HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.17 Miss Dina's Day Dare CUP
CITY CLERK
Ilm~, C ~..
File #m~J~J. i.ulQ
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2006
SUBJECT:
Adoption of a Resolution granting the appeal, thereby reversing
the Planning Commission's Decision and Approving a
Conditional Use Permit for a Large Family Day Care Home (up to
12 children) and a parking reduction for one loading space for
Miss Dina's Day Care (P A 06-029)
Report prepared by Bryan A. Moore, Assistant Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution granting the appeal, thereby reversing the Planning
Commission's Decision and Approving a Conditional Use Permit
for a Large Family Day Care Home (up to 12 children) and a
parking reduction for one loading space for Miss Dina's Day Care
(P A 06-029)
2) City Council Staff Report dated September 5,2006 (with
attachments)
3) Staff Memo, dated September 5, 2006, with draft Planning
Commission Resolution of Approval
4) Correspondence received at the September 5, 2006 City Council
hearing
5) Project Plans
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) granting the appeal, thereby
/'l)JlY reversing the Planning Commission's Decision and Approving a
f~.& \ Conditional Use Permit for a Large Family Day Care Home (up to 12
\j~ children) and a parking reduction for one loading space for Miss
Dina's Day Care (PA 06-029)
DESCRIPTION:
The project site is located at 7956 Crossridge Road. The site currently has a Small Family Day Care
Home (Miss Dina's Day Care) with a play area in the backyard for up to 8 children. The property is
zoned PD (Planned Development), and the said zoning allows a Large Family Day Care Home with the
approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The project site is an interior lot surrounded by single-family
COPIES TO: Applicant
Property Owner
In-House Distribution
ITEM NO.W
G:\PA#\2006\06-029 Lg Family Daycare CUP\City Council\CC 9-19 StfRpt - MJW accepted changes- CA ReviewDOC
Page 1 of3
(/'
homes to the north and south, and by a City Landscape Maintenance Easement (Open Space) to the west
or rear of the property.
On April 24, 2006, the Applicant applied for a Conditional Use Permit for a Large Family Day Care
Home (up to 14 children) to operate in a single-family home located at 7956 Crossridge Road. As a part
of the Conditional Use Permit, the Applicant also requested a parking reduction for 2 of the 4 required
loading spaces. The proposed Large Family Daycare would have 2 full-time employees consisting of the
Applicant and her granddaughter-in-law, who both live in the home. The proposed operating hours for
the Daycare would be Monday thru Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. The Daycare would be closed on
the weekends.
The following is a summary ofthe City's actions on this project:
· On August 8, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed and denied the request for a Conditional
Use Permit for a Large Family Day Care.
· At the September 5, 2006 City Council Meeting, the City Council heard an Appeal of the Planning
Commission decision that was filed by Mayor Lockhart.
A complete background and analysis of the issues are presented in the attached City Council Staff Report
of September 5, 2006 (Attachment 2).
At the City Council meeting of September 5, 2006, the Council held a public hearing on the appeal of the
Planning Commission's denial of the application for a Conditional Use Permit and parking reduction for
the Large Family Day Care Home. The Council received public testimony both in support and opposition
of the application and testimony from the Applicant, Miss Dina. The Applicant indicated a willingness to
have the requested Conditional Use Permit granted with the following additional conditions:
a. Restricting the number of children served to 12;
b. Increasing the size ofthe home's driveway to provide 3 loading spaces instead of2;
c. Requiring clients to receive a letter regarding the home's traffic policy;
d. Restricting the hours that children may play outside to between the hours of 10:40 a.m. and
11 :40 a.m. and 1.5 hours in the afternoon; and
e. Restricting the number of children outside at anyone time to 6.
After hearing all public testimony, the City Council discussed the proposal. The Council appreciated the
Applicant's willingness to reduce the maximum number of children from 14 to 12 and agreed that the
approval should be so conditioned. Reducing the number of children served from 14 to 12 reduces the
number of on-site loadings spaces required from 4 spaces to 3 spaces. The City Council indicated that the
Council would grant a one-space parking reduction if it was not reasonably practicable to provide the one
additional loading space on-site.
At the hearing, the City Council asked that certain other conditions of approval, suggested by the
Applicant be included in the approval. These include a limitation of no more than 6 children playing
outside at anyone time, limiting the time children can play outside and a requirement to provide a traffic
policy describing the pick-up and drop-off requirements to the parents/guardians. These conditions are
included in the draft Resolution (Attachment 1).
The City Council conducted a straw vote and directed Staff to return to the next City Council meeting
with a draft Resolution approving the Appeal, with the added conditions as described above.
Since the September 5, 2006 City Council meeting, Staff has worked with the Applicant and has
determined that it is feasible to provide the required third loading space on-site with the expansion of the
existing driveway surface (please see Attachment 5 for the proposed location). A condition of approval
2
has been included requiring that the loading spaces are provided prior to the operation of the Large
Family Day Care Home. In the event that an unforeseen circumstance arises, the draft Resolution
includes the City Council findings to grant the parking reduction for one loading space.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) granting the appeal, thereby
reversing the Planning Commission's Decision and Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a Large
Family Day Care Home (up to 12 children) and a parking reduction for one loading space for Miss Dina's
Day Care (P A 06-029).
3
I lJbl24
RESOLUTION NO. - 06
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
********************
A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE APPEAL, THEREBY REVERSING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION, AND APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT WITH A PARKING REDUCTION TO ALLOW MISS DINA'S DAYCARE (UP TO A
MAXIMUM OF 12 CHILDREN) TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE HOME AT
7956 CROSSRIDGE ROAD. (APN 941-2784-034)
PA 06-029
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Dina Yaroshevskaya, has requested approval of a Conditional Use
Permit for the operation of a Large Family Daycare Home (up to 14 children), known as Miss Dina's
Daycare, located at 7956 Crossridge Road, and a parking reduction to reduce the number of required off-
site loading spaces from 4 spaces to 2 spaces; and
WHEREAS, Large Family Day Care Homes, which serves between nine (9) and fourteen (14)
children, are permitted in residential zoning districts with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the applicable Planned Development (PA 85-041) states that except as specifically
modified by the design criteria or Conditions of Approval of said PD, the property covered by the PD will
be subject to the guidelines of the R-1 Single Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by Resolution 06-26 on August 8, 2006, denied the
request for an approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Large Family Day Care Home to be located
at 7956 Crossridge Road; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission decision was filed by Mayor Lockhart; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on appeal for the said application on
September 5, 2006; 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 one of three actions be adopted
by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, the City Council heard testimony from the public and the
Applicant; and
WHEREAS, during the public hearing, the Applicant indicated a willingness to have the
Conditional Use Permit granted with the following additional conditions:
a.
b.
Restricting the number of children served to 12;
Increasing the size of the home's driveway to provide 3 loading spaces instead of 2;
Requiring clients to receive a letter regarding the home's traffic policy;
Restricting the hours that children may play outside to between 10:40 a.m. and 11 :40 a.m.
and 1.5 hours in the afternoon; and
(,1 -. 1 to
Attachment 1
c.
d.
4,\1
). 12:4
e. Restricting the number of children outside at anyone time to 6; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the project is Statutorily Exempt per Section 15274;
and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council by a "straw vote" indicated
its intention to grant the appeal and approve the application, subject to certain additional conditions
suggested by the applicant, including a reduction in the number of children served by the facility from 14
to 12, and additionally to grant a parking reduction of one off-site loading space pursuant to Dublin
Municiapl Code Section 8.76.050 E; and
WHEREAS, the "record herein" consists of the testimony at and the minutes of the public hearing
on September 5, 2006, all documentary evidence submitted to the City Council at the public hearing,
including the agenda statement dated September 5,2005.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, after considering the provisions of the Dublin
Municipal Code and the record herein, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The proposed operation of the Large Family Day Care Home including a parking reduction
for one loading space, as conditioned, is compatible with other land uses, transportation and
service facilities in the vicinity because: 1) the Daycare Home complies with State laws that
require the primary use of the site to be a single family residential use with the Daycare as an
accessory use; 2) the noise and traffic impacts will be minimized by restrictions on the hours of
operation and the low number of vehicle trips that may be generated by the project; and 3) the City
Traffic Engineer's review revealed that the residential street, including street width and street
capacity are adequate to handle the necessary parking and circulation if the additional loading
space on-site is not practically feasible and therefore the required parking standards are excessive
and the reduction in the required number of off-site loading spaces for a 12-child Large Family
Day Care Home from 2 spaces to 1 space is appropriate and will not result in a parking deficiency.
B. The Large Family Day Care Home use including a parking reduction for one loading space,
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: 1) the proposed Large
Family Daycare Home will comply with all City of Dublin and State regulations; 2) the Large
Family Daycare Home will be located at an existing facility that serves as a Small Family Daycare
Home; and 3) the use is compatible with the neighborhood; 4) the Daycare will be a licensed
daycare facility; and 5) the City Traffic Engineer's review revealed that the residential street,
including street width and street capacity are adequate to handle the necessary parking and
circulation if the additional loading space on-site is not practically feasible and therefore the
required parking standards are excessive and the reduction in the required number of off-site
loading spaces for a 12-child Large Family Day Care Home from 2 spaces to 1 space is appropriate
and will not result in a parking deficiency.
