HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-014 Munchkin-Care Day Care AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:June 22,1999
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING:PA 99-014,Munchkin-Care Day Care
Center Conditional Use Permit. (Report Prepared by:
Dennis Carrington,Senior Planner/Zoning Administrator)
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Project Plans
2) Resolution Approving Negative Declaration
3) Resolution Denying Conditional Use Permit
4) Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit
5) Applicant's written statement
6) Letter from Mr.And Mrs.Perea
7) Letter from Mr.and Mrs.Misra
8) Letter from Stephanie Tackett
9) Letter from Jay and Sue Krishna
10) Letter from NNS Associates
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Open public hearing
2) Receive staff presentation and public testimony
3) Close public hearing and deliberate
4) Adopt Resolution(Attachment 2)approving the
Negative Declaration for PA 99-014,Munchkin
Care
5) Adopt Resolution(Attachment 3)denying the
Conditional Use Permit request for PA 99-014,
Munchkin Care for 30 children.
BACKGROUND
The Applicants,Ja and Sushma Krishna are requesting a Conditional Use
Permit to operate a Day re Center for 30 children. The facility would be the
primary use within an exiting single family residence in the PD(Planned
Development)Zoning District(R-1 underlying zoning with a 7,000 square foot lot
size)at 11586 Alegre Drive. An existing Large Family Day Care Home for 12
children is currently being operated at this site. The Planning Commission
permitted the expansion of this facility from a Small Family Day Care Home for 6
children to a Large Family Day Care Home for 12 children on February 24,1998.
The applicants and two employees would operate the facility. One of the children
n
in the facility belongs to the Applicants and three to the employees,resulting in
COPIES TO: Applicant
. Nandini Shridhar
Address File
ITEM NO. Li
space for twenty-six additional children. The day care center would operate from
7:00 a.m.until 6:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday.
ANALYSIS
Noise Impacts:
Children's noise. Staff visited the site and determined that noise impacts of
children to surrounding residences would be minimal. Children are typically only
taken outside the center to play after 3:00 p.m. Townhouses located to the west
are ten to fifteen feet higher than the day care center and are separated from the
center by two pnceesand approximately twenty feet of open space. The adjacent
home to the sout on Alegre Drive would have few noise impacts because the
yard/play area fa thR,day care facility is located to the rear of the Krishna
residence. The aHjaceht home to the east on Alegre has its yard(with children's
play equipment)facing the day care facility so noise impacts should be minimized.
An adjacent lot to the north on Ladera Court should not be impacted because it is
ten to twenty feet lower than the lot the center is located on and because of the
distance(approximately seventy-five feet)from that residence to the day care
facility.
Conditions of approval are included in the resolution that limit the hours of .--.
-7-6 operation of the day care center from 7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.and require that
sounds made by children be controlled so as not to create a nuisance to the
adjoining residential neighborhood. A further condition requires that no outside
P+ 112 activities may take place before 3:00 p.m. Staff has received a letter from Mr.and
`N Mrs.Perea(Attachment 6)indicating their concerns that future expansion would
give rise to increased children's play noise. Nandini Shridhar,the planning
consultant for the Krishnas,has prepared a Parking and Traffic Mitigation Plan to
address staff concerns and the concerns of neighbors(Attachment 10),see below.
(3@Qto ) Staff is preparing both a Resolution of Approval and a Resolution of Denial for this
project. The Resolution of Approval contains conditions that implement the Parking
'a „,,,,) and Traffic Mitigation Plan and address the concerns of staff and neighbors.
Traffic Noise. The City has received letters from the neighbors on either side
of the proposed Day Care Center. Mr.and Mrs.Perea,owners of the home to the
south of the center are concerned about increased noise levels due to added
vehicular traffic,the drop-off/pick-up of children and the added number of children
outside. Mr.And Mrs.Misra,owners of the home to the north of the center,wrote
a letter(Attachment 7)stating that they feel that noise has increased since the
center was changed from caring for 6 children to 12 children. Staff is concerned
;"that traffic noise would be intense for brief intervals if several vehicles arrived at
the same time to deliver children. If trips are staggered during the drop-off period
from 7:15 a.m.to 9:00 a.m.and the pick-up period from 4:30 p.m.until 6:00 p.m.
traffic noise could be minimized.
2
Traffic Impacts. Department of Public Works staff determined that traffic
impacts of the center would be minimal, that no traffic study be prepared, and that
no traffic impact fee is required. Alegre Drive is a cul-de-sac with a design speed of
25 m.p.h. and should easily carry the approximately 30 trips during the morning
and evening hours without conflicts with residential traffic. Staff is concerned
about brief periods when several vehicles arrive at the same time causing episodes
of congestion. Staff is also concerned about occasional speeding on Alegre Drive
'_Cells by parents who are in a hurry. Staff observed the property from 8:00 a.m. until
,Loreti� 9:00 a.m. on June 17, 1999. Seven vehicles dropped-off children during that hour.
' ,3S speeding were observed.
1 v I IIn their letter the Pereas are concerned about two traffic issues: that traffic
'^c'' ' would be increased considerably if not doubled; and speeding by hurried parents
causing safety hazards for neighborhood children. The Misras are concerned about
speeding as well and are also concerned about traffic conflicts by parents backing
out of the center.
Parking. The center has a driveway that is wide enough for three cars (six'. '/4
cars if tandem-parked) and two garaged parking spaces used by the Applicants and
aployee. Six on-street parking spaces are within easy walking distance of the She/ey
cen er. As stated above, Staff is concerned about brief periods when several
\ vehicles arrive at the same times. At such times all close-in parking may be ‘1215c.1e4
J�,. occupied leading some parents who are in a hurry to use adjacent private
driveways. Staff observed that up to three vehicles dropped-off children at one 53/A vor
a time. Two occupied driveway spaces and one parked on the street. The average 3 e1K5
time taken to drop off a child was 6 minutes. The Parking and Traffic Mitigation c a+.,,,,3
Plan discussed below addresses many of staffs and neighbors concerns.
Parking and Traffic Mitigation Plan. NNS Associates has submitted a Parking
and Traffic Mitigation Plan (Attachment 10) that addresses the issues of Parking,
Traffic Safety and Noise. The main points of the program are as follows:
Parking 7:t5-1:0'
• Change drop-off period of period from 7:15 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 .7:o'-q0v
a.m. - 9:30 a.m. Staff feels this will have little impact on when children
are really dropped-off.
• Limit the time a person could occupy a parking space to 10 minutes in the z.D.t wt 44
driveway. -,--.srp-ld-;r1pk
• Applicant and day care center staff would park on Amarillo Drive. Atw.u./wlda
• Parents would be required to wait until a driveway space is open before
they enter Alegre Drive.
• Agreement between the center and its customers not to park in adjacent \-,,,, ,,,,.
driveways, on the street, wait outside the cul-de-sac until a driveway
3
,
space is vacant,and not park for more than 10 minutes in the driveway, ,-•N
with provision for fines for violations.
Traffic Safety
Se kz,r('""'.dja Parents of school age children park on Amarillo Drive.
5 �w , • Parents agree to adhere to posted speed limits.
Noise .red.c ._
• Gate entry would be left open during drop-off and pick-up hours(if
allowed by State regulations)to eliminate gate slamming noises that
o�kws 73%�9 bother neighbors.
• Outdoor activities of the children would be limited to the hours of 3:00
p.m.to 5:00 p.m.
t4-tM9
OIL zG Staff feels that the Parking and Traffic Mitigation Plan would address the impacts
of a Day Care Center for 20 children but not that of a Day Care Center for 30
children. Almost tripling the number of children at the center could have episodic
impacts that would be harmful to the neighborhood. Increasing the students toa0
rochildren would have to be looked at after the center operated at the 20 child level
3� for at least a year with no ill effects.
Licensing. A condition of approval is included which requires that prior to
establishment of the use,the operator shall submit a copy of the State Department
of Social Services License Permit for the operation of a Day Care Facility. Another
condition of approval requires that on a continuing basis,the Applicant shall provide
the City of Dublin Department of Community Development with current day care
operating licenses issued by the State of California Department of Social Services.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),the State CEQA Guidelines,and the
City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The Initial Study evaluated issues relating
to land use and planning,population and housing,geologic problems,water,air
quality,transportation/circulation,biological,energy and mineral and cultural
resources,hazards,public services,utilities and services systems,aesthetics,and
recreation. It was determined that the proposed project will not have a significant
effect on the environment. A copy of the Resolution approving the Negative
Declaration is attached to this report as Attachment 2,
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
The proposed Day Care Center is consistent with the Single Family
Residential designation of the General Plan and the PD(R-t)Zoning District.
4
AGENCY REVIEW
This project has been reviewed by other City departments and interested
agencies, and their comments have been incorporated as conditions of approval in
the draft Resolution.
CONCLUSION
The proposed Day Care Center for 30 children that implements the Parking
and Traffic Mitigation Plan would have episodic impacts to the neighborhood that
would not be acceptable. Staff could recommend approval of a project with 20
children that implements the Parking and Traffic Mitigation Plan.
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:
APPLICANT: Nandini N. Shridhar
NNS Associates
721 Live Oak Avenue, No. 7
Menlo Park, CA 94025
OWNER: Jay and Sushma Krishna
11586 Alegre Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
LOCATION: 11586 Alegre Drive, at end of Alegre Drive.
