HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1 LFD 92-002 08-03-92PUBLIC HEARING N0. 1
8-3-92
. • ' , b ' � M,,,l '. � �� a ,.4. ,fir � ,�.w,r,a,.�,.iX�i�' � �'
")ATE:
AUGUST 3, 1992 Inter -Com
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME (LFD 92-002)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 92-96,
as submitted.
BACKGROUND
On July 13, 1992, the Planning Commission opened and held a public
hearing concerning an application for a large family day care home
at the property located at 13022 Ranchwood Road. Upon hearing
testimony and after closing the hearing, the Planning Commission
approved LFD 92-002 by adopting Resolution No. 3056, a copy of
which is provided as Attachment A. Additionally, copies of the
minutes and the staff report are provided as Attachments B and C,
respectively.
On July 16, 1992, staff received an appeal, provided as Attachment
D, from the adjacent property owner of the Planning Commission's
action based on the following grounds:
1. The decision was made contrary to and in disregard of the
requirements of Tustin City Code Section 9223 (a) (6) ( f)
and (j); and
2. The decision was made contrary to and without the consent of
the co-owners on the property on which the licensed activity
is to be conducted.
The subject property is a single-family residence located at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Ranchwood Road and Irvine
Boulevard. The subject site is surrounded by similar single-family
residential development.
Pursuant to Section 9294 of the City Code, an appeal request was
made and a public hearing scheduled. A public hearing notice
identifying the time, date and location of the public hearing on
this matter was published in the Tustin News. Property owners
within 100 feet of the site were also notified by mail and notices
City Council Report
LFD 92-002
August 3, 1992
Page 2
were posted at the Police Department, the City's Senior Center and
at the subject property. The applicant was informed of the
availability of a staff report on this matter.
DISCUSSION
Based upon the appeal request, the following analysis has been
prepared to address each of the reasons cited in the appeal. The
first three concern the regulations listed in the City's Code for
operation of a large family day care home and the fourth is related
to a concern that the operation of the day care violates the
Bellewick Community Association's CC&R's and that the Planning
Commission should not have approved the license. Please refer to
the Planning Commission report (Attachment C) for a complete
discussion on the proposal.
1. Tustin City Code Section 9223 (a) (6) (f) - Any day care home
must comply with all regulations adopted and enforced by the
State Fire Marshal and Orange County Fire Department.
The day care was originally inspected by the Orange County
Fire Department on May 29, 1991. The fire clearance was
granted at that time. However, since the concern was raised
a member of the City's Building Division conducted a
reinspection to ensure compliance with all applicable codes on
July 23, 1992 since these code provisions are now enforced by
law by local building divisions. The applicant's operation of
the day care and the subject residence were found to be in
conformance with the Uniform Fire Code requirements for
emergency and preventative actions.
2. Tustin City Code Section 9223 (a) (6) (i) - Any day care home
must comply with the provisions of the State Uniform Building
Code and City of Tustin Building requirements which apply to
single-family residences.
On July 23, 1992, a representative from the City's Building
Division conducted an inspection of the premises and no
violations of the Uniform Building Code, as amended by the
City, were found..
3. Tustin City Code Section 9223 (a) (6) (J) - Any large day care
home must provide one (1) off-street parking space for each
employee who is not a resident of the premises, and provide
adequate drop-off andlor ,pick-up facilities on-site or
immediately adjacent to the site as necessary to avoid
City Council Report
LFD 92-002
August 3, 1992
Page 3
interference with traffic and to promote the safety of
children.
The applicant, Socorro Jones, has indicated that her daughter,
who lives with her, is the primary employee that assists in
the care of the children. Since this daughter lives with Ms.
Jones, a separate parking space is not required. The subject
property maintains a driveway approximately 25 feet in length
and is adequate for the loading and unloading of children. In
addition, there are various locations for on -street parking
immediately adjacent to the site on Ranchwood Road, a public
street. The location of the on -street parking is graphically
depicted in Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution No.
3056. Staff believes that any concern regarding this issue
can be mitigated by requiring the applicant to provide all
users of the facility with a copy of Exhibit A delineating
acceptable parking locations. This condition has been imposed
on three previously approved large family day care homes and,
to date, staff has not received any complaints indicating the
- existence of parking problems.
4. The decision was made without the consent of the co-owners of
the subject property.
Ownership of the subject property, as reflected in the
Assessor's records, is to Mr. Robert Dawson, who previously
resided at the residence for approximately twelve years prior
to renting to Ms. Jones. The adjacent property owner, and
the appellant, Mr. Ernest Barrett, has indicated that the
Bellewick Community Association's CC & R's have been violated
due to the approval and issuance of a license to Ms. Jones as
he believes that the day care constitutes a commercial use of
the property.
In response to this issue, the City Attorney's office has
prepared a written legal opinion provided as Attachment E,
responding to a request by the Planning Commission. The State
Health and Safety Code Section 1597.46 (a)(1), states that a
large family day care home (7 to 12 children) must be
classified by a local jurisdiction as a permitted use of a
residential property for zoning purposes. Section 1597.40 (c)
of the code further states that every restriction entered
into by way of covenant that would directly or indirectly
limit the use of a residential property for a family day care
home for children is void. Therefore, any restrictions noted
in the CC & R's are inapplicable to large family day care home
licenses.
City Council Report
LFD 92-002
August 3, 1992
Page 4
In considering a large family day care home application, the
City is limited in denying an application by State Health and
Safety Code Section 1597.46 (a) (3 ) to negative impacts related
to over -concentration, traffic, parking and noise only. Some
of the issues raised at the previous public hearing and by the
appeal request cannot be considered as appropriate grounds to
deny the subject application. The concern raised related to
parking has been addressed and a mitigation measure
recommended.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the information presented, staff recommends that the
City Council uphold the Planning Commission's action and permit the
operation of a large family day care home at the property located
at 13022 Ranchwood Road by adopting Resolution 92-96.