C. The Large Family Day Care Home use including a parking reduction for one loading space,
as conditioned, will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood because: 1)
as conditioned, noise and traffic impacts will be minimized by the Conditions of Approval which
establish limits on the number of children enrolled and the hours of operation and further limits the
number of children outside at anyone time; 2) the additional vehicle trips are considered
insignificant to the existing residential street, which has a 1,500 ADT (Average Daily Trip)
2
J ;
i z. ''-1
capacity and is currently reaching approximately 36% of that capacity; 3) the 2 required parking
spaces and 2 of the 3 loading spaces will be provided on site; and 4) the parking reduction for 1
loading space is warranted based on the availability of loading spaces on Crossridge Road if the
additional loading space on-site is not practically feasible and therefore the required parking
standards are excessive and the reduction in the required number of off-site loading spaces for a
12-child Large Family Day Care Home from 2 spaces to 1 space is appropriate and will not result
in a parking deficiency.
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 because the proposed Large Family Day Care Home including a
parking reduction for one loading space is located at an existing residential dwelling within a
single- family residential neighborhood where such services are already provided and with
adequate street access and parking if the additional loading space on-site is not practically feasible
and therefore the required parking standards are excessive and the reduction in the required
number of off-site loading spaces for a 12-child Large Family Day Care Home from 2 spaces to 1
space is appropriate and will not result in a parking deficiency.
E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use being
proposed because: 1) the Large Family Day Care Home will be located on an existing site; 2) the
2 parking spaces and 2 of the 3 loading spaces will be provided on-site; 3) the reduction for 1
loading space is appropriate based on the existing street width and capacity and the provision of
parking spaces along Crossridge Road if the additional loading space on-site is not practically
feasible; 4) the site is bordered by single-family residential homes on two sides and Open Space to
the rear of the property; and 5) the Daycare complies with State laws that require the primary use
of the site to be a single family residential use with the daycare as an accessory use.
F. The Large Family Day Care Home and parking reduction is not contrary to the specific
intent clauses, development regulations, or performance standards established for the zoning
district in which it is located because: 1) Section 8.12.050 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance permits
a Large Family Daycare in all residential zoning districts with a Conditional Use Permit approved
by the Planning Commission or City Council, on appeal; 2) the Planned Development Zoning
District (PA 85-041) in which the subject property is located states that the property is subject to
the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District; 3) Section 8.76.080.B of
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires a total of two (2) parking spaces and three (3) loading
spaces for the subject property to support the Large Family Daycare, based on the requirement that
the dwelling unit have two (2) parking spaces plus one loading stall per every four children served
by the facility (3 loading spaces); Dublin Zoning Ordinance permits a reduction in the required
number of parking spaces when the required finding can be met; 4) the requested parking
reduction for one loading space, has been determined to be warranted based on the capacity and
width of Crossridge Road and the availability of loading spaces on Crossridge Road if the
additional loading space on-site is not practically feasible; and 5) as conditioned, the driveway will
be required to be kept clean and free of the property owners cars in order to provide adequate
loading spaces for parents and guardians of the children in the Daycare;
G. The Large Family Daycare is consistent with the Dublin General Plan because: 1) the
proposed use is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit and meets the intentions of the zoning
district in which it is located; and 2) as conditioned, the Large Family Daycare will operate in such
a manner as to limit impacts on the surrounding properties.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby reverse the Planning
Commission denial and conditionally approve P A 06-029, a Conditional Use Permit application to operate
a Large Family Daycare Home, as generally depicted by the Site Plan and Floor Plan received by the
3
~ \ -L~\
Planning Department on June 16, 2006, stamped approved and on file with the Dublin Planning Division,
subject to the conditions below.
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 8 children in the Daycare Home), and shall be
subject to review and approval by the City of Dublin. The following codes represent those
departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval: [PL.]
Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police, and [F] Alameda County Fire Department.
NO CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY/ REQUIRED
DEPART.
PLANNING ( { J N 1l11YIlJiNS + >< .......r<
1. This Conditional Use Permit approval for PL Ongoing Standard
P A 06-029 is to allow the operation of a
Large Family Day Care Home at 7956
Crossridge Road in a PD (Planned
Development P A 85-041) Zoning District.
This approval shall generally conform to
the project plans and statements stamped
approved, consisting of a Site Plan and
Floor Plan (received by the Planning
Department on June 16, 2006), and a
Written Statement (received by the City
Council on September 5, 2006).
2. The maximum number of daycare children PL Ongoing Standard
present at the Daycare facility at anyone
time shall not exceed 12.
3. The applicant shall provide three loading PL Within 60 days Project
spaces on-site prior to the operation of the of approval Specific
Large Family Day Care Home unless it is
determined practically infeasible. If it is
determined that it is practically infeasible,
two loading spaces shall be required to be
provided on-site.
4. The occupants of the home shall have no PL Ongoing Project
more than two vehicles parked at the Specific
project site during the daycare hours of
operation, as long as a daycare home is
being operated at this address. The garage
at the subject site shall be kept free and
clear for parking the two vehicles during
the daycare hours of operation so that
parking spaces in the driveway and on-
street in front of the home are available for
pick-up and drop-off.
5. All parents/guardians of the Large Family PL Ongoing Project
Day Care Home shall be provided a copy Specific
of the Traffic Policy for Miss Dina's
Daycare, submitted to the City Council on
September 5,2006.
6. The Large Family Day Care Home shall PL Ongoing Standard
4
~.:)'\ 2- q
NO CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY / REQUIRED
DEPART.
operate Monday through Friday between
the hours of7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., and
shall be closed on weekends.
7. Children sounds shall be controlled so as PL Ongoing Standard
not to create a nuisance to the adjoining
residential neighborhood. No outside
activities may take place before 9:00 a.m.
and after 5:00 p.m.
8. The children will be permitted to play PL Ongoing Project
outside between 10:40 and 11 :40 and for Specific
an additional 1.5 hours in the afternoon.
9. No more than 6 daycare children shall be PL Ongoing Project
outside at any given time during the Specific
operation hours of the daycare.
10. The operator of the Center shall require PL Ongoing Standard
that daycare children remain either inside
the Center or in the backyard for pickup by
their parent or guardian.
II. This use shall comply with all applicable PL Ongoing Standard
Planning, Building, Alameda County Fire
Department, Police Department, Dublin
San Ramon Services District and State of
California Department of Social Services
regulations and ordinanc~s.
12. This approval shall be null and void in the PL Ongoing Standard
event the approved use fails to be
established within one year, or ceases to
operate for a continuous one-year period.
13. The Applicant shall be responsible for PL Ongoing Standard
cleanup and disposal of project related
trash in order to maintain a clean and litter
free site.
14. Signage advertising the daycare home is PL Ongoing Standard
prohibited.
15. No future modifications to the site or PL Ongoing Standard
exterior portion of the residence shall be
made without prior review by the Director
of Community Development, and must
comply with all applicable zoning,
building code and engineering regulations
including issuance of building permits.
16. If the Day Care employees additional PL Ongoing Section
employees not residing in the home; 8.76.080.B
additional parking will be required
pursuant to the Dublin Municipal Code.
17. No structure is allowed in the City PL 60 Days from City
Landscape Easement to the rear of the date of Approval Landscape
property. The existing structure shall be Easement
removed.
FI_!'
5
1-,1."
, \ '-'\
NO CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY I REQUIRED
DEPART.
18. The sleeping/napping area shall have an F Ongoing Standard
access and means of egress window or
door as required by CBC 310.4.
19. The sliding doors shall have landings that F Ongoing Standard
are the width of the door opening. CBC
1003.3.3.I.7.
20. Provide residential smoke detectors in all F 30 days from date Standard
sleeping rooms and in the day care areas. of Approval
2I. Provide a 2AI0BC fire extinguisher in the F 30 days from date Standard
day care area. of Approval
22. Provide a manual pull station in an F 30 days from date Standard
approved location tied to a fire alarm of Approval
signal that is 15 db above ambient noise
levels. (This is not a fire alarm "system.")
23. Exits shall be openable from the inside F Ongoing Standard
without any special knowledge or effort.
This means that any deadbolts shall open
when the lever hardware is used and no
additional chains or latches are allowed.
The exits must continue all the way to a
public way, so if a gate is in the exit path,
it must be openable from the inside
without special knowledge or effort.
24. An address shall be provided on the house F 30 days from date Standard
that is clearly visible from the street. of Approval
25. An on site inspection is required prior to F 30 days from date Standard
Fire Department approval (after of Approval
submission of an 850 form).
26. The gate on the rear fence of the site shall F Ongoing Standard
be kept locked from the outside during the
Daycare Center's hours of operation.