ASSESSOR PARCEL: 941-105-68
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: PD (R-1) Zoning District. Single family residential
homes to the North, East and South. Townhouse
development to the West.
g:pa99014/pcstfrpt
5
ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 99 - xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 99-014
MUNCHKIN-CARE DAY CARE CENTER
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, Jay and Sushma Krishna, submitted an application requesting approval
of a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Day Care center, for a maximum of 30
children, as the primary use within an existing single-family residence in a PD, Planned
Development, Zoning District, located at 11586 Alegre Drive, and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the
State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was conducted finding that the project, as proposed
and as conditioned, would not have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this application and is on
file in the City of Dublin Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and use their independent
judgment to consider the Negative Declaration at a public hearing on June 22, 1999; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required
by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find that:
A. Munchkin-Care Large Family Day Care Home Conditional Use Permit project
will not have a significant effect on the environment based on review of the Initial Study
and public testimony.
B. The Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance
with State and local environmental laws and guideline regulations.
C. The Negative Declaration is complete and adequate.
ATTACHMENT
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby adopt the Negative Declaration for PA 99-014, Munchkin-Care
Day Care Center Conditional Use Permit Project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June, 1999.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Community Development Director
g:99014\ndreso
RESOLUTION NO. 99 - xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING PA 99-014 MUNCHKIN-CARE DAY CARE CENTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
REQUEST IN A PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT), SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICT AT 11586 ALEGRE DRIVE
WHEREAS, Jay and Sushma Krishna submitted an application requesting approval
of a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Day Care Center, for a maximum of 30
children, as the primary use within an existing single-family residence in a PD (Planned
Development), Single Family Residential Zoning District, located at 11586 Alegre Drive;
and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Negative Declaration has been
adopted (Planning Commission Resolution No. 99- ) for this project as it will have no
significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on
June 22, 1999; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required
by law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report determined that the project would have episodic
impacts to traffic and parking that would not be acceptable; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application for
a Day Care Center for 30 children be denied; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent
judgment to evaluate the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find that:
A. The proposed operation of the day care center is not compatible with other
land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity because episodic
impacts to traffic and parking would have negative impacts on the neighborhood.
B. The use due to episodic impact to traffic and parking will adversely affect the
health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to
the public health, safety and welfare.
ATTACHMENT
C. The use will be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood
because of episodic impacts to traffic and parking.
D. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public
utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use and related structures would
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of
the use and related structures being proposed.
F. The Munchkin-Care Day Care Center is contrary to the specific intent
clauses, development regulations, or performance standards established for the
zoning district in which it is located because of episodic impacts to traffic and
parking.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
Deny PA 99-014 Munchkin-Care Day Care Center Conditional Use Permit application as
generally depicted by materials labeled Exhibit A on file with the Dublin Planning
Department.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June, 1999.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Planning Commission Chairperson
Director of Community Development
g:pa99014\cupresodenial
RESOLUTION NO. 99 - xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING PA 99-014 MUNCHKIN-CARE DAY CARE CENTER CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT REQUEST IN A PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT), SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICT AT 11586 ALEGRE DRIVE
WHEREAS, Jay and Sushma Krishna submitted an application requesting approval
of a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Day Care Center, for a maximum of 20
children, as the primary use within an existing single-family residence in a PD (Planned
Development), Single Family Residential Zoning District, located at 11586 Alegre Drive;
and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Negative Declaration has been
adopted (Planning Commission Resolution No. 99- ) for this project as it will have no
significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, conditions of approval have been included in this resolution that
implement a Parking and Traffic Mitigation Plan that minimize traffic, noise and parking
impacts to the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on
June 22, 1999; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required
by law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be
conditionally approved; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent
judgment to evaluate the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find that:
A. The proposed operation of the day care center is compatible, as conditioned,
with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity because
noise and traffic impacts will be minimized by hours of operation, the size and the
design of the subdivision(s) adjacent to the project, the small amount of services
consumed, and the Iow number of trips generated.
ATTACHMENT
B. The use, as conditioned, will not adversely affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare because all local and State regulations will be met.
C. The use as conditioned, will not be injurious to property or improvements in
the neighborhood because the day care home will minimize noise impacts and
traffic impacts through limits on the number of children and the hours of operation
and hours of pick-up and drop-off.
D. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public
utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use and related structures would
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of
the use and related structures being proposed.
F. The Munchkin-Care Day Care Center as conditioned, is not contrary to the
specific intent clauses, development regulations, or performance standards
established for the zoning district in which it is located because it is a residential
use.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
conditionally approve PA 99-014 Munchkin-Care Day Care Center Conditional Use Permit
application as generally depicted by materials labeled Exhibit A, stamped approved and on
file with the Dublin Planning Department, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the
issuance of building permits or establishment of use (having more than 12 children in the
day care center), and shall be subiect to Planning Department review and approval. The
following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring
compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL.] Planning, [BI Building, [PO] Police, [PW]
Public Works [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [FIN] Finance, IF] Alameda County Fire
Department, [DSR1 Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO1 Alameda County Department
of Environmental Health.
This Conditional Use Permit approval for PA 99-014 is to allow the operation of a Day
Care facility at 11586 Alegre Drive in a PD Single Family Residential Zoning District. This
approval shall generally conform to the plans stamped approved, labeled Exhibit A,
consisting of a Site plan and Floor Plan dated received by the Planning Department on
April 28, 1999 and shall be subject to the following conditions. [PL]
The maximum number of children present at the day care facility at any one time
shall not exceed 20. [PL]
2. The family day care center shall operate Monday through Friday between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and shall be closed on the weekends. [PL]
The day care center shall have drop-off times of from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and
pick up times of between 4:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. [PL]
The Applicant shall prepare a document to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development that is signed by all customers. The document shall
require customers to limit the time a person can occupy a parking space in the
driveway to 10 minutes, require parents to wait until a driveway space is open
before they enter Alegre Drive, and require parents to not park in adjacent
driveways or on the street, with provision for fines for violations. [PL]
Applicants and day care center staff shall park in garaged spaces or on Amarillo
Drive. [PL]
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Parents of school age children park on Amarillo Drive. [PL]
The gate entry shall be repaired and left open during drop-off and pick-up hours (if
allowed by State regulations) to eliminate gate slamming noises that bother
neighbors. [PL]
Illuminated exits and exit signs are required. [F]
Exit Hardware. Exit doors must be openable from the inside without special
knowledge or the use of a key. Slide locks, chains, etc.., are not allowed. For
security purposes, a single action deadbolt/door lock may be used. Note: This
applies to the rear yard gate also. [F]
Exits: If each room does not have an exit directly to the exterior, then the corridor
will be required to be one-hour rated. The minimum corridor width is 36 inches.
Exit doors shall be of the hinged type and shall have proper hardware. [F]
Smoke Detectors. Smoke detectors in the common atmospheres are required and
shall be connected to the fire alarm. [F]
If a fire alarm is not required pursuant to conditions 10 or 11, then an early warning
notification device shall be installed. Type and location may be field coordinated.
IF].
Fire Extinguishers are required in the playroom adjacent to the garage and in the
kitchen due to the floor plan. [F]
Fire Alarm Device is required to be mounted to the structure and shall be audible
throughout the structure. [F]
3
15. An on site inspection is required prior to Fire Department approval. The inspection
fee is $80.00. State Licensing also requires the inspection. [F]
16.
Sounds made by children shall be controlled so as not to create a nuisance to the
adjoining residential neighborhood. No outside activities may take place before
3:00 p.m. [PL]
17.
The operator of the Center shall require that children remain either inside the Center
or in the backyard for pickup by their parent or guardian. [PL]
18.
Prior to the establishment of this use, the operator shall submit a copy of the State
Department of Social Services License Permit for the operation of a day care center.
[PL]
19.
On a continuous basis, the Applicant shall provide the City of Dublin Planning
Department with a current day care operating license issued by the State of
California Department of Social Services. [PL]
20.
The day care director shall, at the minimum of a once-a-year basis, make
arrangements to have the Dublin Police Services Child Abuse Prevention Program,
or an equivalent program approved by Dublin Police Services, presented to the Staff
and children attending the facility. A certification of the presentation of such a
program shall be presented to the Planning Department on a yearly basis. [PL, PO]
21.
This use shall comply with all applicable Planning, Building, Alameda County Fire
Department, Police Department, Dublin San Ramon Services District and State of
California Department of Social Services regulations and ordinances. [PL, B, F, PO,
DSR]
22.
This approval shall be null and void in the event the approved use fails to be
established within one year, or ceases to operate for a continuous one-year period.
[PL]
23. Any signage on the site shall be subject to the City's Sign Ordinance. [PL!
24.
The Applicant shall be responsible for cleanup and disposal of project related trash
in order to maintain a clean and litter free site. [PL]
25.
Two parking spaces in the existing garage and one parking space in the driveway
shall be reserved for employee parking. [PL]
26.
No future modifications to the site or exterior portion of the residence shall be made
without prior review of the Director of Community Development and must comply
with all applicable zoning, building code and engineering regulations including
issuance of building permits. [PL, B]
27.
At any time during the effectiveness of this approval, the approval shall be
revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject
to citation. [PL]
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June, 1999.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Director of Community Development
g:pa99014\cupresoapproval
Planning Commission Chairperson
5
WRITTEN STATEMENT
Vqtxat type of business, activity or use are you proposing?