A E. Bon Christine A. Shing on
ssociate Planner Assistant City Manager
Community Development
AEB:CAS: rnm/Ifd92002
Attachments: Resolution No. 92-96
A - Planning Commission Resolution No. 3056
B - Planning Commission Minutes - July 13, 1992
C - Planning Commission Staff Report - July 13, 1992
D - Appeal Request
E - Legal Opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
T
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
271
281
RESOLUTION NO. 92-96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY_ COUNCIL OF -THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL
OF LFD 92-002 AUTHORIZING THE OPERATION OF A LARGE -
FAMILY DAY CARE HOME AT 13022 RANCHWOOD ROAD
The City Council does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application has been filed by Socorro
M. Jones to permit the operation of a large -family
day care home at 13022 Ranchwood Road.
B. That a public hearing was duly noticed, called and
held on the subject application. by the Planning
Commission on July 13, 1992. That an appeal was
received and an appeal hearing was duly noticed,
called and held on the subject application by the
City Council on August 3, 1992.
C. That the project has been determined to be
Categorically Exempt (Class 1) pursuant to Section
15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
D. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation
of the use applied for will not, under the
circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the
health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare
of the persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the
following findings.:
1. The proposed day care home by design, location
and layout will not constitute a noise nuisance
to neighboring properties.
2. The day care home is not within 300 feet of the
exterior boundary of any existing large -family
daycare home.
3. All property owners within a 100 foot radius of
the exterior property boundary were notified of
the intent to establish this home.
4. The proposed day care home has been inspected
by the Orange County Fire Department to assure
compliance with required fire prevention
regulations.
5. The play yard of the proposed home is enclosed
by a six-foot high fence which is setback from
the required front yard.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 92-96
Page 2
6. The proposed home does not have a swimming
pool.
7. The proposed home provides adequate off-street
parking areas and has adequate drop-off and/or
pick-up facilities both on-site and off-site
which will avoid interference with traffic and
promote the safety of children.
8. The applicant has a license with the State of
California.
II. The City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission's
approval of LFD 92-002 authorizing the operation of a
large -family day care home at 13022 Ranchwood Road,
subject to the conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3056.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City
Council, held on the 3rd day of August, 1992.
Mary Wynn
City Clerk
LESLIE ANNE PONTIOUS
Mayor
c
f
11
1'
1`
1.
1�
1=
11
1'
1'
1'
21
2'
2'
2,
2
2
2
2
2
RESOLUTION NO. 3056
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING THE OPERATION OF A LARGE -
FAMILY DAY CARE HOME AT 13022 RANCHWOOD ROAD
The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows:
I., The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application has been filed by Socorro
M. Jones to permit the operation of a large -family
day care home at 13022 Ranchwood Road.
B. That a public hearing was duly noticed, called and
held on the subject application on July 13, 1992.
C. That the project has been determined to be
Categorically Exempt (Class 1) pursuant to Section
15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
D. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation
of the use applied for will not, under the
circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the
health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare
of the persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the
following findings:
1. The proposed day care home by design, location
and layout will not constitute a noise nuisance
to neighboring properties.
2. The day care home is not within 300 feet of the
exterior boundary of any existing large -family
day care home.
3. All property owners within a 100 foot radius of
the exterior property boundary were notified of
the intent to establish this home.
4. The proposed day care home has been inspected
by the Orange County Fire Department to assure
compliance with required fire prevention
regulations.
5. The play yard of the proposed home is enclosed
by a six-foot high fence which is setback from
the required front yard.
6. The proposed home does not have a swimming
pool.
1
2
3
4
5
6
J 7
9�
10
11,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 3056
Page 2
7. The proposed home provides adequate off-street
parking areas and has adequate drop-off and/or
pick-up facilities both on-site and off-site
which will avoid interference with traffic and
promote the safety of children.
8. The applicant has a license with the State of
California.
II. The Planning Commission hereby approves a permit
authorizing the operation of a large -family day care home
at 13022 Ranchwood Road, subject to the following
conditions.
A. The applicant shall maintain a current license with
the State Department of Social Services..
B. The applicant shall provide a copy of Exhibit A -
Acceptable Parking Locations to all users of the
large -family day care operation.
C. The applicant shall operate the day care home in
compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance, which
limits exterior noise levels to a maximum of 55
dB(a) between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission, held on the 13th day of July, 1992.
4"t t� a �'? , -
KATHLEEN CLANCY
Secretary
ALDEN L. ER
'Z
Chairman
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 3056
Page 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I. KATHLEEN CLANCY, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am
the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City
of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3056 was duly passed
and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission, held on the 13th day of July, 1992.
KATHLEEN C=Secre
CY
Recording y
ON -STREET PARKING giggler
ACCEPTABLE PAFNNG LO CANON S
IRVINE BOULEVARD
BELIFFORD DRIVE
i
I I UN (VJ. 3Ub6
EXHtBITA
LFD 92-002
Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1992
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
. Conditional Use Permit 92-019
CANT: STEPHEN D. PAQUETTE
10542 GREENBRIER ROAD
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
OWNERS: NORMAN FRITZ
15734 NEWTON STREET
CIENDA HEIGHTS, CA 91745
LOCATION: SOUTH PROSPECT AVENUE
ZONING: F STREET SPECIFIC PLAN - COMMERCIAL AS A
PRI USE
STATUS: THIS P HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE
CATEGORICAL PT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION
15301 OF THE FORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
REQUEST: AMEND CONDITI0 USE PERMIT 91-010 TO ALLOW FOR
CHANGES IN OPERA CONDITIONS
Recommendation - At the request of th licant, it is recommended
that the Planning Commission continue t 'tem to their regularly
scheduled.meeting of August 104, 1992.
Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Associate P1
Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Weil seconded to Contin is item to
the regularly scheduled meeting of August 10, 1992. Mo arried
4-0.
3. Large Family Day Care Home (LFD 92-002)
APPLICANT/ SOCORRO M. JONES'
13022 RANCHWOOD ROAD
TUSTIN, CA 92680
OWNER: ROBERT G. DAWSON
5171 VIA MARCOS
YORBA LINDA, CA 92687
LOCATION: 13022 RANCHWOOD ROAD
ZONING: R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT)
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION
15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE
HOME
Planning.Commission Minutes
July 13, 1992
Page 3
Recommendation - It is recommended that the Commission approve LFD
92-002 by adopting Resolution No. 3056, as submitted or revised.
Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Associate Planner
Commissioner Le Jeune asked counsel for opinion of letter received
dated July 9.
John Shaw, City Attorney, replied that he had reviewed the letter
but not the CCRs and would like to review them; he recommended
continuing the item so that he could evaluate the case authorities
cited; and to provide time for a written legal opinion.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:09 p.m.
Duane Patterson, 13152 Laburnum Drive, expressed his support for
the applicant by noting that the children were well-behaved and
constantly supervised; that parking problems were exaggerated; that
the Barrett's driveway was never blocked; that the speeding
vehicles were unproven as clients of the applicant; and that the
children are not climbing the fence or running in the street.
Christina Rose, 16331 Mc Fadden Avenue, #3, stated that she is
content with the service; that she has been harassed by the
neighbor; had to leave her car on the street in front of the
neighbor's house when she had car trouble; that she drops off her
child and leaves; and wants this day care center to continue.
Susan Kenison, 13031 Ranchwood, owns property nearby, stated that
she has never noticed a problem; that the house is well -kept; the
kids are never outside and never create noise; would want someone
like Ms. Jones if she needed a sitter; and the children seem happy;
and that the neighborhood has forgotten how important a good child
care center is for the children.
Ernest Barrett, 13032 Ranchwood Road, Tustin, stated that he is a
23 year resident; that he lives next door to the applicant and
purchased his house in a residential neighborhood; presented
photographs of activities at the applicant's including a garage
sale with a "thrift store atmosphere," four (4) vehicles in the
driveway blocking the garage door which is designated as a fire
escape, and more than one. client dropping off children at one time;
he complained about the garage being filled with commercial
merchandise and being used as a warehouse; that the City Code
requires: off street parking for two (2) cars per lot; that the
operator provide an immediately adjacent parking zone drop-
off/pick-up and one (1) space for each employee which are not
Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1992
Page 4
available. He continued with stating that there are cars parking
immediately in front of his property, leaving. oil in the street;
that drop off's have blocked his driveway; that this hearing is
being held due to complaints of the neighbors because this has
become more than a nuisance, that it is now an intolerable
situation and that the City Code provides that the City will not
license an operation that is a nuisance to the neighborhood; that
the neighbors should have had the opportunity for a hearing before
her license was granted; and that there is no evidence that the
building is in compliance with the fire code.
Susan Wilson, 2353 Paseo Circulo, Tustin, stated that she has been
using the applicant for seven (7) months; that she received
information about her service from City of Tustin mailer regarding
child care services; that she is there for five (5) minutes in the
morning and afternoon; that the children are well-behaved; and she
is happy with their care.
Janet S. Hart, 13042 Ranchwood Road, Tustin, stated that she lives
two doors down from the applicant, and that she chose the
neighborhood for the.family character and pride of ownership; that
the issue is not the quality of care but commercial use of private
property; that her concern is increased traffic flow and speed as
referred to in her letter of July 6; that children are playing in
the neighborhood at risk due to the traffic; that there are 65
child care services in the 92680 area and 10 in 92705 which
constitute other choices to this location; and that her driveway is
not available for parking and that the staff report offered parking
three and four doors down without courtesy of a public hearing
notice to those residents.
Celia Valencia; 13122 Dean Street, Mrs. Jones daughter complained
abut the neighbors' behavior towards her; that the many of the
items in the garage are her personal items and that she will be
moving shortly.
Robert Dawson, 5171 Via Marcos, Yorba Linda, 92687, owner of the
property, stated that he lived there for 12 years and is aware of
the CCRs which have been inconsistently applied; that his property
is managed by a professional service and is checked frequently;
that he provided his complete support for the tenant; and that he
did not feel it was the day care that was at issue, but the number
of cars in the driveway and garage sales. He continued with
stating that the applicant has rented for over one (1) year and up
until two months ago, he never received any complaints about the
tenant; that he has never seen cars in front of the adjacent
property on driving by at least one and one-half times per week;
Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1992
Page 5
that he had to evict the previous tenants due to sanitary
conditions, non-payment of rent, and destruction of property
without complaint from the neighbors; that the applicant's previous
neighbors were sorry .to see her leave which speaks well of her
character; that she to
the property clean and it would be
unfortunate for her to lose her license and have to move over a
perceived inconvenience.
Shelly Anderson, 1777 Mitchell Avenue, #57, Tustin, stated that the
applicant has cared for her two ( 2 ) children for two years,* and
felt that eleven cars in the morning and evening would not make a
difference on the flow of traffic in that neighborhood.
Gerald Feldman, 13191 Wickshire Lane, Tustin, 'Chairman Bellewick
Community Association, commented on the CCRs of the Association by
stating that the applicant was informed that garage sales of
commercial goods each weekend were not allowed and that she ceased
her weekly sales; that a recent sale may have prompted the latest
complaint; that the driveway is sometimes full, sometimes empty,
depending when driving by; that the Association follows the City of
Tustin's guidelines for home businesses; that people must obtain a
business license; cited Resolution 3065, Article I. Section D, and
noted that it does not address a possible diminution of property
values which might be considered a nuisance; that for the size of
the house; six (6) children might be'a better number.