.. ',(; ;1111(;(. 1()I'C'll'1il'.INfl) ill/INS ;lllfi i<i .i;;;i;; iSi';
27. The Applicant must be licensed and comply PO Ongoing Standard
with all State of California Community
Care Licensing (CCL) requirements.
28. The Applicant must apply for a City of PO Ongoing Standard
Dublin Business License. A copy of the
approved State of California Community
Care license must be submitted. All
employees, both paid and volunteer, shall
complete a Mandated Reporter class and
provide verification of such.
29. Police Services will periodically make PO Ongoing Standard
unannounced inspections of the facility and
may require verification of fingerprint
clearance for staff members as reported
back on the State of California CCL
"Personnel Report".
30. The applicant is to follow the California PO Ongoing Standard
Community Care Licensing guidelines
regarding the ratio of staff on duty to the
number of children present in the business.
6
I C\ \21-
.' l"'l \
{;J ~
NO CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY/ REQUIRED
DEPART.
31. Staff members are to receive Personal PO Ongoing Standard
Safety training that is provided by the
Dublin Police Crime Prevention unit.
32. The gate on the rear fence of the site shall PO Ongoing Standard
be kept locked during the Daycare Center's
hours of operation.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of September 2006 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\P A#\2006\06-029 Lg Family Day Care CUP\CC Approval Reso.doc
7
,.../ h \ -2...~
C I T Y C L E RK
File # D83rnlOJ-~a
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:
!~-
~
~
COPIES TO: Applicant
Property Owner
File
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a
Conditional Use Permit to authorize a Large Family Day Care
Home for P A 06-029, Miss Dina's Day Care
Report prepared by B7yan A. Moore, Assistant Planner
1) Letter of Appeal to the City Council from Mayor Janet Lockhart
dated received August 15,2006.
2) Planning Commission Denial Resolution No. 06-026.
3) Plmming Commission Staff Report dated August 8, 2006 (without
attachments).
4) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 8,2006.
5) Project Plans.
6) Site Pictures.
7) Correspondence received for Planning Commission hearing,
including map depicting the properties that submitted
correspondence.
8) Map depicting project site and 300-foot public noticing area.
1) Open the Public Hearing;
2) Receive Staff presentation;
3) Receive Public Testimony;
4) Close Public Hearing;
5) Deliberate; and
6) Direct Staff to Either:
a. Prepare a Resolution Granting the Appeal Thereby
Reversing the Planning Commission Denial of
Conditional Use Permit PA 06-029, Miss Dina's Day
Care;
Or
b. Prepare a Resolution Denying the appeal Thereby
Affirming Planning Commission Denial of Conditional
Use Permit PA 06-029, Miss Dina's Day Care;
Or
ITEM NO.
.1
Page 1 of3
G:\P A#\2006\06-029 Lg F~mily Daycare CUP\City Council\CC Appeal sr 9-0S-06.doc
Attachment 2
. r, \ -z.,.~f
c. Prepare a Resolution Gr'a.. Dg the Appeal In Part Thereby
Reversing the Planning Commission Denial and
Modifying the Approval of Conditional Use Permit 06-
029, Miss Dina's Day Care.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background:
The project site is an interior lot surrounded by single-family homes to the north and south, and by a City
Landscape Maintenance Easement (Open Space) to the west or rear of the property. The site currently has
a Small Family Day Care Home (Miss Dina's Day Care) with a play area in the backyard for the daycare
children. The property is zoned PD (Planned Development), and the said zoning allows a Large Fal11ily
Day Care Home with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
The Applicant is currently operating a Small Fal11ily Day Care Home on their property located at 7956
Crossridge Road. The Applicant has operated a Small Family Day Care Home in this location since
January 2006. Pursuant to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Small Family Day Care Homes, which provide
care for up to 8 children, are permitted by-right in all residential zoning districts; Large Family Day Care
Homes, which provide care for 9 to 14 children, are permitted in a residential district pursuant to the
approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
On April 24, 2006, the Applicant applied for a Conditional Use Permit for a Large Family Day Care
Home (up to 14 children) to operate in a single-family home located at 7956 Crossridge Road. In
conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit, the Applicant also requested a parking reduction for 2 of the
4 required loading spaces. The proposed Large Family Daycare would have 2 full-time employees
consisting of the Applicant and her granddaughter-in-law, who both live in the home. The proposed
operating hours for the Daycare would be Monday thru Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. The Daycare
would be closed on the weekends.
Planning Commission Hearing:
On August 8, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and denied the application for the
Conditional Use Permit for a Large Fal11ily Day Care Home. Prior to the public hearing, Staff received 17
letters in opposition and 1 letter in support of the application. During the meeting, 9 individuals spoke out
against the Large Family Day Care Home and 3 individuals spoke in favor of the Large Family Day Care
Home use. The Planning Commission found that the noise impacts associated with the proposed Large
Family Day Cal"e Home in this neighborhood would be incompatible with the neighborhood. The
Planning Commission also expressed concerns about safety, specifically related to simultaneous drop-off
alld pick-up of the children and the fact that only 2 of the 4 required loading spaces could be provided OD-
site and therefore would negatively impact the neighborhood. By a vote of 3-2-0, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution 06 - 26, denying a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Miss
Dina's Daycare to operate a Large Family Day Care Home at 7956 Crossridge Road (Attachment 2).
Appeal:
On August 15, 2006, Mayor Janet Lockhart filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision
(Attachment 1). Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance (Section 8.136.040.B.2), when a City Councilmember
appeals a decision, there is a presumption applied that the reason for the appeal is because the appealed
action has significant and material effects on the quality of life within the City of Dublin. Pursuant to the
Zoning Ordinance, no other reason need be or shall be stated by the Councilmember in his or her written
Page 2 of3
t .J
appeal. The appeal letter filel 'y Mayor Lockhart states that the Es- .mds for the appeal are \'the
presumption that the action of the Dublin Plalming Commission will have a significant and material effect
on the quality of life within the City of Dublin."
Under the City Zoning Ordinance, the City Council may affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the action of the
Planning Commission, based upon findings of fact. Findings shall identify the reasons for the action on
the appeal, and verify the compliance or non-complial1ce of the subject of the appeal with the provisions
of the Appeals Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council may adopt additional conditions of
approval that address the specific subject of the appeal.
The City Council may continue this matter, but must take action within 75 days ofthe date the appeal was
filed, pursuant to Section 8.136.060.A ofthe Dublin Municipal Code. 75 days from August 15,2006, is
October 27,2006. Additionally, because a member of the City Council filed the appeal, the Council may
consider any issue concerning the application.
ANALYSIS:
Staffs analysis ofthe project is set forth in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 3).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEVV:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City
environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that
environmental documents be prepared. The project has been found to be a Statutorily Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15274, because the
project is a Large Family Day Care Home.
CONCLUSION:
The City Council's charge is to determine if the Planning Commission decision to deny the Conditional
Use PelTIlit should be upheld, or if the Planning Commission decision should be reversed al1d the
Conditional Use Pern1it for P A 06-029 be approved (with or without amendments to the conditions of
approval). Staff has provided a recommendation that would allow the City Council to make an
appropriate determination and direct Staff to return at a later date with the draft resolution implementing
the detelTIlination.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Open the Public Hearing; 2) Receive Staff presentation; 3i
Receive Public Testimony; 4) Close Public Hearing; 5) Deliberate; and 6) Direct Staff to Either: a)
Prepare a Resolution Granting the Appeal Thereby Reversing the Planning Commission Denial of
Conditional Use Permit P A 06-029, Miss Dina's Day Care; b) Prepare a Resolution Denying the appeal
Thereby Affirming Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit P A 06-029, Miss Dina's Day
Care; or c) Prepare a Resolution Granting the Appeal in Part Thereby Reversing the Planning
Commission Denial and Modifying the Approval of Conditional Use Permit 06-029, Miss Dina's Day
Care.
Page 3 of3
I It' i 2J".1
R---\' '''''''-'>
." ,~.F ~i-o. \lII''"-~; ';,
r _r.:....# \,..... l.- -..A
C IT'l C~F' C~, lJ E1 LJ l\~
G, 1 ~ ZOOt:
August 15 ~ 2006
any MANAGEHi~; OFriCE
Fawn Holman, City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Dublin Planning Commission Decision, P A 06-029
Miss Dina's Daycare Preschool Conditional Use Permit for a Large
Family Daycare (up to 14 children)
I wish to appeal the action ofllie Dublin Planning Commission of August 8,
2006, in the matter of the Miss Dina's Daycare Preschool Conditional Use
Permit
My reason for the appeal is the presumption that the action of the Dublin
Planning Commission will have a significant and material effect on the
quality of life within the City of Dublin.