Munchkin-Care is an existing large family daycare facility currently licensed to accommodate
fourteen (14) children as defined under state Kegulation Section 102352 (f)(1)(B). The
owner/project sponsor proposes to expand the existing daycare operation to a Day Care Center to
accommodate sixteen (16) additional children on a daily basis resulting in a total of thirty (30)
children including infants and toddlers. Under the current operation Munchkin-Care employees'
children and the project sponsor/owner's child occupy four spaces. The day care owner/project
sponsor currently does not receive any compensation for the three spaces occupied by the employees'
children. Therefore, only a total of twenty-six (26) children would be formally enrolled in the facility
upon approval of this application.
b. How many employees will you have or propose to have?
Since the approval of the previous conditional use permit by the City of Dublin, Munchkin Care
has acquired one part-time employee in addition to the one full-time employee. The proposed
expansion to a Day Care Center would enable the project sponsor to have two full-time employees to
assist in the day-to-day operations of the daycare.
c. Wlmt are the proposed hours and days of operation?
The proposed Day Care Center would open at 7 a.m. and close at 6 p.m. from Monday through
Friday.
d. Will your business, activity or use target a specific segment of the community?
The existing large family day care and the proposed Day Care facility is targeted to benefit
working parents of families with children residing or working in the neighborhoods within the City
of Dublin and surrounding cities by providing a supervised, safe, hygienic, home4ike environment
within a single-family residence.
e. In what ways will your business, activity or uses benefit the community?
The proposed expansion of the existing licensed large family daycare facility from 14 children
(including the employees' children and the owner's child) to 30 children is a direct response to the
increase in demand and innumerable requests made to the project sponsor to increase capacity and
accommodate more children. The existing childcare facility has been in operation since November
1995, and has acquired an excellent reputation for providing a convenient, home-tike and hygienic
em,ironment for children during this period. In addition, proximity to Neilson's Elementary School
which closes at 3 p.m. during weekdays makes the proposed expansion of the existing large family
daycare an extremely beneficial and viable operation, as the Day Care Center would continue to
offer after school childcare services and accommodate more children. The enlarged facility would
also provide full-time employment to two single teenage mothers and state subsidized childcare for
NNSAssociates
Urban and Environmental. Planning Consultants
ATTACHMENT
go
their children. The proposed Day care Center would, therefi~re, greatly benefit the communit3' by
continuing to provide qualit3' child-care sensces.
Are there ways in which your business, activity or use may disrupt the peace of the surrSunding
residents or businesses?
No. The proposed daycare facility would operate inside the single-family residence within the
property limits of the subject site and would not adversely affect the peace and quiet of the
surrounding residents or businesses.
Will your business, activity or use have any negative impacts on the health or safety of people
residing or working in the vicinity?
No. The proposed expansion of the existing family daycare facility would have no adverse impacts
on the health, safety and welfare of the people residing or working in the vicinity of the subject site.
Will your business, activity or use create any negative impacts on the property, transportation
systems or existing improvements in the neighborhood?
The proposed use of the existing single-family and large family day care as a Day Care Center to
accommodate a total of 30 children would have minimal impacts on surrounding properties,
transportation systems or existing improvements in the neighborhood. (Please refer to the traffic,
parking and transportation section of the responses to the "Initial Study" questions)
Is the proposed project located on a hazardous waste and substances site? (A list of these sites is
available in the Planning Deparnnent)
No. The subject site is located in a highly urbanized residential development zoned as a Planned
development (PD) and there are no known hazardous waste substances on the site.
NNS A~sociates Urban and Environmental Planning Consultants
June 7, 1999
Neighbors
Alegre Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Project PA99-014 Munehkin Care Day Care Center Conditional Use Permit
Dear Neighbor,
Recently, we received a letter from the City of Dublin informing us that the Munchkin Day Care
Center (11586 Alegre Drive) applied to expand their present maximum of 12 children to a
maximum capacity of 30 children. Last year, the facilty expanded from 6 to its present capacity
of 12 children. It has been our experience as neighbors that problems will occur from this
expansion. We feel the following are significant issues of concern:
Parking
· Employee parking would be doubled during the hours of operation (7 a.m.- 6:30 p.m.).
· Customer (parent) parking while dropping offand picking up would be considerably
increased, if not doubled.
· Obstruction of neighboring driveways.
As residents we all know that parking is limited in the cul-de-sac, especially during Nielsen School
functions.
Traffic/Sa fe~.
The amount of traffic would be increased considerably, if not doubled.
Speeding traffic from hurried parents presents safety hazards for neighborhood children.
Traffic is already above the normal level of a cul-de-sac due to the proximity of Nielsen
School. Parents of school children already use the end of the cul-de-sac as a turnaround.
Noise
Increased noise levels due to added vehicular traffic.
Increased noise levels during parents drop-off/pick-up of their children.
Exterior noise would be increased due to the added number of children outside.
Resale Home Values
When we purchased our home almost 2 years ago, the sellers disclosed (by law) to us that there
was a daycare facility next door with a maximum of six children. Six children did not seem to be
a problem. However, shortly thereafter, it increased to twelve. In our opinion, any increase
above the current capacity poses the above-mentioned problems. We adore this neighborhood
and do not plan on moving anytime soon. But realistically, we will eventually sell our home just
as you may. Ask yourself this question, as a potential home buyer would you want to live
R~CE~VED
ATTACHMENT
nextdoor or nearby a daycare facility with 30 children? Or, would you be willing to pay top dollar
for the home? We see this as a bargaining tool for the buyer.
On June 1, 1999, we received a letter from the Krishnas regarding their daycare expansion. In the
letter, they address the issue of traffic. If they are addressing the issue, it must be an important
one. They state that parent arrival times will be "staggered". How is this possible? Each parent
would have to be able to set their own arrival schedule around the other parents schedules.
Arrival schedules are dictated by work and school schedules. There is a normal window of time
that drop-offs and pick-ups occur. That is why the facilty is open before and after normal
business working hours. Many parents already drop-off and pick-up their children at the same
time. Another of their concerns in the letter was "speeding". Hmmmm...Our concern as well.
We don't believe that any of the parents speed with the intent to cause any harm. However, we
all know that when one is late, rushed or exhausted, especially after a hard day at work, they can
get careless.
We in no way want to offend or cause any harm to the Krishna's. They are wonderful people.
However, they happen to have a business--and this is business. We feel the Munchkin Daycare
Center is at its maximum capacity in our beautiful neighborhood. The fact that our home was
located in a cul-de-sac was a very important factor in our decision to buy a home on Alegre
Drive. A cul-de-sac by its very nature is supposed to limit traffic and thus increase safety for
everyone, especially children. We have two small children and do not want to lose this inherent
safety benefit. With the daycare facility at its present maximum of 12 children, we have already
experienced people blocking our driveway and speeding in and out to pick up their children.
Remember this is a residential neighborhood, not a business districL....Let's keep it that way.
On June 22, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, located at 100 Civic Plaza,
Dublin, a public hearing will be held for an issuance of a conditional use permit to increase the
daycare facility capacity. Any interested person may appear and be heard regarding this matter.
Please join us on June 22 and voice your concerns. If you have any questions or comments, please
feel free to contact either myself, Ed, or my wife, Ang61ica, at home 833-1129.
Sincerely,
The Perea Family//
11550 Alegre Drive, Dublin
CCi
Maxine Jennings, Chairperson - Planning Commission
Ralph D. Hughes, Planning Commissioner
Don Johnson, Planning Commissioner
Fred Musser, Planning Commissioner
Tony Oravetv, Planning Commissioner
Eddie Peabody, Jr., Director of Community Development
Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner
Fire Marshall, City of Dublin Fire Department
Traffic Unit and Parking Enforcement, Dublin Police Department
June 2, 1999
Mr. & Mrs. Julian S. P. Misra
11598 Alegre Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
Mr. Eddie Peabody Jr.
Director of Community Development
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza,
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject:
PA 99-014 Munchkin Care Day Care Center
Dear Mr. Peabody:
We are very much concerned, being the next door neighbors of this proposed expansion of the day
care center owned by Mr. & Mrs. Krishna. We see several problems arising from the conditional
permit given by the City to the owners of thee business. When we bought our house at 11598 Alegre
Drive in 1986, we expected the neighborhood to remain residential for not only our child but also the
other neighbors' children. When Mr. & Mrs. Krishna expanded their business in 1997, we
understood from Mrs. Krishna that the number of children she will be caring for was six at the most.
We recently found out from you that the number of children is twelve which has had impact on
traffic, parking, noise and safety for residents of the neighborhood in the cul-de-sac.
On quite a few occasions, we have had trouble getting in and out of our own driveway as the cars
coming to pickup or drop offthe children had the entrance to our driveway blocked. Mrs. Krishna's
caregivers also use the parking spaces in front of our house.
Speeding is also a problem as parents are rushing to drop offor pickup their children.
Since the last expansion of this business, traffic, parking close to our home, and noise have definitely
increased.
Alegre Drive is a cul-de-sac and not a through street which makes matters worse as people are
constantly making U-tums or backing out of the driveway of the day care center.
In the past, we only had to deal with the problems of traffic and parking from activities of the Nielsen
School, with the expansion of the day care center in 1997, it has become worse.
We would also like to remind the city that the subdivision is zoned residential not commercial. We
are not preventing Mr. & Mrs. Krishna from having a business but we would like to recommend to
the planning commission to reconsider their conditional permit of expansion. In the past, we did not
protest or complain, simply because we were trying to be good neighbors to them. This time though,
we regretfully object to the expansion of the day care center from what it is now to a maximum of
thirty children.
