w.~,a.~ cs-"C~,1.~ r~o"c~ wee ~ ~o \x{48` • ~ ~~,cA.. w~+c-c.., s1.~\ o~ c,-~ `\ o w r~`, 3.` rv. w Y ~~,S~V~~ y c t,~., ~ o.. ~ a. ''C~'1~.~' ~- ~ ~~„~. a~... ~Li ~ r`o1 Q. sat' 71.2. ~.ST0.~~.Sh ~t.~ 4-T a..,,,Y 1~ws.,n~ss, aay ~.ar~ •~c~c~\u.~,Q.~,, ~ 1 `~ y `~ \ - C7 u r r ~ ~s m ~. s o~r ~ c,\~.ar-1 y s~-a-~ ~.~, ~,-, r ~ c.a..~~ ~ o~ c-orYq-s~ohc~e,r, c..~- -~c rc~Y,-~ ~ ~~c- s c~~ a_.c~ 6~ uq~....s} 3~~ .t- \8~^ ~l ~ e p ~ s7.5 0~ w~r, ~ a.l~ o-~c' Q, c~ w~..1-~ ,~ ~ J , A ~.~.o rc` QCI~ ~r ~~c-0~ ~ 2 ~s , ~ ..~. r.t p.o,a-Y : " 1PD~ Y~lr',p1 wr.d ~.~c-cs~ -~ a ~d ~ ~" p P s o.~ L v ~ ,rat vo~\ ~ ~ re,1 - ~.x ~ a-Y.~ n-t ~ yysa ~ ~S+.L Akgws~r 3ro, 1 ~~~, Qc~~,-ts 3 .~. ,~~ p c•c <, v.~o.:•c~ , ~..~ ~ o--sk y o vt , ~\ Qo.-+s Q, d,b ~ ~~-o-~~'ti ~~~ C 4. v- st s~1' 1_FD Off- Oo$ -~cc a, -CG..nn.\~ ~.Y Co.r'a... ~an.~ o.~ \~y~\ ~~r~~breD~C.~P. 1 O•HI~ Ck,h~ S tA.S 0.Y\ , ~ \U.~ d-D O h c e..:~c \at••nr c1 Co.Y.•r. s ~.• ~ r S a rya- Pc ~ a , C Pc °1'~`\t~S \ 0.h'n~ '~~ ~`cv rn ~ S Sao ~Cl c.(d `~'c c~.m<..a o. S~ o k ~ r , CTIy C1er k 3cx~ C~~C~.7;~a\ Jay ~ v S~, n ~ C~ °1Z`1 ~ba `' ~, L. Q-ti" ~ ~-- ~w~nr..\.f ~y CD.'f ~ Ci.~ \ "t`~ 4 \ ~\~n Q.~Ob T~ C~,. ~ p Q~ ' ~a~~ ~ 4~ ~' W ~. o,.»n ~~,a.. e~o'~~c-CY a~'C \yy""l\ i~~~nebraer~ , ~lac.~~ "~.~ 1yy~,~ . moo.. o.,x-e. ~~,.--rco..r'~'C~Y a~' e~ ~awc~ p..rd. c.c,.rro~' o.~~rc~ ~h~ Cs> \wr~ ~-~~ `~`"-°-~C . r~ o~ ~ cl,~ s~ c...\ ~~ ~ o c SwQ~' 2~ r~ ." ~\-~ow ~ v ~,r ~ ~ ~L. ~...i.5k, ~D ~C¢~~p~a..~c o~~c- o\~oS ~ \~ mY1''(a ~'t'~sti.. ~Y°'~° ~'`~ c~O.y CD(~~4'a~ d ~~ ~r aSS \ s ~1 0.~ ~1 a-~.-~' 1 ~ k r ~" l~.l~.~~r.~ a--S' a.. S a..~ -T b~l, ~. -~~.r~.~ ~~~~,y ~.s ~0.-n~.~s y ,~~ -~4 -~~ ~~,.~.~.;~r -~.~„~~ne~~rt 1`~~ ~ ~ rya ~ ~ S ~ c.s~~,r,~t-~ c~b\sZ.. , S ~c-.~C~ `cam. ~ , 2-1 `~,o`~.~ cJ~~S~'f' ~~ • ~\ ~o..,~ .~. ap had C~,S~6s ~~'^-\ ~• ,c"QA.~ iJ ~--~ "~-, a- ~ ~s~ r,.sz.-gam ~c.e.~n ~~s~~ ~ ~ ~~_ p -,~-~a-4.~s ~otib.~,n,d v n -~.Q-~a~ \~~ oc Q-Z ~ -} ~ ~ ~S a~~ ~~ ~o ~1 `t'~.mo.-,-,-1 ~" ~ w~~o1~~ ~..1( E~Cr~ 1 \ 91c1 o r c~~n `~ ~ ~~~ ~: ~~ ~~.. ~.(~o,.a„a 12791 Bubbling Well Santa Ana, CA 92705 August 18, 2008 Reina Kapadia, Associate Planner/City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Dear Ms. Kapadia, Re: LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE AT 14481 PINEBROOK (CUP 08-008) On August 3, 2008, we replied to your first notice regarding this project. That letter is attached. Once again, we can not request a hearing, due to the fact that we are out of town. However, we strongly repeat the objections to the establishment of a day care business at that address. Since we first wrote to you, we have talked more to people who live on Pinebrook. Even without alegally-sanctioned business at 14481, there are still plenty of complaints from neighbors and tenants at that end of the cul-de-sac. We are informed that traffic is already unreasonably heavy to and from that address and that often the cars are traveling much too fast to be safe. We are also informed that there is plenty of action late at