Regards,
Q /r/ )/
.+,"J __ _ f\ ,', _ /~ '" - /.,.....'\
. " {-L/ICJVr/1 \~ZJ}d6tCRu' f
/' I Janet Lockhart
V Mayor, City of Dublin
cc: Richard Ambrose, City lVianager
J eri Ram, Community Development Director
0, (
. I it
011::) Il{~,
f I ~nl v
Attachment 1
\2'-\
\:7-
(''''' \...f > ._
RESOLUTION NO. 06 - 26
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MISS DINA'S
DAYCARE TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME
AT 7956 CROSSRIDGE ROAD. (APN 941-2784-034)
P A 06-029
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Dina Yaroshevskaya, has requested approval of a Conditional Use
Permit for the operation of a Large Family Day Care Home (9 - 14 children), known as Miss Dina's
Daycare, located at 7956 Crossridge Road; and
WHEREAS, a Large Family Day Care Home, which serves between nine (9) and fourteen (14)
children, is permitted in a residential zoning district with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the
Planning Commission if all of the required findings in Section 8.100.060 of the Dublin Municipal Code
can be met; and
WHEREAS, a Large Family Day Care Home requires a minimum of two (2) on-site parking
spaces and four (4) on-site loading spaces for the pick-up and drop-off of children; and
WHEREAS, the Plam1ed Development Zoning (P A 85-041) states that except as specifically
modified by the design criteria or Conditions of Approval of said Planned Development, the property will
be subject to the guidelines ofthe R-l Single Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the project is Statutorily Exempt per Section 15274;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on August 8,
2006; 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 its independent judgment to evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, the Plam1ing Commission has determined that all of the required findings in Section
8.100.060 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance cannot be met.
NO\V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
find that:
Attachment 2
\".3
,
I '~", l \
i t
A. The proposed operation of the Large Family Day Care Home is not compatible with other
land uses, transpOliation and service facilities in the vicinity because the Large Family Day Care
Home would result in an increase in noise with the additional vehicles dropping-off and picking-
up children and a greater number of children playing out doors. Therefore the proposal is
incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and would create an adverse effect on the
neighborhood.
B. The use would 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: 1) the proposed Large
Family Day Care Home would not comply with the parking requirements in Section 8.76.080.B of
the Dublin Municipal Code that requires two (2) on-site parking spaces and four (4) on-site
loading spaces; 2) the proposed Large Family Day Care Home would not comply with the noise
levels found in the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments (Table 9.1) in the
Dublin General Plan, because the noise created by the children at the day care would exceed that
of a "Normal Acceptable" standard; and 3) the proposed Large Fal11ily Day Care Home would
qualify as an Unreasonable Noise, according to Section 5.28.020 of the Dublin Municipal Code,
because of the additional children playing outdoors and the additional vehicles dropping-off and
picking-up children that would create additional noise in the neighborhood.
C. The use would be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood because: 1)
the Large Family Day Care Home would create a level of noise that is considered to be a nuisance
to the neighborhood as defined by Section 5.28.020 of the Dublin Municipal Code and Table 9.1
in the Dublin General Plan; and 2) the site is not able to provide adequate off-street parking as
required by Section 8.76.080.B ofthe Dublin Municipal Code.
D. The subject site is not physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use being
proposed because: 1) the site would not be able to provide the required amount of parking
according to Section 8.76.080.B of Dublin Municipal Code for a Large Fal11ily Day Care Home;
and 2) the drop-off and pick-up area outside and the outdoor play area are in close proximity to the
neighboring homes and adjacent outdoor areas, thereby creating a noise impact on the
neighborhood.
E. The Large Family Day Care Home is contrary to the specific intent clauses, development
regulations, or perfOrma11Ce standards established for the zoning district in which it is located
because: 1) Section 8.76.080.B of the Dublin Municipal Code requires two (2) on-site parking
spaces, plus one loading space for every four (4) children; 2) the day care will have fourteen (14)
children a11d therefore will require four (4) loading spaces; 3) the required two (2) parking spaces
can be provided within the existing garage which can hold two (2) cars and meets the size
requirements in the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; 4) the Applicant is able to provide 2 loading spaces
in the driveway, however the Applicant is unable to provide for the remaining two (2) required
loading spaces on-site; 5) the Applicant requested an exception to provide two (2) of the required
four (4) loading spaces off-site on the street adjacent to the residence; 6) the Planning Commission
determined that the two (2) on-street loading spaces would create a concentration of vehicles on-
street and determined that all loading spaces should be provided on-site; and 7) since the Large
Family Day Care Home can only provide two (2) loading spaces on site, which will result in a
deficit of two (2) loading spaces, the proposal for a Large Family Day Care Home does not meet
the requirements of Section 8.76.080.B (required parking) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
2
I L\-"),"",\ 'L:\
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby deny P A 06-
029, a Conditional Use Permit application to operate a Large Family Day Care Home, as generalJv
depicted by the Site Plan and Floor Plan received by the Planning Division on June 16, 2006, and a
Written Statement received by the Planning Division on August 3, 2006.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of August 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: Chair Schaub, Commissioners Fasulkey and King
NOES: Vice Chair Wehrenberg, Commissioner Biddle
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
4/ ~/?v
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTE
G:\P A#\2006\06-029 Lg Family Daycare CUP\PC Denial Reso jb comments.DOC
3
I:;; (i -t ',' \\
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 8, 2006
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: PA 06-029 Miss Dina's Daycare Conditional Use
Permit - Request to allow a Large Family Day Care (up to 14 children) at
7956 Crossridge Road.
Report Prepared by Bryan A. Moore, Assistant Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit for a Large Family
Day Care (up to 14 children) at 7956 Crossridge Road.
2) Location Map.
3) Project Plans.
4) Applicant's Letter.
5) Site Pictures.
RECOMMENDATION:
~
1) Receive Staff presentation;
2) Open the public hearing;
3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public;
4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and
5) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving a Conditional Use Permit
to allow a Large Family Day Care (up to 14 children) at 7956
Crossridge Road.
BACKGROUND:
The Applicant is currently operating a Small Fal11i1y Day Care on their property located at 7956
Crossridge Road. The Applicant has operated a Small Family Day Care in this location since 2005. Per
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Small Family Day Cares, which provide care for up to eight (8) children,
are permitted by-right in all residential zoning districts; Large Family Day Cares, which provide care for
nine (9) to fourteen (14) children, are permitted in a residential district pursuant to the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit.
The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Large Family Day Care (up to 14
children) to operate in a single-family home located at 7956 Crossridge Road. The proposed operating
hours for the Daycare will be Monday thru Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. The Daycare will be
closed on the weekends. ,The Large Family Daycare will have two full-time employees consisting of the
Applicant and her husband.
ANALYSIS:
The project site is an interior lot surrounded by single-family homes to the north and south, and by a City
Landscape Maintenance Easement (Open Space) to the west or rear ofthe property. The site currently has
COPIES TO: Applicant
Property Owner
File
Page 1 of 4
G:\P A#\2006\06-029 Lg Family Daycare CUP\PC Staff Report.doc
Attachment 3
a Small Family Day Care with a ..y a~ea in t?e backyard for the day~ar hildren. ~e property is zoned /6fJ F?
PD (Planned Development), and the saId zomng allows a Large FamllY.lJay Care WIth authorization of a ~J
Conditional Use Permit.'
Noise Impacts
Staff has reviewed the application and has included a Condition of Approval (Condition 3) that limits the
hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, to ensure that the daycare use is
compatible with the neighborhood. The Conditions further require that noise generated at the site be
controlled so as not to create a nuisance to the adjoining residential neighborhood. Outside activities are
restricted from taking place before 9:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. (Condition 4).
Traffic Impacts
The application has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer and it has been determined that minimal
traffic would be generated by a Large Family Day Care with a maximum of fourteen (14) children. Drop-
off and pick-up times will be primarily in the morning and evening hours and the maximum number ~f
children being served should not create an unreasonable concentration of vehicles to and from the house'
at any particular time. Additionally, parents typically drop-off and pick-up their children at staggered
times, which will further limit the number of cars at anyone time within the neighborhood.
Parking
Section 8.76.080 B of the Zoning Ordinance defines the required parking for a Large Family Day Care
facility. The code section is included below:
RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
Large Family Day Care Home (9-14 Children) 2 per dwelling, plus 1 space for every employee not
residing in the home, plus one loading space for j
every 4 children in the facility ,
Figure 1: Zoning Ordinance Section 8.67.080.B
Per the Dublin Zoning Ordinance requirement, the Applicant would be required to provide two (2)
parking spaces and four (4) loading spaces. There are two (2) garage parking spaces reserved for the
home. As a part of the application, the Applicant has indicated that the two (2) employees for the day
care reside at the home, therefore the two (2) garage parking spaces are adequate. Four (4) loading spaces
are required based on the number of children the day care will serve. The project site has an area for two
(2) loading spaces in the driveway. Based on the size and location of the driveway loading area, it
appears that the spaces are satisfactory for the purpose of drop-off and pickup of children. On-site there is
sufficient area for two (2) of the four (4) required loading spaces. The additional two (2) loading spaces
can be provided adjacent to the property along the street. Section 8.76.050.E of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance allows for a parking reduction if it can be shown that:
1. The Conditional Use Permit findings can be made;
2. It can be demonstrated that the required parking standards are excessive for this situation; and
3. Overflow parking will not impact any adjacent use.
While the two (2) additional loading spaces can not be provided on-site, there is adequate space to provide
for the additional two (2) loading spaces adjacent to the residence. Due to staggered drop-off and pick-up
times, the combination of available on-street and off-street parking should be sufficient to serve the
proposed day care use.