,,Sincerely,
ATTACHMfiNT
Stephanie T. Tackett
11689 Padre Way
Dublin, CA 94568
828-5150
March 25, 1999
City of Dublin
100 Civic Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing this letter in support of Sue Krishna efforts to increase the capacity of children
in her day-care located on Alegre Drive. My family and I lived at 11599 Alegre for about a one and
a half years. As a parent, I realize the importance of quality child-care and was happy to find it
across the street. Sue and her aids frequently took care of my daughters and they received excellent
care in her home.
The traffic on our cul-de-sac is no more effected by Sue's day-care than it is by the local
elementary school. The parents of the children in Sue's care are very aware of the fact that her
facility is located in a neighborhood and they are very courteous to those living on the street. They
drive slow and do not park for long periods of time.
It is my desire to see Sue expand her care facility in order to meet the growing demands of
our community. I understand Joy is going to stop accepting children for after-school care and Sue's
facility would offer parents a wonderful alternative. The children are happy and well cared for and
I always look forward to placing my girls in Sue's care.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Tackett
ATTACHMENT
Jay and Sue Kdshna
11586 Alegre Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
June 17, 1999
Mr. Eddie Peabody Jr.
Director of Community Development
City of Dublin
Dublin, CA 94568
DearMr. Peabody:
This letter is in regards to our application for our Munchkin Care Day Cam Center project. As you
know, the Dublin Planning Department has prepared a Negative Declaration for this project. The
Dublin Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the project and proposes to adopt a
Negative Declaration on June 22, 1999.
Recently, we have become aware of concems raised by two of our neighbors on Alegre Drive with
regard to vadous environmental issues. We would like to emphasize that:
1. The Planning Department's environmental review resulted in a Negative Declaration.
2. Our dialogues with several other residents on Alegre Ddve indicate that there are no
environmental or properly value concerns of the nature expressed by the residents at 11598
Alegre Ddve and 11580 Alegre Ddve. Letters to that effect will be produced.
3. Despite the negative declaration on the environmental review, as supportive neighbors, we have
explained to the Planning Depadment vadous measures to mitigate any potential environmental
~ problems. We have requested NNS Associates to submit these mitigation measures to the
Planning Department today. '
While the need for high quality child care need not be emphasized, we would like lo reiterate that
Munchkin Care will be offedng a much needed community service in an environmentally friendly
manner. We expect our neighborhood and the City of Dublin to be proud of such a quality service
operating within accordance of the City's laws and regulations.
Based on the Planning Department's Negative Declaration and the general feedback from the
neighborhood and the community at large, we fully expect this project to be recommended for
approval both, by the Planning Department as well as the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin.
Should you have any questions or concerns in this matter, please contact us at (925) 828-7944.
ATTACHMENT
June 17, 1999
Sincerely,
Jay and Sue Kdshna
Cc: Ms. Maxine Jennings, Chai[person, Planning Commission, Mr. Ralph D. Hughes, Planning
Commissioner, Mr. Don Johnson, Planning Commissioner, Mr. Fred Musser, Planning
Commissioner, Mr. Tony Omvetz, Planning Commissioner, Mr. Dennis Cardngton, Senior
Planner
Enclosures submitted to Mr. Dennis Candngton:
1. Article from the Califomia Chapter of the Amedcan Planning Association.
2. Letter from Ms. GIoda Koski, Realtor, Coldwell Banker, on the negative impact of Child Cam
Centers on property values.
06/17/99 THU 07:08 FAX ~001
June 17, 1999
Mr. Eddie Peabody
Community Development Director
City of Dublin Planning Department
City Offices, 100 Civic Pla~a
Dublin, California 94568
SUBJECT: Project PA99-014 Munchkin Cate Day Care Center Conditional Use Permit_
Dear Mr. PeaNxty:
I am writing un hehaffof Ms. Sushma Krishna the owner/project sponsor of
Muchldn Care Day CaTe Center. This letter is in response to two letters submitted to the
City of Dublin Planning Department by the project sponsors neighboring residents, the
Perea and the Misra families (the neighbors) on Alegre Drive. This letter is al*o a follow-up
of my discuxsion yesterday w~th Dennis Catrington of your staff. Mr. Cartington essentially
indicated that in light of the issues raised in the letters, staff i~ considering recommending
denial of the conditional use authorization requested in the above referenced permit
application. However, I would like to reiterate that'the City of Dublin Traffic Engineers
and the Plak-lng Department staff have collectively determined that the proposed
~ion of Munchlcin-Care from 14 children to 30 children would have no impacts on
traffic, parking, noise and safety in the cul-de-sac on Alegre Drive. As I discussed with Mr.
Carting, ton, I strongly urge the City to con.4der the various letters written in support of the
proposed project which outnumber the two letters that oppo4~e the project simply on the
basis Of a hypothetical effect on property values and recommend approval of the use
application.
In addition, to alleviate the concerns raised in the le~cers submitted by the
neighbors Mr. Carrington and I also discussed a number of parking and traffic mitigation
measures that would significantly reduce any potential noise and safety concerns the
neighbors may have. The Parking and Traffic Mitigation Phn below proposed by the
owner/project spor~sor include various mitigation measures that would be implemented
upon approval of the conditional use apphcation. Each issue raised in the letters opposing
the project is restated below and then followed by mitigation measures that specifically
address all of the concerns listed. Please note that the project spon~rs are continuing to
md~. an effort to resolve these issues ~"ith the parties opposing the proposed project.
Issue, #1 Parking
Employee parking would be doubled during the hours of operation (7 a.m. - 6:30
^rr^c.. m i0
721 Live Oak Avenue, No. 7 · Menlo Park, Califomla 94025 · Tel; (650) 3294764 · Fax; (650) 326-5960
06/17/99 THU 07:08 FAX ~002
- Customer (parent) parking while dropping and pieldng up would be coosiderably
increased, if not doubled.
- Obstruction of neighboring driveways
Munehkin. Care Par~i,~g and Traffic Mitigation Plan Response #1
Driveway1 P~rkir.~Plan at M,~hki~Ca,e
The application currenfly StateS that the proposed Day-Care Center operation would
commence at 7am and close at 6 pm from Monday through Friday and the current drop-of
and pick~up hours are between 7.15 am to 9 am and from 4.30 pm to 6 pm. To be more
accurate the Day Care Center dropof and pick-up hours would range ~rom 7am to 9.30 am
and from 4 pm to 6.30 pm respectively. Hence, there is an approximately 90-minute period
in the AM and PM hours when the children's parents (the parents) could use the ex~sting 6
driveway-parking spaceS (includes 3 tandem-see Exhibit A) on the subject site for periods of
up to 10 minutes without ocCUlting any curbside parking spaces in the cul-de-sac.
However, since Munchkin-Ca~e employees occupy 2 driveway-parking spaces, only 4
parking spaces are available to the parents currently. ~tith the current limit of ten minute
parking on the driveway and the staggered dropoff and pick-up and hours approximatel~
36 cars coald park on the driveway over a 90 minute period even under the current
operating condifiom at the subject site. Statistically, the chances of cars blocking
neighboring driveways ot overcrowding in the cuMe-sac are almost impossible with the
amount of parking available on. ire.
Further, under the proposed parking phn which would include a previously stated
driveway expansion proposal, 7 driveway.parking spaces (including 3 tandem patlrlng
spaces) would be made available to the parents at all times during the day. The project
sponsor and the employees would park their vehicles along Amarillo Drive across Neilson's
and walk to the project site thereby eliminating any employee paxking needs and at least 3
trips into the cul-de-sac. Therefore, 63 cars could potentially park for periods of up to 10
minutes within the 90-minute drop-of and pick-up periods. The parking mitigation plan as
proposed would completely eliminate all potential for cars blocking neighboring driveways
since all projected demand for parking would be accommodated on the subject property
&fveway and no eurbside parking would be used in the cuMe~aac_
[mplemenra~ ~'~ a Pa~b.i~g VioLation Fee
Additionally, the project sponsors will requite all patents to sign an agreement that would
subject them to a penalty of up to $20 for any parking violation such as blocking driveways,
using cttthside parking in the eul-de, sae or failing to vacate a driveway parking space within
ten minutes. Parents would be required to visually check for driveway-parking availability at
Munchkin-Care from the intersection of Amarillo and Alegre Drive before entering the
cul-de-sac. Munchkin-Care employees would also visuall~ monitor potential parking
2
06/17/99 THU 07:09 FAX ~003
violations at the Day Care Center on a daily basis by e~corting the children to the cars
and/or through a remote (camera) surveillance system.
hsue #2 Traffic 8afe~
- The amount of Traffic would be increased considerably, ff not doubled.
-Speeding traffic from hurried patents presents safety hazards for neighboring children
- Traffic is already above the normal level of a cul-de-sac due to the proximity of Neitsons
School. Parents of school children already use the cul4e-sac as a turnround.
MuncMdn-Care Parkin~ and Traffic Mitigation pl~. Response #2
T~,aff'ic Control Measures
Requiting parents of school age chilcken to paxk along Amarillo Drive and walk to
Munehkin~Care during dropof and pick-up hours would further control traffic flowing in
and out of the cul-de-sac With the proposed expansion, approximately 16 additional
children would be admitted to the Day-Care Center, of which at least 8 are expected to be
~hool age children. The project sponsor therefore, anticipates only 8 additional trips into
the cul-de.sac at this time, which clearly amounts to an insignificant increase in traffic
within the cuMosac. Please note that 4 of the proposed 30 spaces would be occupied by
the employees and the owners children leaving only a total of 26 children that would be
enrolled under the proposed Day Care Center Plan.