Walter Domino, 13041 Ranchwood, stated that he was against this
business since this is a residential neighborhood; and that this
type of -business should be located in a commercial neighborhood
with adequate parking.
Socorro M. Jones, 13022 Ranchwood, applicant, stated that this
meeting was not due to the day care service, but that a neighbor
stated on June 27 that "she had no business living in that house,
and should move, because she was a renter." That she has been
harassed and -that the problem is a racial discrimination and not
related to the day care.
Jeff Richardson, stated that he lives at the property with his
wife, the applicant's daughter; that cars are allowed to be parked
in the driveway; that they have never done anything to bother the
neighbor.; that they are near Irvine Boulevard and the traffic
problem is due to other vehicles, not the day care clients.
Janet Hart rebutted Mrs. Jones comments, and stated that her only
meeting with her was to discuss the garage sale issue and
commercial use of property. -
Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1992
Page 6
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:58 p.m.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked about the City's rules regarding garage
sales.
Staff replied that garage sales are allowed four (4) times in the
calendar year on not more than two (2) consecutive weekends; that
they respond on a complaint basis; and that there is no record of
a problem at this location.
Commissioner Le Jeune stated that there are many day care issues,
and that the state encourages homes, for day care use; that the
traffic issue seems to be more of an enforcement problem than an
issue against the day care center; that there is nothing specific
that would preclude him voting for the applicant; and would want
staff to address the enforcement issues.
Commissioner Kasalek stated that many of the issues presented were
not day care issues, but code enforcement items that should be
worked out with the neighbors; that the street is for public
parking; and that a day care is to be considered a residential use.
Staff affirmed that State codes indicate that the City cannot
require a day care to obtain a business license.
John Shaw stated that the State Code considers this a residential
use; and that he wants to respond in writing, but that the State
law will probably pre-empt the City.
Commissioner Kasalek continued with indicating that the traffic
problems may be due to cut -through traffic; and that the garage
sale business is separate from the day care use.
Commissioner Weil stated that the State has mandated that they
allow large family day care centers in residential neighborhoods;
that a major issue seems to be traffic; that the applicant has a
family to provide residence for due to the economic climate; that
people may not be comfortable with the situations, but cannot turn
their children into the street; that applicant should show
sensitivity to the neighbors when clients arrive; that some of the
traffic may not be due to the day care; that many of the problems
are unrelated and a good day care center is hard to find; and that
due to the State stipulations, there was no evidence presented to
vote against the day care.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1992
Page 7
Commissioner Baker stated that he sat out in front of the house to
watch the activity; has been a child care user in the past; that
there was no complaint about noise; that the complaints have been
about traffic and antagonism between the neighbors; that they are
mandated by the State, with little decision making power; and that
it behooves the applicant to be a good neighbor.
Commissioner Weil noted that it may be an asset, not a detriment,
to a property to have a local day care center in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Le Jeune suggested ruling on this and making it a
consent calendar item instead of continuing it.
John Shaw, stated that it could be continued or a decision could be
made based upon an affirmative legal opinion.
Commissioner Baker asked if the neighbors present would need to
return to the next meeting.
Staff replied that they could notify those who spoke and anyone who
leaves their name and address.
Commissioner Weil and Baker asked for clarification of the
decision.
John Shaw replied that final decision should be rendered this
evening, subject to the provision that the matter would be brought
back if counsel renders legal opinion that finds that the CCRs
constitute an impairment to the Commission's decision making
authority; and that the appeal should be postponed until the
opinion is written and Commission is notified.
Commissioner Baker clarified the issue by stating that the item
would be voted on, subject to Counsel's opinion to the contrary,
and an opinion would be published within the next two weeks and
brought back as an Old Business Item.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked when counsel would have an opinion
rendered. -
John Shaw replied that it would be written by the end -of the week,
and would then be able to advise the residents.
Staff stated that residents would have up until July 20 to appeal
the decision; that it must be filed with the Community Development
Department at the City Offices at 15222 Del Amo, written or in
person, without a fee.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1992
Page 8
Commissioner Le Jeune moved,_Kasalek seconded to approve LFD 92-002
by adopting Resolution No. 3056 subject to City Attorney opinion.
Motion carried 4-0.
4. Conditional Use Permit 92-020
A CANT: RICK HARRINGTON
8622 ORANGE AVENUE
ORANGE, CA 92667
OWNER: PHILIP COX
PO BOX 10
MYERS FLAT, CA 95554
LOCATION: 425 EL CAMINO REAL
ZONING: C -2(P) AND CR (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH
OMBINING PARKING DISTRICT AND CULTURAL RESOURCE
TRICT)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE
STATUS: CA ORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) SECTION 15301
PUR T TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT
REQUEST: 1. AU IZATION TO SELL BEER AND WINE FOR ON -
AND -SITE CONSUMPTION (ABC LICENSE TYPE 41)
IN CO CTION WITH A COFFEE HOUSE; AND
2. AUTHOR ION TO PROVIDE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT
AND TO P IDE AN OUTDOOR SEATING AREA
Recommendation - It is recomme d that the Planning Commission
approve -Conditional Use Permit 9 20 by adopting Resolution No.
3057 as submitted or revised.
Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, AssocTW Planner
Commissioner Weil asked how this busi fits into the RU/DAT
program.
Staff replied that the intention of the RU/DA ' s to create ways to
encourage people to use the downtown area.
Commissioner Kasalek asked why the applicant is re sting off-site
alcohol sales; and how would outside drinking be m 'toyed.