20f4
Licensing Il u)--. \ '2.-'1
Staff has included two Conditions of Approval (Conditions No. 24 and :L....;) that require the operator to
submit a copy of the State of California Community Care Licensing Permit for the operation of a Large
Family Day Care Home for verification purposes, prior to establishment of the use. The Conditions of
Approval further require the Applicant, on a continuing basis, to provide the Community Development
Department with current and updated day care operating licenses issued by the State of California
Department of Social Services.
~ccessory Structures
The Applicant currently has an accessory structure located on the slope to the West of their property on a
City Landscape Maintenance Easement. According to the provisions of the City Landscape Maintenance
Easement(pD - 1486 ZU), the homeowner shall not install any structure on the slope other than a fence.
A Condition of Approval (Condition 14) has been included requiring that the accessory structure is
removed within sixty (60) days of approval.
Public Notice
A public notice was sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project to advise them of the
request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Large Family Day Care and the date of this meeting.
Correspondence
Staff has received one letter from a concerned neighbor. In their letter, Francisco and Emma Abad of
7992 Crossridge Road, cite concerns of possible traffic increase in the neighborhood. The City's Traffic
Engineer has reviewed the application. A Large Family Day Care with a maximum of fourteen (14)
- children will have minimal impact to the traffic of the existing residential street.
Conformance with Zoning Ordinance and General Plan
The ,subject property is zoned PD (planned Development, PA 85-041), with a General Plan Land Use of
Medium-Density Residential. Section 8.12.050 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance states that a Large Family
Day Care use is permitted with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. The
proposed Miss Dina's Daycare is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and the Municipal Code
because the project is compatible with the existing zoning and General Plan Land Use designation.
Therefore, the application for a Large Family Day Care is an appropriate use within a Single Family
Residential area.
The application has been reviewed by relevant City Departments. Staff believes that the proposed Large
Family Day Care Home would have limited impacts to the surrounding neighborhood regarding noise,
traffic, and parking, with the inclusion ofthe suggested Conditions of Approval as included in Attachment
1. The Applicant has reviewed and agreed to the proposed Conditions of Approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City
environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that
environmental documents be prepared. The project has been found to be a Statutorily Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15274.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public
hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close public hearing and deliberate; and
5) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Large Family Day
Care (up to 14 children) at 7956 Crossridge Road.
30f4
GENERAL INFORMATION:
le~!":
APPLICANT:
Dina Yaro$hevskaya
Miss Dina' s Da ycare
7956 Crossridge Road
Dublin, CA 94568
PROPERTY OWNER:
Dina & Yakov Yaroshevskaya
7956 Crossridge Road
Dublin. CA 94568
LOCATION:
7956 Crossridge Road
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER:
941-2784-034
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Medium Density Residential
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA:
None
ZONING:
Planned Development (PD) District
SURROUNDING USES:
Location Zoning I General Plan Land Use I Current Use of Property
Site PD - Planned Medium Density Single family home
Development Residential
North PD - Planned Medium Density Single family home
Development Residential
South PD - Planned Medium Density Single family home
Development Residential
East I PD - Planned Medium Density Single family home
Development Residential
West PD - Planned Open Space Vacant
Development I
4of4
,q
1 ?-'-t-
/-), ./. --')
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 8,
2006 in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to
order at 7:18 p.m.
Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg, Commissioners Biddle, Fasulkey and King; Jeri
Ram, Corrununity Development Director; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Erica Fraser,
Senior Planner; Marnie Nuccio, Associate Planner; Bryan Moore, Assistant Planner; Gregory
Shreeve, Building Official; Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney; Leah Peachy, Assistant City
Attorney; and Rhonda Franklin, Recording Secretary.
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
Chair Schaub discussed moving agenda item 5.1- 'Planning Commissioner's Discussion of
Planning Commission work over the last year' to a future Planning Commission agenda. The
Planning Commissioners unanimously agreed.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS
The July 25, 2006 minutes were approved as submitted. Cm. Biddle abstained from the vote
due to his absence during the July 25, 2006 meeting. Cm. Fasulkey abstained from the vote due
to his recusal from a portion of the July 25,2006 meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
5.1 Planning Commissioner's Discussion of Planning Commission work over the last year.
(Chair Schaub)
This item was continued to a future Planning Commission meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE
VVRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 P A 06-029 Miss Dina's Daycare & Preschool - The Applicants are requesting a
CUP to operate a Large Family Daycare (9-14 children) in their single family
residence located in a Planned Development Zoning District (P A 85-041).
Chair Schaub and Crn. Biddle disclosed that they visited the project site.
Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report.
v?[a:nnrnH (.'ofrtrniSS1"on
79
)l:Uf!ust ,6~ 2006
Attachment 4
t
1"2)t
Mr. Bryan Moore, Assistant Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the
Staff Report.
Chair Schaub clarified that an increase of 6 children to the daycare would result in an increase
of 12 trips to the Average Daily Trips (ADTs), and Mr. Moore agreed.
Chair Schaub clarified that the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would run with the property, and
Mr. Moore agreed.
Cm. Fasulkey asked if there is a definition for what constitutes a noise nuisance. Ms. Mary Jo
Wilson, Planning Manager, stated that the Municipal Code outlines acceptable levels of noise.
She further stated that a nuisance would be comparable to egregious or excessive levels of noise.
Chair Schaub sought clarification on how the children would be picked-up and dropped-off at a
staggered rate. Mr. Moore stated that the children would arrive and depart during the allotted
timeframes based on the varying schedule of each parent. Chair Schaub asked if simultaneous
arrivals and departures were possible. Mr. Moore stated that it is possible.
Cm. King asked if the Applicant would be required to maintain residency at the property. Mr.
Moore explained that the property would be required to be maintained as a residential use.
Cm. King suggested that this be added to the Conditions of Approval, based on the State of.
California Statute. Ms. Wilson stated that there is a condition regarding State of California
licensing for the facility. She further stated that the function of a Small or Large Family Daycare
is considered a single-family use, as defined by the State Statute.
Cm. King asked about the Average Daily Trips (ADTs) calculation. Ms. Wilson stated that the
calculation is based on the ADTs of a residential street which is included in the Circulation
Element of the General Plan. She further stated that the General Plan is modified and updated
as necessary.
Cm. Fasulkey asked if the existing accessory structure services the Applicant' s current daycare,
and Mr. Moore said no. .
Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if there are any other businesses in the Applicant/s neighborhood
that would generate additional traffic. Mr. Moore stated that there are other home occupations;
however, according to the Zoning Ordinance, additional traffic is not permitted for home
occupations.
Cm. Fasulkey asked about the distribution of the public hearing notices for the project. Mr.
Moore explained that homes within a 300-foot radius of the project were mailed a public
hearing notice.
Chair Schaub asked the Assistant City Attorney to briefly explain the legal ramifications of this
project. Ms. Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the Conditional Use Permit
requested for this project is a method of regulation that is permitted by the State of California.
She further stated that in the case of a Large Family Daycare Home, the State of California has
(.;ommit'.sioit
'l?tffU&:7 ::r.'fel:tirtfj
80
.YE ugust 8.<
I 1"2- ~
largely pre-empted the field and allows very little participation by local regulators in
determining where and when Large Family Daycare Homes should be approved. Small Family
Daycares Homes are not regulated and are considered a residential use of the property. For
Large Family Daycare Homes, the State of California allows very limited regulations and
identifies the elements that can be regulated, such as noise and traffic.
Cm. King asked if the State of California statute overrides Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (CC&Rs). Ms. Faubion said yes and explained that: 1) the State of California statute
explicitly overrides CC&Rs and 2) CC&Rs are an agreement between people and in very few
cases would the City be a party to the CC&Rs.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing.
Ms. Dina Yaroshevskaya, Applicant, discussed her reasons for having the project approved.
Chair Schaub asked if she has read and agreed to all of the conditions of the proposed
resolution, and Ms. Yaroshevskaya said yes.
Cm. Biddle asked if the Daycare was in operation around 11:00 a.m. earlier in the day, and Ms.
Yarashevskaya said yes. Cm. Biddle asked if the children would either be in the house or in the
backyard, and Ms. Yaroshevskaya said yes. Cm. Biddle asked about the ages of the children
currently in the daycare, and Ms. Yaroshevskaya said 1 - 5 years. Chair Schaub asked if the
same age range would be maintained if the project was approved, and Ms. Yaroshevskaya said
yes.
Cm. King asked about the condition of the fences in the backyard, and Ms. Yaroshevskaya said
the fences are in good condition. Cm. King asked if she read some of the letters from her
neighbors, and Ms. Yaroshevskaya said yes. Cm. King asked for her response to neighbor's
letters claiming that their driveways are blocked during drop-off and pick-up periods. Ms.