Traffic Safety
As mentioned in the application package, traffic from Neilson's has been significantly
reduced due to clas~-size reduction over the years since 1997. Therefore, the concerns
regaxdlng traffic being above the ~normal level" or parents exceeding requixed speed limits
in the eul-de4ac are invalid. The neighbors have no way of determining whether the cars
exceeding the existing speed limits are those coming to Munchkin-Care or the ones coming
to Neilsons and entering the cul<le-sac to turn ~round. All parents are advised to adhere to
the SlX~ed limit~ posted in the vicini~ of the subject-site. The Neilsons School uaffic
monitor at the intersection of Amari.[lo and Alegre further oversees any traffic going in and
out of the cuMe4ac and has reported no unsafe conditions pr~ented by the existing level
of traffic in the cul-de-sac. In fact, the traffic impact is so negligible tha~ when approached
for a comment on the proposed Day Care Center, the Neilsons traffic crossing monitor
indicated that she had no knowledge ora the existing day-care operation since the impacts
were barely noticeable.
Issue #3 Noise
Increased noise levels due to added vehicular traffic
Increased noise levels during parents drop-off/pick-up of their children
3
06/17/99 TItU 07:09 FAX ~004
Exterior noise would be increased due to the added number of children outside
Mtmchkin, Care Pavl,lnff ~rtd Tra~e Mitigation Plan Response #3
No/,.~
The proposed parking and traffic mitigation plan would generate no parkixag demand and
significantly reduce trips in and out of the cul4e4ac thereby having no potential noise
impacts from increased traffic On-site noise impacts from the existing gate m the
Munchldn-Caxe pla,ffoom area from the driveway would be mitigated by leaving the gate
open during dropof and pick-up hours. Further, outdoor activities for the children would
be limited to the hours of 3 pm to 5 pm. in the afternoons thereb~ resulting in no change
in the exterior noise levels from the subject site.
Lastly, as Mr. Ca~tington and I discussed and agreed the P~rking and Mitigation plan
proposed herein would adequately address all of the concerns raised in the neighbors'
letters. In light of the proposed Parking and Mitigation plan we request that the staff
recommend approval of the proposed day Care Center project. There is a ~ignificant hck
of Day Cme sen4ces like Munchkin-care in the Community. The Ci~ and the community
would cle~l¥ lose an opportunity to have an excellent Day. Care Center flit were to
recommend denial of the proposed application.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the public comment staff bas received for the
proposed Munchkin Care Day Care Center project. If you have any questions regarding
the responses in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (650)329-1764.
~ulSlhar, AICP
enc: Exhibit "Ap
Two Letters from neighbors
c: Mr. Dennis Carringt0n, Senior Planner
4
06/17/99 THU 07:10 FAX
· [~efkPou~r~xstems
415g~?sg~8
~005
66-15-99 :18:Z3 P,O4
p(,a ¢4
06/17/99 THU 07:10 FAX ~006
June 7, 1999
Neighhors
Akgre Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Projegt PA99-014 Munehkln Cure Day Car~ Center Conditional Use Permit
De~r Ncigh~r.
Recemly, we r~eeived a letter from the City of Dublin info~m{aE us that tl~e Mumhkin Day Care
-Genter-(-)4-Sg6-Ale~.l~ive) applied ,to.exp~d their pre~ent mnx, im~ ofl2 cl:u~lren to a .....
maximum capacity of 30 chil~en. Last year, the faeilry expanded from 6 to it; presem capacity
of 12 child~n- It has been our experience as neighbors th~ problems will occur ~'om
expansion. We feel tlg ~lowing are s;?i6cant ~ of concern:
Employ,m parking would he doubled during the hours of operation (7 a.m.- 6:30 p.m.).
Customer (paw-ut) parking wluqe dropping off and luicking up would be considerably
increa~d, if not doubled.
Obslruction of neighboring dtivewaym.
Az residents we nil know that parking is limited in the cul-de-sac, ~glg~-~ally during Nielsen School
ructions.
Truffle/Safety
Tlg amount of trail% would ~e increased considerably, if not doubled.
$t,~-~ing_ traffic from hurried pa~uts presents safety b,~n~is for neighborhood children.
Traff~ is alF=ady above the normal level of a cul-de-sac due to the proximity oflqielsen
SchooL parems of school cl~kiren already use the end ofu'me cul-de-sac as a turnarouml.
Noise
Increased noise levels dm to added vehicular traffic.
In~rgaggl noig levels during pagnls drop-oil/pick-up oftlgir children.
Exterior noise would be incnnased due to the added number ofchi{dr~n outside.
When w~ purchased our hong almost 2 years ago, the s~lle~s disclosed (by law) to us that there
was a daycarc fac~Tiry next door with a mazda,urn of six children. Six children did not ~ to be
a problem. However, shortly'thereafter, it increased to twelve. In our opinion, any increase
above the current capacity poses ',he ahove-mentioned problems. We adore this neighborhood
and do ~ot plan on moving anytime soon. But realistically, we will eventually sell our home just
as you may. Ask yourself this question, as a potential borne buyer would you warn lo live
RL~C~ilVE D
I4o rkpo,un'F ~rs t ems .4tSOb'~dSm~'?*6 06--1.5-99
~extdoor or he.by a d~care faciii~ w~th 30 clfildren? Or, would you be willing t~ pay to~D dolhr
for the home? Wc s~e this as o bargaining tool for the buyer.
On Iur~ I, 1999, we received a letter from the KrL~sa~ regatdir~g their daycare e~pan~on. In the
~t~er. th~ addr~s fl~¢ issue of traffic. If they are ndareSs/ng tbe isst~, k mus~ be an important
one. They ~tate that parent arrival times w~l be 'staggered". How L~ this possible? Each patent
would have to be abl~ to set t.t~t OWn arrival schedule around ~ other parents scheduies.
Arrival schedules nr~ dictated by work and school schedule. There is a normaJ window oftirn~
Ihat drol~ol~ and p~ck-ups occur. That is why the facihy L~ olin before and after normal
bu~r~ss working hout~. Many pa_~lts already drop-off an4 p~ck-up their clu-ldren at the sar~
time. Another offl~r conc~n~ ~n the l~tter was "speeding". Hmm~m ..Our concern a~ well_
We donl believe lh~t any of 1be pa~enls speed wkh thc in~nt to cause any harm. However, we
all know that when one is late. rushed or exhausted, cq~c~ly after a hard day at work, they can
Wc bx no way want to offend or cause any lmrm to the Voishna's. They are wonderful p~ople.
How~wer, they happtm to ~av¢ a brininess--and tl~ is business. We fe~! the Munchkir~ Daycare
C. czacr is at its maximum capacity h our Imauliful neighborhood. The fact that our horn~ was
located in a ¢uJ-d~-mc was a very impoflant factor ill our decLsion to buy a home on Alegre
Drive. A cul-de-sac by iLs v¢~ nature is supposed to limit traffic and thus increase safety for
everyone, espeeiall~ children. We have two small clu~cken arid do not want to !o.~ 1his inherent
safedy benefit. With the daycare facility at its present maximum off2 child.s, we have already
experienced people bloclcing our &iveway and ~eding in and out to pick up tl~Jr chgclt~n.
On June 22. 1999 at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, located at 100 Civic Plaza.
Dublin, a public hearing will he held for an issuance ufa conditional ttse permit to increas~ lhe
daycare facility capachy. Ally interested person may appear and be bard regarding this nmtter_
Please join us on June 22 and voice your con. ms. Ifyou bare any questions or comments, please
feel free ~o contact either mysell~, Ed. or my ~ Ang&ica. at hon~ 833-1129.
The P~rea Family
11550 Alcgrc Drive, Dublin
Ralph D. I-Iur, bes, ?lara Comm k,ner
Don $ohnson, Ptanning Comndssionet
Fred Musser, Planning CommL~oner
Tony Oravetv, Planning Commis~ner
F. ddie Peabody, .Ir., Director of Comnmnity Development
Denni_~ Cm'rj~ton, ~et~or Planner
Fire Marshall City of Dublin Fire Dcpmim~
Traffic Unil and Parking Enforcement, Dublin Police Depaflmem
08/17/99 THU 07:11 FAX [~008
Mo ~' k Po~ae r Ig:r s t e .~s 4 IL,~I~-'T~7~i l)Sr- i.~-~SI ln:~ P.O~
Jur~ 2. 1999
Mr_ & Mm Julian S, P. Misra
i 1598 Ale~re Drive
Dublin. CA 94565
Mr, Eddie Peabody Ir_
Director of Community D~welopment
City of Doblin
100 Civic Plaza,
l~blin. CA 94568
Subjegt; PA 99-014 Munchkin Care Day Car~ Center
Dear Mr. Peabody:
We are very much ¢oncerned:'~in~ ~e'i~-d~r-~'l~fibdrS-$figis '~roposed ~pa~ion of the day
~ cent~ o~ed ~ Mr. · ~ ~a., We ~ s~] pt~]~ a~sing f~m the cond~o~l
p~ ~ by ~ Ci~ to ~e ~ ~th~ b~in~ ~ we ~ ~r ~u~c at 11598
~e ~ ~ 9~6. we ~ ~ ~~ ~o ~mio ~ide~l f~ n~ 0nly our child b~ also lhe
~h~ ~i~' childr~ ~ Mr, & ~. Kfish~'~d~ t~ b~in~s in l~7, we
ufld~ ~om Mrs. Kris~ ~ ~ numb~ ofcbti~ she will bo ~g f~ was six al lh~ ~sL
We ~ly f~nd om ~m y~ ~ ~ num~ ofchildr~ is moire which has ~d im~ ~
~, ~king ~e aM m~ f~ ~ of~o ~i~ in ~ ~ul~c.