Staff. replied that a Type 41 license would allow on- off-site
sales; and that this applicant wishes to have flexibili to sell
fine wines from his collection; that this property does meet
requirements for outside consumption; and signs would be pos nd
the operator would be responsible for monitoring.
I1_ _ #3
- 1
i
11
p
ort to the
Planning Commission
]PATE: JULY 13, 1992
SUBJECT: LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME (LFD 92-002)
APPLICANT/ SOCORRO M. JONES
13022 RANCHWOOD ROAD
TUSTIN, CA 92680
OWNER: ROBERT G. DAWSON
5171 VIA MARCOS
YORBA LINDA, CA 92687
LOCATION: 13022 RANCHWOOD ROAD
ZONING: R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT)
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION
15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE
HOME
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Commission approve LFD 92-002 by
adopting Resolution No. 3056, as submitted or revised.
BACKGROUND
The applicant has been operating a large -family day care home at
13022 Ranchwood Road for approximately one year. The State
Department of Social Services inadvertently issued the applicant a
license to operate on July 1, 1991, without allowing the City to
consider the request pursuant to City Code Section 9223(a)(6) a
copy of which has been provided as Attachment A.
Upon receipt of a complaint, on May 21, 1992, staff informed the
applicant that in order to operate a large -family day care home,
further approvals were required to be obtained by the City. Tustin
City Code Section 9223(a)(6) establishes the requirements and
standards for the operation of large -family day care homes. These
I
U - 4
NIZ 1& 10 lilol
Planning Commission Report
LFD 92-002
July 13, 1992
Page 2
homes may care for up to twelve children including their own
children under the age of ten.
The subject property is a single-family residence located at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Ranchwood Road and Irvine
Boulevard. The subject site is surrounded by similar single-family
residential development.
Typically, State and City codes do not require a public hearing
prior to approval of a large -family day care home application
unless one is requested by the applicant or an affected person.
Staff has received a protest and hearing request, therefore, a
public hearing on this item was scheduled. A public hearing notice
identifying the time, date and location of the public hearing on
this matter was published in the Tustin News. Property owners
within 100 feet of the site were also notified by mail and notices
were posted at the Police Department, the City's Senior Center and
at the subject property. The applicant was informed of the
availability of a staff report on this matter.
DISCUSSION
In conformance with the City's codes, staff conducted an inspection
of the operational large -family day care home and found that all of
the standards and requirements of Section 9223 (a) (6) are satisfied.
However, based upon the receipt of written opposition (copies of
which are provided as Attachments B. C and D) to the facility, the
following analysis has been prepared to address each of the issues
identified:
1. Excessive number of children (12 or more) are being cared for.
State law provides that an operator is limited to a maximum
capacity of 12 children, including their own children under
ten years of age who reside in the home, with no more than
four infants, children under two years of age. The City's
code also limits the number of children cared for at a maximum
of 12. Enforcement to ensure compliance with this requirement
rests with the State Department of Social Services. The
Department has not received any complaints nor have there been
any violations noted during an inspection of the facility.
2. Normal traffic flows have been adversely impacted within the
neighborhood and there is limited parking available. The
current Level of Service rating of "A" on Ranchwood Road,
Belleford Drive and Wickshire Lane was established without the
operation of the large -family day care home. By calculating
Planning Commission Report
LFD 92-002
July 13, 1992
Page 3
the ratio of vehicle trips generated to vehicle lane capacity,
the Level of Service for both a.m. and p.m. peaks equalled .12
on Ranchwood Road, equalled .24 on Belleford Drive and
equalled .12 on Wickshire Lane. Based upon the maximum
enrollment of 12 children, staff assumed the worse case
scenario in that all 12 children would arrive and depart by
separate vehicles causing an additional 24 trips to be
generated. These additional 24 trips affected the baseline
ratio of vehicle trips generated to vehicle lane capacity from
.12 to .15 on Ranchwood Road, from .24 to .27 on Belleford
Drive and from .12 to .14 on Wickshire Lane. This change in
ratios has no significant effect on the Level of Service
rating of "A" as the decimal ratio calculation would have to
exceed .60 to change the Level of Service rating to "B."
Therefore, it can be concluded, based on fact, that the
operation of a large -family day care home will not result in
an adverse traffic impact to the surrounding neighborhood.
The subject property maintains a driveway length approximately
25 feet and is adequate for the loading and unloading of
children. In addition, there are various locations for on -
street parking on Ranchwood Road, a public street, within
close proximity to the residence as indicated in Exhibit A of
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3056. Staff believes that
any concern regarding this issue can be mitigated by requiring
the applicant to provide all users of the facility with a copy
of Exhibit A delineating acceptable parking locations. This
condition has been imposed on three previously approved large -
family day care homes and, to date, staff has not received any
complaints indicating the existence of any parking problems.
3. Subject property is a rental with multiple _unrelated adults
reportedly living there. The State law and the City's codes
do not differentiate whether a large -family day care home is
operated within an owner -occupied or renter -occupied
residence. If the landlord of the subject property consents,
a tenant may acquire a license. Further, the State law does
not permit regulation of the number of persons that constitute
a household, nor would this be appropriate grounds to deny the
applicant's request to operate a large family daycare based
upon City Code Section 9223(a)(6).
4. The subject property is located within a quiet, residential
neighborhood. The City's Noise Ordinance designates noise
zones that reflect ambient noise standards and corresponding
time periods. Residential properties are represented by Noise
Zone No. 1, which limits ambient noise levels between 7:00
Planning Commission Report
LFD 92-002
July 13, 1992
Page 4
a.m. and 10:00 p.m. to 55 dB(a). In reviewing several large -
family day care home applications received over the last two
years, staff had noise tests performed at three operational
large -family day care homes to determine whether a typical
facility is operating in compliance with h City's
Noise
these
Ordinance. The average base ambient noise
three locations was established as 54 dB(a). The average
noise level at the three locations side, rear and front
property lines resulted in a reading of 55 dB (a) --a difference
of 1 dB(a) .