Yaroshevskaya stated that it has happened in the past and the offending parent apologized.
Cm. King asked if any of the neighbors had talked with her about traffic or parking problems,
and Ms. Yaroshevskaya said no.
Cm. Fasulkey asked who would provide daily supervision of the children. Ms. Yaroshevskaya
stated that it would be she and her daughter-in-law, who is also licensed. Chair Schaub asked if
her daughter-in-law lives in the home, and Ms. Yaroshevskaya said yes.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if she was aware that signage is not allowed at the residence, and
Ms. Yaroshevskaya said yes.
Ms. Aryana Samiian, neighborhood resident, discussed her reasons for having the project
denied. Her reasons included negative impacts on parking and traffici inadequate size, design,
and safety of the backyardi and an increase in the noise level.
Ms. Jaiti Sharma, parent of a child in the Daycare, discussed her reasons for having the project
approved. Her reasons included comfortableness with the safety and care of her child, constant
supervision of the children, adequate size of the backyard, and sufficient staggering of drop-off
(:om.tiUSSItrr{.
81
.lIU{{lI.st 1:(, 20U6
\""2 ~
and pick-up times. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if she could foresee any safety complications
with an expansion of the daycare, and Ms. Sharma said no.
Ms. Tanya Dumay, parent of a child in the Daycare, discussed her reasons for having the project
approved. She explained her cornfortableness with the safety and care of her child.
Ms. Smitha Prabhakar, parent of child in the Daycare, discussed her reasons for having the
project approved. She explained her cornfortableness with the safety and care of her child. She
presented a letter, from Mr. Liz and David Bayat, also in favor of the project.
Ms. Shelia Brandes, neighborhood resident, discussed her reasons for having the project denied.
Her reasons included negative impacts on parking and traffic, poor condition of the shared
fence on the north side of the backyard, and inadequate size of the backyard.
Chair Schaub clarified that the size and safety of the daycare is outside the scope of the Planning
Commission, and Mr. Moore agreed. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Planning
Commission could add a Condition of Approval that would require the facility to provide proof
of valid licensing prior to the project being approved. Mr. Moore stated that that condition is
currently in the proposed resolution.
Mr. Larry Trumbo, neighborhood resident, discussed his reasons for having the project denied.
He stated that the development's CC&Rs prohibit any type of business within the development.
Ms. Faubion explained that the State of California statute pre-empts the CC&Rs.
Mr. Ramoncito Firmeza, neighborhood resident, discussed his reasons for having the project
denied. His reasons included the CC&Rs, inadequate size and safety of the Daycare, negative
impacts on parking and traffic, and an increase in the noise level.
Mr. David Davis, neighborhood resident, discussed his reasons for having the project denied.
He explained that CC&Rs always supersede the local, state, and Federal law. He read Article
4.10f the Ridge Creek Subdivision CC&Rs that prohibits gainful occupation within the
Subdivision. He further stated that in 1997, two home occupation attempts were struck down
by the CC&Rs.
Mr. Steven Safos, neighborhood resident, discussed his reasons for having the project denied.
His reasons included negative impacts on parking and traffic, and causing imbalance to a
peaceful and quiet residential neighborhood. He further stated that he applied for a home
occupation and was denied by the City.
Mr. Michael Utsumi, neighborhood resident, discussed his reasons for having the project
denied. His reasons included negative impacts on parking and traffic, disruption to the scale
and character of the neighborhood, and potential erosion to home values.
Mr. Lothar De Temple, neighborhood resident, discussed his reasons for having the project
denied. His reasons included the CC&Rs, and negative impacts on traffic and parking. He read
a section of the CC&Rs that grants the City the right to enter the Subdivision to abate any
nuisances.
(P{anntul/ ('Orrt1ff.t.VJ10n
82
)i U{fust A;
",," ...", ,-
~..",~..'
It,A
Mr. Alan Nielson, neighborhood resident, asked about the legal limits of occupancy per square
foot of the house. 1\111:. Gregory Shreeve, Building Official, stated that a house with a three-foot
front door can have 49 occupants. Building Code standards are based on exiting and not square
footage. He further stated that for living purposes, the Building Code allows 2 persons per
bedroom, plus one person. Mr. Nielson stated that due to existing problems with parking and
traffic, the waiver for the two required parking loading spaces within the public right-of-way
and not on-site should not be allowed.
Chair Schaub asked Staff to clarify the waiver. Mr. Moore stated that the waiver is for two on-
site loading spaces that are not provided on-site. Ms. Wilson added that there is a waiver
request from the Applicant for two loading spaces in the driveway on-site and two loading
spaces adjacent to the project off-site.
Mr. Greg Hilst, neighborhood resident, asked how the traffic count of 552 daily trips for
Crossridge Road was determined. He also asked if the Planning Commission decision could be
appealed to the City Council. Ms. Wilson stated that the traffic count, as provided by the Public
Works Department, was based on a calculation of 10 Average Daily Trips (ADTs) per 55 single-
family homes on Crossridge Road, plus 2 additional daily trips for the current daycare facility.
Ms. Wilson explained the appeal process.
Chair Schaub asked the Applicant if she would like to speak. The Applicant did not speak.
Hearing no further comments, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing.
Cm. Fasulkey expressed concerns with the potential increase in the noise levels and the vague
definition of a noise nuisance. He stated that the parking issue seems to be of substance and
that granting a waiver that allows public parking spaces to be counted as required loading
spaces seems to be contrary. He stated that he is tending towards opposing the project.
Cm. Biddle stated that he views Crossridge Road as a typical residential street. He stated that
he did not see potential parking problems with children being dropped-off and picked-up at
random, nor with having the driveway and curbsides accessible as loading spaces.
Cm. Fasulkey stated that it could be precedent setting if the loading/ unloading waiver allows
the public right-of-way for the exclusive use of a residence. Ms. Wilson stated that the intent of
the waiver is for the availability. She stated that curbside parking would not be reserved for the
Daycare. Ms. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, stated that for similar projects in the
past, the City has approved projects with off-site loading areas, as well as denied projects where
parking would be strained.
Cm. Biddle stated that he did not view the street as a narrow. Chair Schaub asked about the
width of the sh'eet. Ms. Wilson stated that the street width is 32 feet, measuring curb to curb.
Chair Schaub asked how this measurement compares with most residential streets. Ms. Wilson
stated that sh'eet widths can range from 20 feet and up.
83
c? L/ \ 2-'-\
Cm. Fasulkey reiterated his concerns about the noise based on the acoustics of the hills in the
area.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg suggested adding to the Conditions of Approval a requirement for the
Applicant to advise perspective users of the designated loading zone and the neighborhood
speed limit. She stated that she would like to not only verify, but also maintain on file, valid
State licensing before approving the project.
Cm. King stated that although the letters submitted for the project discussed traffic congestion,
parking problems, and interference with residential driveways; he did not hear much verbal
testimony on those issues during the public hearing.
Cm. King asked if the State statute would override the findings the Planning Commission has to
make. Ms. Wilson stated that the Planning Commission has the local authority to make a
determination on the findings.
Cm. King stated that he is sympathetic to the belief that the traffic count should be based on
reality instead of formulas. Based on this, he does not know if there is too much traffic.
Cm. King stated that in view of the fact that noise is subjective, he is very impressed by the
testimony of the letters submitted for the project. He stated that although he appreciates the
State's and community's need for Daycare facilities, he questions whether the State statute was
intended for these types of projects to be approved if it creates a nuisance in the neighborhood.
He stated that he is not comfortable with approving the project if it is found to create a
nuisance. He stated that based on the evidence of the verbal and written testimony, this project
would create a noise nuisance. He stated that he is inclined to vote against the project.
Cm. Fasulkey asked about the number of parking spaces in front of the house. Mr. Moore
stated that the length of the curb in front of the house is 22 feet to the north of the home and 13
feet to the south. Chair Schaub asked about the average length of a car. Ms. Wilson stated that
the Code standard for on-site parking is 18 feet in length. Chair Schaub stated that 22 feet
would allow for one car to be parked in front of the house.
Cm. Biddle stated that a lot of what was discussed during this meeting is covered in the
Conditions of Approval. He pointed out Condition Nos. 3,4,8,24,25 and the Fire Conditions.
Chair Schaub acknowledged the need for daycare facilities. He stated that there are two
common goods with this project: 1) the need for daycares and 2) the common good of the
neighborhood. He stated that he is concerned about the negative impacts to parking due to the
requested loading waiver, and the potential increase to the noise level. He stated that the traffic
issues are typical to most residential streets. He further stated that the project is not compatible
with the area and that he would not support the project. .
Cm. King stated that in regards to the noise issue, the daily presence of children greatly differs
from random occurrences.