~ quite a f~ m~sions, w~ ~ve ~d tmub~ g~iag ia ~d ~ of~r owe ~veway ~ ~e ~
~ to ~ ~ d~p off~ chfl~ ~d ~ ~a~ ~o our &~y bl~. Mn.
~v~ a~ u~ ~e ~g s~ in ~ of ~ I~.
S~ing ~ al~ a pr~lem ~ ~ ~ ~hiag to &~ offor p~ I~ children.
S~ ~. hst ~i~ of~is-b~i~ ~ffig ~k~ ~1~ W ~ ~me. end ~ge ~ve d~nhely
Ale~e ~v~ is a eu~-sac ~ ~ a ~ugh ~t ~ich m~ ~n~ w~ ~ ~le ~
~ly ~king U-tu~ ~ bang ~ of the ~v~ay of~e day ~ ~.
In ~e p~ ~ only ~d to d~l wkh I~ ~bl~ oftr~e ~ p~k~g ~om a~viti~ of the
~h~l, wRh ~ ~n of~ ~ ~ ~ in ] 997, k ~s ~ wo~c.
We would ai~ I~e !o remind the ei~ ~t ~e ~ivisi~ is ~nM ~emhl ~ comm~claL
a~ ~t pr~t~g Mr. · ~. ~ ~ ~vi~ a ~i~ bm we w~ld llke ~ ~mm~d
fl~e p~ing ~mmission to r~d~ ~eir ~i~oaal ~it of~pamio~ In ~he p~. we did n~
prat ~ ~plain, simply b~ we w~e t~ing Io ~ g~ ngg~ to ~m, Thh ti~ thougk
we ~l~ ~j~t ~o Ihe ~i~ of~ ~ ~ ~t~ ~m w~t it is now m a ~xlmum of
· i~ chorea.
Misra
........... ........ WEDNESDAY Ju~ 9 1999
,of da :- mke
% onasucc ss
~.~:~¢¢t,~,}~'?',~" . '7~-'.'~- c~?';~Colorado. Co~Ucut
~, ' ~ ' Y ' 0~, ~ ' r~
centers on chfldrm h~ fo~d. ,.~., ...~. --.~
but .... q~er o~ m~e ~envere~ n~-
a~ ~k qu~ ~e -- ~d more ~
~ 11 p~reent were subs~d~d~ ~
MoSt centers,, re,catcher8
b~
aca- '. ~ ;'Chlldren:'Who':have' re-
cafe
'/~:.have: a positive rela-
,.,,the flrst.:ctlOnshlp..,wlth..thelr~ school
[ when it ' t~acher;" ~mtd,Carollee Howes.'a
'quality developmlmtal~.;psychologist at
and'"eontinUes to -lheUnlve~tty~Of ~2alffornla, LOs
enter Angele~':graduate schOol of edtt.
' catiofi'tu~d!kifonnatlon studies.
from
regard-
or
ha ! proble ns ';. Bat~ey .said ~they.? were
iai lis as well struck'.fb-~ itheV magnffi~d: effect
~.: _as¥,~ .e~,?,'acad,emic scores than that day Care'$ quality had on
i l~.¢~'~rtun,a[(/CoUnterparts the later~iSChOOl!perform~nce of
~!~.~;' the ~earlier:' ~, re, f. ~chlLdren~2~hose m°ther~i~ad the
,~a~h~tt~died~ ' 'a~ ~.findomn~Iow~ i~-n~lS ~i~dg.C~.ff6n;' ,
RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE
600 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD
DANVILLE, CA 94526
{925) 837 4100 BUS
(925) 831-3294 FAX
PLANNING
ETHICS
EXAMINED AT
CCAPA
CONFERENCE
STUMBLING BLOCK
TO BUILDING BLOCK:
ZONING AND CHILD
CARE CENTERS
By Eric Norris
CCAPA Publicity Chair
Among the hardest choices faced by
planners are lhose which revolve around
the questions of personal growth and
ethics. Career decisions, questions of
professional ethics and practices, and
philosophical debates can be as important
to a planner as more down-to-earth consid-
erations.
The 1988 Calilornia Chapter, American
Planning Association Conference in Palm
Springs, October 23-26, will focus on per-
sonal and professional issues as one of the
major themes addressed at Ihe slatewide
gathering. Other themes include state and
regional issues, local issues, environmental
issues and societar issues.
One conference session will examine a
difficult but familiar question to many plan-
ners: When to make a switch to/or from the
public sector? The workshop will explore
the trade-offs, benelits and liabililies asso-
ciated with work in the public and private
sectors.
The lg88 CCAPA Conference, named
Hard Choices, will also feature mobire
workshops, social and sporting events and
exhibitor's show. A special symposium and
reception will be hosted by the California
Planners Foundation on Sunday. October
23. Titled "Getting Ready For The Big
One", the symposium wilt cover the
responsibilities of planners in dealing with
the pending major earthquake predicted to
hit Southern California in the next few dec-
ades,
Look for conference registration infor-
mation in the June issue af California
Planner Newsletter.
By Abby J. Cohen
Editor's Note: Creation of quality, afford-
able and safe child care Is sn issue
facing communlty planners. This article
follows a feature In November 1987
California Planner entitled "Zoning and
Family Day Care" by the same author.
The lack of child care programs has
reached crisis proportions. The rea-
sons can be found in exploding de-
mand for services and a supply which not
only cannot keep up but in some instances
is aclually shrinking,
There are a multitude of factors respon-
sible for the shrinking supply of quality
child care. These include: the slashing of
governmental resources for child care;
lack of licensable and affordable space for
"...planning professionals
have not focused
sufficient attention on
this area of concern.'
child care; inadequate wages for child
care providers; lack of affordable liability
insurance; lack of a national family policy;
lack of support of child care from employ-
ers; and a variety of local prohibitions, re-
strictions and unnecessarily onerous
processes for establishing child care
programs.
One very maior problem plaguing child
care expansion efforts are zoning restric-
tions. This article will examine these zoning
barriers.
Child care centers are licensed by the
State of California, Deparlment of Social
Services, Community Care Licensing Divi-
sion. Child care centers are defined as
"any child day care facility other than a
family day care home, and includes infant
centers, preschools, and extended day
care facilities." (California Health and
Safety Code Section 1596.76). The level of
regulation is much more extensive for
centers than for family day care homes.
State regulation of child care centers
covers the following areas: staff qualifica-
tions, staff/child ratios, admission policies,
medical policies, physical environment, nu-
trition services, parent access and involve-
ment, discipline policies, and transporta-
tion requirements. When local zoning ordi-
nances fail to consider the state licensing
scheme, confusion, duplication and un-
necessary red tape are the result,
The most typical definitional problems
with local zoning ordinances are:
1) a failure to include any mention of
child care centers;
2) inclusion of categories which are un-
defined, do not appear in state licensing
law or are archaic;
3) a failure to distinguish family day
care homes (see California Planner
November 1987) from child care cenlers;
and
Continued on page 6
Zoning and Child
Care Centers
Continued from page I
4) a failure to distinguish child care cen-
ters from other caregiving facilities, par-
ticularly residential care facilities.
In addition to the definitionar problems,
zoning ordinances also may be a major
barrier to the development of child care
centers because they include:
1) additional requirements or require*
ments inconsistent with state law;
2) outright prohibitions against child
care centers in certain zones or all zones;
and
3) procedures for approval which are
costly, excessively complicated, lime-con-
suming, intimidating to providers and/or
require that unnecessarily restrictive condi-
tions be met.
Which Zones Are Appropriate?
Despite some recognition as long as 20
years ago about the need to address
zoning problems for child care, it is
surprising how little attention has been
given the issue by planners, tn preparing
this article, the author could refer to only a
handful of studies, three of which were
pubfished prior to 1974, Thus, despite the
growing recognition that we need dala and
analysis on which to base our child care
zoning policies and the urgency of our
need for more favorable policies, planning
professionals have not focused sufficient
attention on this area ct concern.
It is symptomatic of society's ambiva-
lence toward child care that we find com-
munities allowing child care centers in resi-
dential zones but not in commercial zones,
while other communities are allowing child
care in commercial zones but not in resi-
dential zones. If there is any fundamenlar
principle now operating in the child care
community it is that parents should have
choices in child care which include the
avairability of all types of child care
programs in a variety of locations.
Residential Zones
A variety of argumenls have been put
forward as {o why child care centers
should not be located in residential zones,
ranging from incompatibility with the neigh-
borhood to scale of operation resulting in
increased traffic and noise to diminished
privacy and property values. Yet, as the
Guide for Day Care Licensing prepared by
the U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare noted in 1973, day care
programs should be treated as community
facilities (not as proprietary uses restricted
to commercial zones). The guide com-
ments:
"For purposes of the zoning ordi-
nance, the location of day care facili-
ties should be considered compa-
rable to elemenlary schools. In both
day care facilities and elementary
schools, children are present for a
specific period ct time under the
supervision of adult staff. There is a
greater degree of supervision in day
care facilities, and in the majority of
Photo courlesy of Kids On K~mpu~
them there are fewer children than in
an elementary school. Consequen{ly,
there will be less likelihood of
negative effects upon neighboring
property.