The City's noise consultant at the County of Orange
Environmental Management Agency has reported to staff that a
reading of 1 dB(a) would not be an audible difference
detectable by the human ear. Consequently, in the course of
reviewing this application, a determination can be made that
any potential noise increase would have a minimal adverse
impact and would probably not be audible by the human ear. In
fact, the proximity of Irvine Boulevard to this neighborhood
would probably result in any potential noises being muffled by
the constant flow of traffic.
5. The operation of a day care center is a commercial activity
and would, therefore, be prdhibi.ted by the Bellewi.ck Community
Association CC&R's. According to State law, a large -family
day care home is considered to be a residential use of the
property and a local jurisdiction must not treat these
facilities any differently than other residential properties.
The neighborhood's CC&R's would also be superseded by this
State definition.
In considering this application, the Commission should note that
Section 1597.46(a)(3) of the State Code states that a local
jurisdiction reserves the right to deny an application on the basis
of impacts related to over -concentration, traffic, parking and
noise. Some of the issues raised by the neighborhood can not be
considered appropriate grounds to deny such an application. The
concerns raised related to traffic, parking and noise have all been
addressed within the discussion and, where applicable, mitigation
measures recommended. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the
Commission to consider approving this application as the following
required findings can be made in accordance with City and State
Codes:
1. The proposed day care home by design, location and layout will
not constitute a noise nuisance to neighboring properties.
Planning Commission Report
LFD 92-002
July 13, 1992
Page 5
2. The day care home is not within 300 feet of the exterior
boundary of any existing large -family day care home.
3. All property owners within a 100 foot radius of the exterior
property boundary were notified of the intent to establish
this home.
4. The proposed day care home has been inspected by the Orange
County Fire Department for compliance with fire prevention
requirements.
5. The play yard of the proposed home is enclosed by a six-foot
high fence which is setback from the required front yard.
6. The proposed home does not have a swimming pool.
7. The proposed home provides adequate off-street parking areas
and has adequate drop-off and/or pick-up facilities both on-
site and off-site which will avoid interference with traffic
and promote the safety of children.
8. The applicant has a license with the State of California.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the information presented, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3056 approving the permit
to operate ,a large -family day care home at the property located at
13022 Ranchwood Road, as submitted or revised.
-""N"- 1�
bit
Anne E. Bonner
Associate Planner
ZZ F_cO CA5
Christine A. Shingleton
Assistant City Manager
Community Development
AEB:CAS:nm/1fd92002
Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution No. 3056
A - Day Care License
B - Bellewick Community Association letter
C - Adjacent property owner letter
D - Affected property owner letter
OF T
•�V"44 ~f
4
t -4
CLAP _ Ab O
r
C,lf FpRN��
tate of C�aIifornia
Department of �ocizil �$&virrs
Facility Number: 30061157 8
Effective Date: 06/13/91 Total Capacity: 12
Expiration Date: 06/12/94
In accordance with applicable provisions of the Health and Safety Code of
California, and its rules and regulations, the Department of Social Services, hereby issues
to
JONES• SOCORRO M.
to operate and maintain a FAMILY DAY CARE
N"amr of -yaritity
JONES• SOCORRO M.
13022 RANCHWOOD ROAD
TUSTIN CA` 92680
J�
This License is not transferable and is granted solely upon the following:
MAXIMUM CAPACITY= 12 CHILDREN9 INCLUDING LICENSEE'S CHILDREN UNDER 10
YEARS OF AGE WHO RESIDE IN THE HOME, WITH NO MORE THAN 4 INFANTS.
( INFANT MEANS A CHILD UNDER 2 YEARS OLD)*
Client Groups Served: CHILDREN/INFANT
Complaints regarding services provided in this facility should be directed to:
SANTA ANA DISTRICT OFFICE (714) 558-4563 1-800-4—CGL—NON
FRED We MILLER 0L 1 ����- l.Jy dL '
Deputy Director, Authorized Representative
Community Care Licensing Division of Licensing Agency
UC 203A (t /87) PUBLIC
F7 POST IN A PROMINENT PLACE
-)./-9j
Issue Date
ATTACHMENT A
BEI VSICK COMMUNITY
P.O. BOX 861
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA
June 11, 1992
Attention: Dana Ogdon, Senior Planner
City of Tustin
Community Development Department
15222 Del Amo Avenue
Tustin, California 92680
(714) 544-8890
ASS CATION
•.1
OOMMUt4111 DEVLEDPC+
RE: LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE FACILITY AT 13022 RANCHWOOD ROAD
Dear Mr. Ogdon:
Per our phone conversation of this date, please consider this letter as a formal complaint against the
continued operation of a large family day care facility at 13022 Ranchwood Road, City of Tustin.
Over the past several weeks I have received several calls from home owners near the subject
property expressing their concerns about the operation of a "large" family day care facility at that
property. Their calls indicate the following problems:
1) There appears to be an excessive number of children (twelve or more), being dropped
off at the three-bedroom property every week day. This number of children is too
great for the physical size of the house.
2) The traffic attendant with dropping off and picking up so many children is having an
adverse impact on normal traffic flow on our residential neighborhood street. There
is little or no parking available in front of the subject property, and parents using the
facility park their cars in such a manner as to inconvenience the home owners.
3) The subject property is a rental unit, which appears to house, in addition to the
lessee, several other unrelated adults.
4) The subject property is situated in a quiet, residential neighborhood; use of the
property for this large a day care facility is inconsistent with the surrounding land use
and is causing a negative impact on the neighboring home owners.