(j';<[(i.nnn~9 COm111is!>7l:11t
84
.ft.U{!t.f..ft. (~/, 20fJt;
:',....,
t
I? '-\
,
On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, with a suggestion to modify
Condition No. 24 to read '7he Applicant must be licensed and comply with all State of California
Community Care Licensing (eCL) requirements and shall provide to the City proof of such licensing
prior to authorization of the Conditional Use Permitll and to add Condition No. 30 that states "The
Applicant shall prepare documentation describing the drop-off and pick-up to perspective users of the
Large Family Daycare including but not limited to the drop-offlpick-up area and timing of the drop-
off/pick-up. There shall also be no idling of vehicles, or the use of private driveways for vehicular
movements, and an acknowledgement of the speed limit within the area//, and by a vote of 2-3-0, with
Chair Schaub, Commissioners Fasulkey and King opposing, the Planning Comnussion voted tq
DENY the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MISS
DINA'S DAY CARE TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE HOME
AT 7956 CROSSRIDGE ROAD. (APN 941-2784-034)
P A 06-029
Ms. Faubion asked the Planning Commission to be specific in its findings made to deny the
request.
Chair Schaub, Commissioners Fasulkey and King found that the noise impacts would be
cc unacceptable and incompatible for the area.
Chair Schaub and Commissioners Fasulkey found that the project's overflow parking/loading
specifically related to the two off-site loading spaces would negatively impact adjacent uses.
COilllnissioner King found that Condition No.4 is not sufficient enough to make the finding
that there would be no noise impacts.
Chair Schaub expressed safety concerns with simultaneous drop-otis and pick-ups.
On a motion by Cm. Fasulkey, seconded by Chair Schaub, and by a vote of 3-2-0 with Vice
Chair Wehrenberg and Cm. Biddle opposing, the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 06 - 26
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MISS DINA/S
DAYCARE TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILYDAYCARE HOME
AT 7956 CROSSRIDGE ROAD. (APN 941-2784-034)
P A 06-029
Q?ianniu[f (.hrtU!tZ~'Sl~an 85 8, 2{)(j(
L.M.E.
'"
'"
'"
53.0'
-.-.-...........-....
.-.....- -.-.........-.....-....-........-.................;.-.....-. 23.0~
,
,
,
Backyard
Playground
'"
'"
IC::
'"
'"
~
...
'"
'"
33.0'
8.0'
"----,
00
-.
--
~
00
-
,...,
~
--
~
=-
6.0'
1-.-...-."
-
'"
...
'"
.
,
,
2l.0'
'"
....
'"
'"
=>
'"
,
~.
N
46.0'
CROSSRlDGE RD
-
Attachment 5
21.0'
2 Car Garage
N
,.....
~
1st Level
/
# 5
Windows
Babies
napping area
w
~
o
y, B'tr'~_~1 Closet_..
i ; i ~
~/ r--r--I7>j
~ 0 ,,,c-.~--
~Q/
'-'
8.0'
33.0'
Dining
Kitchen
sg
ti1 Ej:
::1.5r
M{JCl
=tt:
W 0.-- .~.
'--' 0 /'
o
...
~- -------------~-_..__.
Toddlers
Napping area
--.)
......
./
"-
# I
Windows ~# 4
# 2 ./ f>'-
#3 ~ ~
Doors
Exit # 1 (Door)
Exit # 2 (Sliding Door)
Exit # 3 (Sliding Door)
Size
60"
68"
68"
'Window~ W
# 1 - Slider 70"
# 2,3,4,5,6 -- Single-Hung 35"
15.0'
. lZl
..-.~
tU Po
>< Er
::+' (lQ .-'
~-t1
No
'-../0
...
10.0'
Width of the door opening
56"
32"
32"
H
58"
58"
t,-,
W
0.
~ECErVED
iJUN 1 13 Z006
oUBLlN PU\xm!NG ~-
..r- '
.....-.."
1 '\
'" ~)-
C/..t. t:.
Page 1 of 1
I "'").I\..\
I "" ;
.,...-,_...,.~,._~~.""""_'M_""'_"____''''__'~'''"'''_'''~__~~_~'-''''''''~'''~"'__"'N_,^,_~,~___""""-""_,,,,,^,~~,,>,,,,,_,w,,"''''__'~N__''--''''''----~~'------"""...._--",..,---...,....."
Bryan Moore
From: Yakov Yaroshevskiy [yakovy@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 03,20061 :41 PM
To: Bryan Moore
Subject: Business Description
Business Description
(Written Statement)
Service proposing is full time a11d part time childcare for children from 6 month old to 12 years old.
The proposed hours and days of operation are 7:00 AM - 6:30 PM Monday through Friday. We allow
individual schedules for each child, so drop off and pick up times differ and it helps to prevent traffic
and parking problems (attached is proposed Traffic Policy).
Following is our day schedule:
7:00 - 9:00 Arrival table activities
9:00 - 9:20 Circle time
9:20 - 9:45 Snack time
9:45 - 10:40 Group activities
10:40 - 11 :40 Free play inside and outside (depends on the weather)
11 :40 - 12:00 Story time
12:00 -12:30 Lunch time
12:30 - 3:00 Nap time
3 :00 - 3 :20 Afternoon snack
3:30 - 5:00 Free play outside (depends on the weather)
5:30 - 6:30 PM activities
Outside times are limited to 2.5 hours per day as to not disturb the neighbors.
Our Child Care will serve families with children, so parents can work and don't be worry about their
children. It is going to be a valuable and safe service to the families.
Our business will not disrupt the place in surrounding residents and will not have any negative effects on
the health and safety of people residing in the vicinity. '
On daily basis will be present 2 staff members. In the home will be residing 2 staff members.
Due to location of the property, floor plan of the house and ofthe backyard this property is very suitable
for Large Family Daycare.
D-.........nt-
nt:.~=DW =.0
AUG 0 3 2006
DUBLIN PLANNING
8/312006
; !
! 1~~
<;;J
-
"'~)
Attachn1ent 6
~\'c.
,,""
/'. '~'){
X:..
"'.....'
Mi.'
:"']I.,i.":'" ...:.....;.....
,."., III
.. .'
'illBAllDmm .'
,;~iWlilml[ti
',0- ~t}tlU-~~,1 ~~ff!" u
:;JJtlii;';'';~[t.W
...:..
:;;
.
-.-'.
""
-:'
c:""
,~
...;
~;
f:-.\
....'f;-r.... '
.t:I V (--
,,'it' rfJ... '. \
-V ,'Z.Lj
~
~
---"
.,;,.~
::-
.,..",:
.....'
_/
c....
';r....,
'.....b."
(:6
~ ,-"
-' ,
~\
l:
~
-~.
'~~::::..
'If',
'-'-.:,::~"":' ........"" , ,'-,-,......,..;-.....
1 --.t!':1<flli'.'r;,~
~r~~-,;~:,
'.~l.1~;t!];,~:~:;
;~~.....
it~~,
,7t M 'T"?-.l.I,
~ I-',~ r
'~'t'l'"
../:
..........."
~J
~
~
d
.....:::;!
"Cj...
J
('N.
~
J
Cii-'
I
J
f\
.;;..
'-'
~
::::,:;,
o
.,..)
\.i
"";1
......
....-cr...
'I~
8~t {I).,'~/\.I
Map Depicting Locations of Properties that Submitted 0
Correspondence for the Planning Commission Hearing
andCorrespondence
r
N
Attachment 7
".J
:.J
\ "'1 1,,\
l ~~ 'j
('" ---"",
,
Bryan Moore
.w,"".H_____''''''''_,....___".____.'"._....,....,'''_..''''.._'''"'''''_'__V''~_'~,_""___""_..._......__..".,.....',v_m._._..'_~"".,...___-',-.,..,..-''-''.-''''''-''''-'--""-...,..,-"..--.~_....,.,.,.,.,...._""",....,
From: Rich and Kathy Rantz [rkrantz23@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 2:59 PM
To: Bryan Moore
Subject: Please Decline the Request for the 14 Child Daycare on Crossridge Road
Dear Mr. Moore,
We would also like to point out that not only are there too many cars in our neighborhood already, but
there are definitley not six extra parking spots on the street that are needed to accomodate such a large
Day Care Facility. Approving this Day Care Facility would be not only a mistake for our neighborhood
and the children living in it, but it would also be dangerous for the children being dropped off due to the
lack of parking available. We strongly urge you to decline the request to turn this Day Care Facility into
a large one. We find the size of it already too big and would be outraged if the facility was allowed to
increase in size.
Neighborhoods are made for families and children as a place to live - not for places of business. As we
mentioned in our previous email, we purchased our home in the neighborhood this past September for
the very reason that it is peaceful and quiet and is a great place to raise a family. The only reason
anyone would have to drive through our neighborhood cun-ently would be to go home or to visit a
friend. People should not be using our neighborhood as a place for a business. We appreciate your
taking our comments into consIderation a11d strongly urge you to decline this request.
Thank you again, Richard and Kathy Rantz
Note: forwarded message attached.