night, sometimes as late as 11 PM. That greatly exceeds the limited hours requested by the applicant. If it makes any difference legally, are you aware of the fact that the people wishing to establish the business are not the owners of the property? Once again, we ask you: please do not grant the request CUP 08-008 for a family day care home at 14481 Pinebrook Dr. Sincerely, Tom and Susan Muldoon 12791 Bubbling Well Santa Ana, CA 92705 August 3, 2008 Reina Kapadia, Associate Planner/City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Dear Ms. Kapadia, You mailed a letter on August 1, 2008 regarding the possibility of a large family day care home at 14881 Pinebrook Dr. (CUP 08-008). Since there is no such address on Pinebrook, we believe you are referring to the house at 14481 Pinebrook Dr. We own the house next door at 14471. You asked for comments, and we certainly have some to send to you. We are not requesting a hearing because we will not be in town on August 18. But please consider the following: we vehemently oppose legalizing a large family day care home at that location. Our reasons are as follows: 1) The zoning district is R-1, as you know. That means the home is supposed to be a single residence, not a business. Whether or not the government code 1597.46 prohibits the undertaking is not the issue. By any name, a large family day care home is a business. The operators are certainly charging for this care, have set hours, and will be employing "one non-resident employee". That's a business. 2) This street is directly across from Nelson Elementary School. Routine daytime traffic during the school year is busy, and school events push parking on to Pinebrook as well, making less street space available. People who live on the street use street space, too, and rightfully so. 3) "Drop-off and/or pick-up areas° are virtually non-existent. The house itself is a small 3-bedroom with little front yard and a minimal driveway not much more than one car length from garage to street. V~'ilf that be one of°the "areas"? Beyond that, the house sits at the end of a cul-d~~-sac. Please take one minute to imagine what this kind of traffic is going to do to Pinebrook (a dead-end street), in general, and what an overall nuisance it wilt be at our end of the block, specifically. 4) Because this street is a cul-de-sac, parking space is always limited. Additional cars are undesirable in this R-1 zoning cistrict, and probably unsafe. 5) Noise cannot be controlled with 14 children in residence, and the necessary traffic accompanying their arrivals and departures cannot be silenced. Apparently this day care business has been going on for some time, since we had complaints from our tenants several months ago regarding disruptive, excessive noise from that residence. We didn't buy a house in the suburbs so that we could own a property next to a business; that, of course, is totally undesirable. Please do not grant the request CUP 08-008 for a family day care home at 14481 Pinebrook. Sincerely, Tom and Susan Muldoon