Please notify our Association as well as the nearby homeowners when this matter is to appear for
public hearing before the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
Sincerely,
Gerald Feldman, Chairman
Board of Governors
Bellewick Community Association
ATTACHMENT B
BCA92\0GD0N0I.T1JS; REV. Jure 11, 1992
June 15, 1992
Attention: Dana Ogdon, Senior Planner
City of Tustin
Community Development Department
15222 Del Amo Avenue
Tustin, California 92680
Ernest Barrett
13032 Ranchwood Road
Tustirf, CA. 92680
(714) 544-7965
COWIMUNITY DEVLEOPME"o!
Re: Family Day Care Facility at 13022 Ranchwood Road
Dear Mr. Ogdon:
I am the owner of, and reside at 13032 Ranchwood Road,
immediately adjacent to the subject property. I wish to
add to the complaint of Bellewick Association against the
operation of a family care facility at 13022 Ranchwood
Road, dated June 11, 1992 the further objection as follows:
The operation of a day care center of any size is a
commercial activity which is expressY prohibited on the
subject property by deed restriction, Article 4.04 recorded
11/13/68 in Book 8786, pages 616 thru '30, Records of Orange
County, California, which provides in relevant part:
it No lot. shall be used for the conduct of
any trade, business, professional or commercial
activity of any kind or nature whatsoever ."
It would be inconsistent for the City of Tustin to issue
a license permitting a business activity, knowing that the
licensed activity could be conducted only in violation
of existing contractual obligations voluntarily assumed
by the licensee prior to applying for the license.
I attach a copy of the Declaration of Restrictions to which
the property at 13022 Ranchwood Road is subject.
Respectfully Submitted,
X
'�e2 '*7
Ernest Barrett
ATTACHMENT C
F _ r
July 6, 1992
Community Development Department
City of Tustin
15332 Del Amo
Tustin, California 92680
Re: Large Family Day Care Home (LFD92-002)
13022 Ranchwood Road, Tustin
We have just received the official notice of Public Hearing from
the Tustin Planning Commission. The tenant renting the house at
13022 Ranchwood Road is requesting approval to operate a large
family day care facility and the matter is to be considered at
the January 13, 1992 meeting. This letter will serve as formal
opposition to the approval of her application.
Homeowners within the 100 foot radius provision were not notified
when Mrs. Socorro Jones began operating a child care business in
July 1991. Since that time, we have made several complaints to
the Community Development Office about the increased traffic,
speeding drivers, and indiscriminate parking generated by this
enterprise. Since our complaints were made by telephone we were
told by Community Development representatives that they do not
appear in the case record.
Elements of Mrs. Jones' child care business have impacted
negatively on the quality of life in this single family
residential neighborhood in the following ways:
a. Increased traffic: With twelve children on her child
care rolls, Mrs. Jones' business generates a minimum of twenty-
four trips to and from 13022 Ranchwood Road each day by parents
alone.
There are 20 houses (excluding 13022) on Ranchwood Road between
Belleford (the through street child care customers travel from
Browning Avenue through the Bellewick Community to the child care
site) and Irvine Boulevard (where other customers arrive and
depart). Ranchwood residents (presuming each house averages two
drivers) usually generate an average of 40 trips per day. Mrs.
Jones' customers' average 24 trips, creating increased traffic of
more than 50% on the north end of Ranchwood Road.
b. Speeding drivers endanger the safety of homeowners and
their children: Parents rushing to and from Mrs. Jones' place of
business to drop off or pick up their children travel at
excessive speed for the residential family neighborhood.
In their haste to reach -and depart 13022 Ranchwood, they
tailgate residents turning into their own driveways and garages.
They make fast, unsafe turns around the Belleford island areas
where neighborhood children and their friends play. Many execute
ATTACHMENT D
Tustin. Planning Commi-•cion
July 6, 1992
page two
f
speedy �7-t;UX'rlS around 11 -he- i :UIT'iJ'1:t.n.._'- V 1S �..=a%1C� .:�t..;rO �._s from ro� � i:i1�'
1 •�
0��woo,
-e atI::..
Mrs. Jones, customers
negatively i. mpact homeowners by obstructing residents' driveways
delaying or, at times, making arrival and departure from one's
home impossible. These cars also offer the hazard of obscuring
vision for drivers turning onto and off Irvine Boulevard.
Mrs. Jones' clients' parking also makes it inconvenient for
tradesmen performing services and repairs for homeowners to park
necessary vehicles and equipment in close proximity to the
property where they have been retained to do business. City of
Tustin trash collection and street sweeping activities are also
hampered.
Upon reviewing the file at we noticed two interesting items in
the staff report:
1. Item 2 of the staff report states adequate parking for
drop off and collection of children exists in the 25 foot long
driveway at 13022 Ranchwood Road.
This driveway is unavailable for customer loading and
unloading. An average of four automobiles belonging to the
various occupants of 13022 are parked the driveway (deposits of
oil and automobile fluids will attest to their presence).
Additional automobiles are left in the remaining driveway space,
oftentimes extending across the sidewalk and into the street,
offering more of a traffic and pedestrian hazard in the narrow
street between 13022 Ranchwood and the island at the entrance to
the community.
The garage does not fulfill its customary purpose of housing
automobiles since it is filled with a variety of goods. When
contacted about this unsatisfactory situation by a neighbor
several months ago, the property owner, Robert G. Dawson, stated
that Mrs. Jones could not put cars in the garage because she
needed the space to store goods necessary for another busiri-=
she was conducting from the address.