Treating day care uses as com-
munity facilities means that day care
should be permitted to locate in any
zoning district as long as need has
been demonstrated, licensing re-
quirements have been met and no
physical hazard Io children c..an be
reasonably anticipated. Treating day
care facilities in the same manner as
elementary schools means lhat they
could be established without the
lengthy processing time involved in
obtaining a conditional or special
use permit."
It is interesting to consider however, just
how "uncontroversial" the siting of elemen-
tary schools is in this day and age. What a
difference 15 years make! These days very
few elementary schools are being sited,
Those that are being siled are encounter-
ing controversy Many more school districts
are faced with vacanl school properties
which are highly adaplable for use as child
care facilities. Consequently, zoning offi-
cials should encourage the use of school
sites for child care and regard a child care
center operating on a school site as a
permissible use. A recently proposed
zoning ordinance from Prince George's
County Maryland defines child care
centers as permitted uses in all buildings
designed for public assembly, nol lust in
buildings designed as schools.
For further exploration of the impacts of
child care on residential neighborhoods
and recommended siting guidelines, see
"Child Care Facilities: Locational Criteria
and Guidelines for Oevelopment and
Evaluation" ( 100-16) developed by the City
of Oakland in 1974. A more recent study is
also worth reviewing. Conducted by the
Planning Department of Montgomery
County, Maryland, and entitled "Small
Child Care Facilities in Residential Areas'*,
it discusses child care facilities serving up
to 20 children, thereby group~ng both
family day care homes and small child
care centers togelher.
Office And Commercial Zones
Many working parents would welcome
the availabilily of child care on-site or near
the site of their workplaces. They note a
desire to be in close proximity to their chil-
dren so they can respond to emergencies,
so that they may visit and nurse their
children, and so that they do not have to
make an extra trip twice a day to transport
their children to child care. However, the
constraints of commercial districts,
including but not limited to zoning restric-
"...in virtually all cases,
unnecessarily
burdensome
requirements...prevail."
lions, have prevented the development of
many centers in commercial areas. Some
of these impediments include the cost of
Ihe space; the inadequacy of parking,
pick-up, and outdoor space; and an
inabilily to adequately buffer the center
from other types of incompatible uses. Of
course, the variations in the types of
commercial zones (a downlown versus a
suburban business park for example)
make it difficull to generalize about child
care in these settings, However, in virtually
all cases, unnecessarily burdensome
requirements or overly time-consuming
approval processes prevail, Development
of reasonable criteria, streamlining of
approval processes and incorporation of
incentives or exactions will be necessary
to adequately expand the number of child
care centers in commercial areas.
An excellent first step in this direction
comes from Montgomery County, Maryland
which recently completed a study of "Child
Care Centers in Commercial Settings." The
study includes a survey of actual child
care centers in commercial settings, capi-
tal costs of esta~lishing child care centers
in commercial areas, mechanisms to pro-
vide for child care centers in commercial
areas and site planning standards and
guidelines.
CALIFORNIA PLANNER -- 6 -- APRIL 1988
Industrial Zones
Few persons would choose an induslrial
zone as the most desirable place for a
child care program Nonetheless. vari-
ations in the environmental qualily ot such
zones differ greatly. Therefore, planners
should retrain from passing blanket
prohibilions against child care cenlers in
industrial zones.
In fact, the general plan ct Paid Alto
reads, "Support the use of variances where
appropriate to expand site coverage in
industrial zones for child care facilities. The
zoning administrator can place conditions
on approval of variances. If variances are
granted for expanded site coverage for
child care facilities, the use o! this addi-
tional space should be limited slrictly to
child care." Reasonable criteria can be es-
tablished which would not permit child
care operations on premises located in a
hazardous industrial environment.
Under What Conditions?
The most typical conditions imposed on
child care centers fall into the following
areas:
· Traffic
· Parking
· Loading (Pick-up/Drop-off)
· Concentration
· Noise
· Signage
· Environmental hazards
· Security
· Incompatibility (the vaguest condition
of all)
It needs to be emphasized that whal-
ever standards are developed, they need
to be judged against the following criteria:
"Consideration should...
be given to child care as
an accessory use.., in
certain zones..."
Authority: the planning department musl
have the authority to adopt the slandard;
Necessity: the planning department
must have real and substantial evidence to
justity imposing the standard (La. not just
basing standards on outmoded assump-
tions, stereotypes, etc);
Clarity: the standard must be dear on
ils face as ~o what il requires, giving
providers predictabilily as to what is ex-
pected of them and how a slandard will be
implemented in praclice;
Consistency: the standard must be con-
sistent with other zoning provisions, other
local laws, and slate and federal statutes
and regulations;
Non-duplication: the regulalion most not
duplicale other provisions, regulations or
statutes; and
Considerahon of the cost of compli-
once: Ihe cost must nol be prohibitive
While cost should nol be an overriding
factor, it should enter the calculus if there
are alternative means of achieving the
same end al lesser cosl. These alterna-
lives should be spelled out and made
available without the necessity ol an
onerous waiver process.
Mechanisms For Imposing Conditions
The imposition of full-blown conditional
use permil procedures have frequently im-
posed a severe barrier to the expansion of
much needed child care centers. One of
the major concerns of such a process is ils
expense, In California, we have seen
figures ranging from $275 to $1455 for the
permit application, exclusive of fees for
environmental assessments, studies,
maps, appeals, experts, altorneys, elc.
This may not seem exhorbitant but child
care is far from being a lucrative
profession,
Additionally, the process is time-con-
suming, intimidating, and frequently results
in hearings which reflect extraneous neigh-
borhood issues.
As a general matter, planning depart-
ments should be giving grealer c,pnsidera-
tion to the use of non-discretionary zoning
administrator's permits, which have the po-
tential to alleviate many of the problems
described here, Consideration should also
be given Io child care as an accessory use
or prelerred use in certain zones if Ihese
methods would eliminate the burdens of
the conditional use permit process.
The best zoning ordinance in the world
will not necessarily expand the availability
of child care in a particular community, but
it is an important first step. Planners should
also be thinking of ways child care can be
considered in the overall planning process,
from the revision of general plans to
exactions and inoorporalion ct require-
ments for child care in development
agreements. Many suggestions for positive
incorporation of child care in the land use
planning process may be found in Plan-
ning for Child Care: A Compendium for
Child Care Advocates Seeking lhe
Inclusion of Child Care in the Land Use/
Development Process, published by the
Child Care Center.
(c) 1988 Child Care Law Center
Cohen is managing attorney for the Child
Care Law Center. 22 Second Street, 5th
Floor, San Francisco. CA 94105; (415)
495-5498.
Land Use Litigation
Continued from page 3
ments in the consideration of alternatives
in an EIR. In this particular case, a general
plan amendment and EIR certification was
challenged on the grounds that the
approving city failed to address Ihe proiect
alternatives at the time it issued its
statement of overriding consideralions.
Although the EIR contained a discus-
sion of six alternatives, including lwo which
were environmentally superior to that of the
preferred proiect, the findings of approval
contained no discussion of the EIR
alternatives as required by Public Re-
sources Code Section 21081.
The appellate decision also affirmed the
holding of Citizens Association for Sensible
Development in the Bishop Area when it
concluded that the cily, on remand, should
consider the potential economic problems
ca~sed by the proposed prorect, which
could conceivably result in business clo-
sures and physical deterioration of the
downtown area.
Finally, the appellate court ruled that the
city's action was inadequate for failure to
adopt the mitigation measures at the time
of the general plan amendment. The EIR
had identified numerous mitigation
measures; however, those were not
incorporated at the time of the general plan
amendment. In fact, the evidence sug-
gested that the council was under the
impression that the mitigation measures
would only be included at the time of
specific project approval,
Goleta Valley v. The Board of Supervi-
sors of the County of Santa Barbara. 88
Daily Journal DAR 886; Citizens for Quality
Growth v. City of Mount Shasta. 88 Daily
Journal DAR 1625,
Abbott is with the Law Offices of Balfrey &
Abbott with offices in Oakland and Sacra-
mento. His legal practice is limited to land
use. planning and public agency law
Legislative Report
Continued from page 4
AB 3278 (FILANTE) -- SAN MARCOS:
LIABILITY FOR CAPITAL FACILITY
FEES
This bill would again attempt to overturn
the San Marcos court decision relating to
public agency liability for capital facility
fees of another public agency. This bill
would authorize public agencies that
provide water, light, heat, power, sewer.
and other services to charge other public
entities nondiscriminatory user charges for
their share of capital facilities necessary to
provide the service Assemblyman Cortese
has also amended a bill, AB 1350, to
address this issue, similar to his AB 318
from last year. AB 318 was vetoed last year
by the Governor.
CALIFORNIA PLANNER -- 7 -- April 1988
Abby 1. Cohen
Managing A~totney
CIIILD CARE LAW CENTER
22 SECOND STREET, 5TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
Telephone: 415/495-5498
Fax:415/495-6734
B~ar'a C~cc.:lrilli Carlson
$1aff ^tto~ey
Marcia Ro~en
~peclal Counsel
FURTHER RESOURCES
American Planning Association. "Updating Day Care." Zoning News, February 1'987,
American Society of Planning Officials. "Planning, Women and Change, "by Hapgood &
Getzels. Planning Advisory Report No. 301, April 1974, pp. 18-20.