Auto maintenance is performed in the driveway of 12`022' a _
as in the street in front c-'-13,01`32" Ranchwood -- without tie
consideration of consulting the residents. This would seem -o
-pi-eseilt `-2 riegativ«3 iaripact -to the ei viI-;i',.-iment through the use and
Lj
d1_:_.j o-,ai U1 to::i.c Ii1i.erial' into the public streets and ware--
�1
v
Tustin: Planning Comini ss i on
July
sage `hr -e
.aff suggests that Mrs. Jones advise her customers to
use a4dditional on -street parking down Ranchwood Road in front of
other residences (reference your Exhibit A).
These homeowners whose front curbs and driveways are offered as
convenient business parking for Mrs. Jones' enterprise did not
receive a notice of this hearing since they are beyond the 100
foot radius -- yet are unwittingly involved and will also suffer
the inconvenience of loading and unloading children, assorted
child care supplies, door slamming, and parents rushing to
work or appointments.
While we did complain about this matter by telephone and through
the Belle wick Community (Homeowners) Association, this letter
will add our individual objection to Mrs. Jones' child care
business which negatively impacts the safety and quality of life
in this residential community.
We hope you will consider our thoughts as you deliberate on Mrs.
Jones' application to operate a large family day care home in the
house she rents at 13022 Ranchwood Road.
rHart
Janet S. Hart
13042 Ranchwood Road
Tustin, California 92680
Telephone: 714/838-4119
cc: Robert G. Dawson (owner of 13022 Ranchwood Road)
Bellewick Community Association
July 15, 1992
Community Development Department
City of Tustin
15332 Del Amo
Tustin, California
Emest V. BaRatt
13032 Ranchwood Road
Tustin, CA 92680
Re: Appeal from the July 13, 1992 determination of
the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin
(LFD-002) granting permit for a Large Family Day
Care Home at 13022 Ranchwood Road, Tustin. California
(Resolution No. 3956)
I, Ernest Barrett, owner of the property at 13032 Ranchwood
Road, Tustin, California, and one of the co-owners of the
property at 13022 Ranchwood Road, Tustin, California,
appeal to the City Council of the City of Tustin from the
above described resolution and decision of the Tustin
Planning Commission.
This appeal is made on the grounds that:
1. The decision was made contrary to and in disregard of
the requirements of Tustin City Code Section 9223 (a)
(6) (f), (i) and (j).
2. The decision was made contrary to, and without the
consent of the co-owners on the property on which
the licensed activity is to be conducted.
Ernest Barrett
544--7965
1:>
Inter -Com ?�
kTE: JULY 16, 1992
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME PROPOSAL/13022 RANCHWOOD ROAD
DEED RESTRICTION LEGAL ISSUE
At the Planning Commission hearing of July 13, 1992, the
Planning Commission approved a proposal for a large family day-care
home operation at the location of 13022 Ranchwood Road, Tustin.
The motion to approve the proposal included the requirement that
Commission approval would be subject to a City Attorney's opinion
that existing deed restrictions alleged to exist with respect to
the property would not impair the Planning Commis&ion's authority
to grant such an approval.
This memorandum is to confirm our oral opinion expressed at
the Planning Commission hearing on July 13, 1992, in which we
indicated that we did not agree with Mr. Ernest Barrett's
contentions expressed in his letter of July 9, 1992, to the effect
that a Declaration of Restrictions relating to the subject property
dated November 12, 1968, bars the operation of a large family day-
care home at the subject single family structure.
The applicant•seeks to operate a large family day care home
pursuant to the requirements of Tustin Municipal Code Section 9223.
The application for this use also falls under state regulations
governing family day care homes found at Health and Safety Code
Sections 1597.301 et seg. Under these provisions, a large family
day care home (7 to 12 children) must be classified as a permitted
use residential property for zoning purposes in all California
cities and counties. (Health and Safety Code Section
1597.46(a) (1) )
Further, Health and Safety Code Section 1597.40 (c) states:
"Every restriction or prohibition entered
into, whether by way of covenant, conditioned
upon use or occupancy, or upon transfer of
title to real property, which restricts or
prohibits directly, or indirectly limits the
acquisition, use, or occupancy of such
property for a family day care home for
children is void." (emphasis added)
A�'CQuc.NM�K E
Planning Commission
July 16, 1992
Page 2
The above -stated provision Is applicable to all existing deed
restrictions. One treatise on this subject states flatly:
"Private deed restrictions which restrict or
prohibit family day care homes are invalid."
(Citing Health and Safety Code Section
1597.40) See, Longtin, California Land Use,
Second Edition, Local Government Publications,
pp. 311-312.
Mr. Barrett contends, however, that two cases support his
contention that the 1968 deed restriction should preempt state law.
He cites Seaton v. Clifford (1972) 24 Cal. App. 3d, 46 and Barrett
v. Lipscomb (1987) 194 Cal. App. 3d, 1524 as authority. These two
cases are distinguishable and do not support his position. The
first case, Seaton v. Clifford, involved the use of a single family
structure for the housing of six or fewer mentally retarded male
persons under the authority of certain provisions of the Welfare
and Institutions Code. That law did not contain any provisions
voiding deed restrictions. Therefore, the Seaton case is not
applicable to the facts here because it involved a different type
of operation and a different law governing that operation.
Barrett v. Lipscomb also is distinguishable because it
involved, likewise, a different law dealing with the use of a
single family structure under the California Community Care
Facilities Act. That law contained a provision voiding deed
restrictions enacted after 1979.
In conclusion, this particular proposal for a large family day
care home is governed by Health and Safety Code Section 1597.30t et
seq. Those provisions of law make clear that all existing deed
restrictions are voided such that all cities must treat such uses
as an authorized use of residential property, and no deed
restrictions can be raised to enjoin a private property owner from
utilizing a residential structure for such purpose.
4 d -
JAMeS M. ROURKE
CITY ATTORNEY
J RS:kj: R02:07/16/92(H23 1)
cc: William Huston
J N R. SHAW
ISTANT CITY ATTORNEY