California Child Care Resource & Referral Network. A Developer's Guide to Child
Care. San Francisco: California Child Care Resource and Referral Network, 1986.
Cibulskis, Ann and Marsha Ritzdorf. Zoning for Child Care. Chicago: American
Planning Association, December 1989.
Cohen, Abby. Local Officials Guide to Family Day Care Zoning. Wash. D.C.: National
League of Cities, 1989.
Cohen, Abby. 'i, Zoning for Family D~_Care: Transforming a Stumbling Block into a
Building Block. Zoning and Plannifi~w Report. November 1990, p. 73.
Cohen, Abby. Planning for Child Care: A Compendium for Child Care Advocates
Seeking the Inclusion of Child Care in the Land Use/Development Process. San
Francisco: Child Care Law Center, 1987.
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Small Child Care Facilities
in Residential Areas. Silver Spring, MD: Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning
Commission, March 1987.
Netter, Edith. "Zoning and the Freedom to Choose," undated unpublished draft.
Oakland City Planning Department. Daycare Facilities for the Children of Oakland: A
Study of Neighbors' Attitudes. Oakland: Oakland City Planning Department, 1966.
Oakland City Planning Department. Zoning and Child Care in Oakland. Oakland:
Oakland City Planning Department, 1974.
Pollard, rvlarilyn. "Zoning for Day Care Facilities." Arizona State Law Journal, 1976, p.
63.
Ritzdorf, Marsha. Zoning and the Changing Family. Paper presented at the Zon/ng
Institute, 1985. -
Smith, Herbert. The Citizen's Guide to Zoning. Washington, DC: Planners Press,
American Planning Association, 1983.
U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare. Guide for Day Care Licensing.
Publication No. (OCD) 73-103. Washington, DC: U.s. Department of Health,. Education
& Welfare, 1973, pp. 56-59.
APA Policy Guide on Child Care Page 1 of 4
Policy Guide
on
THE PROVISION OF CHILD CARE
Revised by the APA Legislative & Policy Committee, July, 1997
Adopted by the Chapter Delegate Assembly, September 20, 1997
Ratified by the Board of Directors, September 21, 1997
STATEMENT OF ISSUE and FINDINGS
Affordable, conveniently-located, quality child care is one of the most pressing
concerns of contemporary family life. In the 1990's, 75% of women with
school-aged children are in the labor force. According to the Census Bureau, in
1990, there were 19.2 million employed women with children under 15 years
old living with them. Their 31 million children must be cared for while their
mothers are at worked.
The most rapid increase in the rate of labor force participation since 1970 has
been among women with children under the age of three. In 1997, 62% of
mothers with pre-schoolers are in the work force. Additionally, most of these
mothers work full time.
In 1990, an estimated 1.6 million children 5 to 14 years old were "latchkey"
children, i.e., let~ unsupervised for at least part of the day. Child care is clearly a
national problem calling out for some form of Federal support. In addition,
there are numerous state and local level policies and actions which would
enhance the provision of quality child care.
In 1990, a common type of arrangement chosen by working parents was family
day care homes. It continues to be a preferred choice. Family day care is
provided by an adult working in her or his home and typically caring for four to
seven children. Local planners can play an important role in facilitating the
provision of family day care by working to amend zoning to permit such a use
by right in some residential districts. Local planners are also increasing the
availability of child care by working with developers to provide affordable
space. Child Care in the workplace as another convenient option for working
parents.
POLICY POSITIONS
h ttp ://www. planning, org/govt/childcr, htm 7/14/98
APA Policy Guide on Child Care Page 2 of 4
1. APA advocates the inclusion of child care policies as part of local
planning policies.
2. APA supports local or state legislation which provides for small child
care homes as permitted land uses in all zoning districts, without the
standard home occupation restrictions, but with reasonable compatibility
standards; and further supports state preemption of local legislation which
does not permit this type of child care home.
3. APA encourages communities to consider amending local zoning
ordinances to remove obstacles to the provision of regulated group and
family child care in all zoning districts, in locations that are appropriate
and safe for children.
4 APA encourages communities to negotiate with developers and to offer
incentives to provide space for child care in all types of projects,
residential, office, mixed use, and commercial, including new construction
and reuse.
Reasons for these principles include:
The impact of child care shortages is most acutely felt at the local level. A
survey of parents seeking child care in five counties in New York State showed
the number one problem to be finding a center which was conveniently located.
Many communities are already actively engaged in improving the availability of
child care for their residents. For example, in Hartford, Connecticut, developers
can receive a FAR bonus in exchange for providing space for day care. Prince
George's County, Maryland has amended its zoning to include a special
exception for child care facilities in excess public school buildings undergoing
adaptive reuse. Palo Alto, California includes in its comprehensive plan a
variance permitting expanded site coverage in industrial zones when the
additional building space is used for child care. Tucson, Arizona zoning
regulations allow by right small child care homes and, conditionally, small child
care centers in residential zones. The State of California requires local
jurisdictions to classify family day care as a residential use and prohibits the
imposition of licenses, fees, or zoning requirements on day care centers with 6
or fewer children. Local jurisdictions may require special use permits for
facilities with up to 12 children, but limit local discretion to consideration of
spacing, parking, traffic, and noise control, subject to the building meeting state
building and fire safety requirements.
It should be noted that, although much attention is being focused on the
provision of child care at work, surveys consistently show that most parents
prefer that their children be in small facilities close to home. Parents are
concerned not just about convenience of child care, but also the quality of child
care. Child care for a limited number of children in a home is the preferred
choice of many parents. Home occupation restrictions, such as limited use of
floor space in the home and prohibitions on the use of outdoor space,
http ://www.planning.org/govt/childcr. htm 7/14/98
APA Policy Guide on Child Care Eage 3 of 4
unreasonably restrict child care in the home.
Some locations, such as high noise areas near airports and industrial areas with
hazardous materials storage, may be inappropriate for child care. In addition,
maintaining the quality of life in a neighborhood is important. Traffic and
parking, waste disposal, and adequate sound control measures should be
considered when providing for child care in a neighborhood. Licensing of child
care to assure the quality of care and safety of children should are reasonable
requirements.
5. APA supports legislation at the Federal, state and local levels providing
for child care needs assessment and planning to be performed at the state
and local level.
6. APA supports local legislation (zoning ordinances) which provide for
child care in locations convenient to neighborhoods and in public facilities
such as schools, recreation and social service centers, and subsidized
housing projects. Procedures to locate child care facilities should not be
overly burdensome and should be related to size and land use impacts of
the facility.
7. APA supports national and state legislation which moves toward the
goal of providing adequate funding for safe, convenient and affordable
child care opportunities for all children.
Reasons for these principles include:
The United States is the only industrialized nation which provides no job
protection or child care support for working parents. American women have no
statutory entitlement to job protection, health coverage for themselves and their
newborn, or access to affordable, convenient and quality child care. The
majority of women (80%, according to the National Commission on Working
Women) work in low-paying, low status jobs. Nearly two thirds (63.6%) of all
minimum wage earners are women. Twenty percent of mothers in the work
force, or over 6 million women, are the sole support of their families. Without
public policies in support of parents, we as a society run the risk that many of
today's children will not receive the necessary care to grow into productive
adults. Regulations which protect the safety of children, enhance the quality of
care, or assure child care affordability are appropriate and will help to address
concerns of parents and communities about child care.
Child care costs are most burdensome on low-income mothers. Women,
especially women of color, are more likely to hold low-wage jobs. Child care
costs approximately 27% of the monthly income for a family below poverty in
1991.
Increased zonlng barriers add to the cost of child care and the lowering of
http ://www. planning, org/govffchildcr, htm 7/14/98
APA Policy Guide on Child Care
quality of care. Typically, churches and schools are permitted in residential
zones as uses that are compatible with and help support the viability of a
neighborhood. Child care centers are usually considered commercial land uses,
thus making the cost and convenience of child care greater for neighborhood
residents.
Welfare reform's impact on the need for child care for low-income mothers has
the potential to be significant. Public funding for day care (e.g. the provision of
safe, affordable, child care at convenient locations) is essential to
implementation of any Federal or State program for welfare reform.
Note: The implementation of actions at the state level is at the initiative of the
chapter taken itt the legislative context particular to each state.
ResouFces:
Planting Advisory sen,ice Report Number 422, Zoning for ChiM Care, Ant
Cibulskis a~MMarsba Ritzdoft, American Platming Association, 1989.
Bureau of Census, StatiStical Briefs: American Women: A Profile (SB/95-19);
The Earnings Ladder (SB/94-3RV); Who's Minding The Kids? (SB/94-5)
Zonmg For Family Day Care: Transforming a Stumbling Block bito A
Building Block, Abby Cohen, The Planning Commissioner's Journal, Number
3, March/April 1992.
Page 4 of 4
APA. AICP. National Planning Conference. Planners Book Service. Research
Publications' Planning Advisory Service. Educational Opportunities
Legislative & Policy Issues · Public Information · People, Jobs & Consultant Services
What's New. Links · Calendar. FAQ - Site Map
Copwig, ht by the American Plannin~ Association
Web.taster(s) Page
http://www.planning.org/govt/childcr.htm 7/14/98