8/8/2006
_.,' \ \"111'2-'-\
~)~ ,-/
J'. ""'--::-1
~......,__"~"__"",,,,,____~_....m'~"_'~'_""^""'_'_""_,,","_H____'''''__ff___~_''''_~_M__~,~_,_'~__~N~^'__''''''___'____''''_^'_''''_'''ff'''~_'_,~,~_...__m~"'_._..~,..__.^,__"...~...?...."",,_........~,,,,",_....'__.'m.,
Bryan Moore
From: Rich and Kathy Rantz [rkrantz23@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 1 :04 PM
To: Bryan Moore
Subject: 14 Child Daycare on Crossridge
Dear Mr. Moore,
We live a few houses down from where the proposed daycare is to be. Unfortunately we are unable to
make the meeting tonight but I am very concerned over putting a large daycare in such a small and quiet
community. We have a lot of kids that play in our neighborhood and the extra traffic will make it much
more dangerous for them to play. This will also increase the amount of noise on our street as well .
(especially prior to 8am when the kids will be being dropped off in the morning). We already have a
problem with too many cars in our neighborhood and this will just increase that number. Weare against
having this daycare in our small and quiet community, that is why we chose to live here. Please deny
the request for this daycare. There are many places to run a daycare but this is not one of them. They
should rent a space in a more appropriate location. We have talked with several neighbors and they are
against it as well. Please feel free to write back if you have any questions.
,. Sincerely,
:Richard & Kathy Rantz
8/8/2006
I
..;}, ~'7 t, lZ,lj,
"J ,_) e
Liz and David Bayat
1431 Finley Rd.
Pleasanton" CA 94588
08/09/06
To \Vhom It May Concern
City Hall
Dubl~ CA.
Dear City Hall"
I am writing this letter on behalf of Miss Dina' s Preschool
and Daycare. Apparently there have been complaints about
the traffic due to Ms. Dina"s schooL
I think. that an intricate part of a community is providing
quality schooling and care of children of parents vvho 'Work.
Ms. Dina provides that type of quality" a quality difficult to
find in today's society. Our son has been attending Ms.
Dina"s school novv for 9 months and vve have been
extremely pleased vvith her and her program., the quality of
education as vvell as the quality of nutrition in the food she
serves. She truly cares about the vvell being of the children
under her care.
The character of people vvho drop fueir children at Ms.
Dina" s school are professional" hard vvorking parents -w-ho
spend less than 15 minutes dropping and picking up their
children each day. Frankly I see more parked cars"
landscape trucks. plumbing trucks" insurance cars and
neighborhood owned vehicles parked in the neighborhood
for extended periods of time that congest the neighborhood
far more than the parents that temporarily drop their
children at schooL
I hope you vvill consider -w-hat I am. saying in revievving this
case. It vvould be a sham.e to lose this great level of
education in the community.
Sincerely"
Liz Bayat
!/yI/JJj:JpJt!-
/7AU.1
I, (
! /
'. /'
REceIveD
AUG (} 8 Z006
8/8/2006
1
DUSLlN PLANNING
August 8th Planning Commission meeting
Ie cb l~ c\-
Bryan Moore
"",,,,,,y-~,,,_-'---'--'-'---~~-""^-"""-""---'~-"'--------"~,'^~---'."
'''--_._.....,--'''''--,--,....,.,..,-..,--'.''''''--~-~_.~,,--~_..._---_..
From: Maria Theren [Maria.Theren@ucop.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 20062:20 PM
To: Bryan Moore
Subject: *** SPAM *** August 8th Planning Commission meeting
Importance: Low
Dear Mr. Moore,
I was at the August 8th Planning Commission meeting discussing Dina's Daycare. Since we were notified by a
concerned neighbor at the last minute, I didn't have" time to finish a letter opposing it as I wanted to.
I wanted to thank the Planning Commissioner who sat on the (our) far left (we couldn't see his name from
where we were sitting) with the salt and (mostly) pepper hair and beard. I was very glad he brought up the
point that the hills "catch" the sound and you can hear all sorts of noise that one would think is impossible.
Neither I nor anyone else thought about that pertinent fact at the time although we all know it from living
there. That comment could only be made by someone who lives in the area, not someone who makes one visit
at l1am on only one day, so I would like to thank him for mentioning that. I am also glad that three of the
commissioners realized that even the usually .pleasant noise of children playing can be a burdensome nuisance
if it is a constant, daily occurrence.
I also thought the meeting had a good balance and both sides were presented fairly. The chairman moved
:things along and kept issues on track so we weren't there till midnight. All in all It was a very informative Civic
experience. Could you please pass this along to the appropriate parties? Thank you.
'Sincerely,
";,Maria Theren
8/15/2006
-I
l-z..~
;r, ~~.,
-""~",,,,,,___,,,,,,,,_,,,,,~,,,,_'--'-"'-WH^,,_,.,.,____-._........,________.,,,,,,,,,____,,.._,,_......,...,,,.,..,"'.,"',,..._,,.....,,,,,.W_,,.....-,,'^V^"""'''''..._,....,,"',,,,''''''''''''''._'-'''....._o__"""-_,,__.~.__"_m.'W,"'^.___""__~"'......,...""""..__~,.'",.......,,"'~_""_...."--"""'~,
Bryan Moore
From: Mayer, Theresa [Theresa.Mayer@mervyns.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 09,2006 11:45 AM
To: Bryan Moore
Subject: Dublin Child Care...
Dear Mr. Moore:
I am writing as a concerned neighbor about the City Council allowing a 14 child daycare center to operate on
Crossridge Road.
I won't go into my concerns because I am sure you have heard them ALL. But, I too don't think that this business
belongs in my neighborhood.
Thank you for listening and hopefully agreeing with all of us.
Theresa Mayer
7822 Crossridge Road
Dublin, CA 94568
8/15/2006
Dina's Day Care Center
r- /2.4
Bryan Moore
"_.......~""""....,,,._~._._.._._,_..,.,,__-'..,,~~.~,.....____v._,.,,_""....~_...........~___,._~_,...-.v~"""'.".".,~"_,,._"'.,"""=-__~'''''''''._~_'''''_..,.,..___--.-.-""'--.----.-,.----~'",.~..,.,~~.,-""~..-.-".
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Jeanne DeSaix Deanned@metrocalappraisal.com]
Tuesday, August 08, 2006 5:.09 PM
Bryan Moore
Denis DeSaix
Subject: Dina's Day Care Center
importance: High
Dear Mr. Moore,
I am writing this letter on behalf of my husband, Denis and myself. My family and I have lived on Crossridge
Road since the development was new and we value our quiet community. We have two children who are now 14
and 9 years of age. Both my husband and I are in favor of home based businesses, as they help cut down on
traffic and pollution in our cities. We favor the home based business, as long as the business does not interfere
with the primary purpose of the neighborhood, which we believe is to set a stage where families can live and play
together without the interference of excess traffic or influences that detract from the the neighborhood
atmosphere.
Needless to say, we are 100% against any type of business opening in our neighborhood that would aliow.the
increase of traffic and noise to the extent that Dina's Day Care Center would. We live in a residential
neighborhood and want it to stay that way. We can only imagine that 14 children will be excessively noisy, the
automobile traffic for drop off and pickup will be tremendous and that the Day Care Center will most likely have to
employ one or two other people to help manage that number of children. We have noticed on Amador Valley that
there are several day care centers with signage. Is that what our street will turn into? I sincerely hope not.
We hope you will take our concerns into account.
Regards,
Jeanne and Denis DeSaix
7725 Cross ridge Road
Dublin, CA 94568
(925) 803-2926
8/15/2006
~' I 12~
Bryan Moore
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sheila.Brandes@kp.org
Friday, August 04,2006 10:45 AM
Bryan Moore
Fw: Public Hearing Notice for project PA06-029
letter to City
Council PA06-02...
Mr. Moore I
Please see email below. Previous email failed and I am resending.
Sheila Brandes
CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED: This communication contains information intended only for the
use of the individuals to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential or exempt from other disclosure under applicable law. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, printing, copying,
distribution or use of the contents is prohibited. If you have received this in error,
please notify the sender immediately by telephone or by returning it by reply email and
then permanently deleting the communication from your system. Thank you.
_____ Forwarded by Sheila Brandes/PO/KAIPERM on 08/04/2006 10:42 AM
Sheila Brandes
To:
Bryan. M oore@CI.Dublin.Ca.DS
08/03/2006 06:24
PM
cc:
subject: Public Hearing Notice for project
PA05-029
Dear Mr. Moore!
please see attached letter and concerns in regards to Miss Dina's Daycare & Preschool -
conditional use permit for a large family daycare.
I will be present at the public hearing on 8/9/06 @ 7: 00 pm and would like the opportunit}'
to present my concerns.
(See attached file: letter to City Council PA06-029.doc)
Thank you,
Sheila Brandes
CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED: This communication contains information intended only for tn",
use of the individuals to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential or exempt from other disclosure under applicable law. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, printing, copying,
distribution or use of the contents is prohibited. If you have received this in error,
please notify the sender immediately by telephone or by returning it by reply email and
then permanently deleting the communication from your system. Thank you.
~.f.-!:':-- 1."-' ,,~.. .,
AUG 0 11 200S
1
DUBUN P!..ANN1N~
L\(\ C ,J2Y
Sheila Brandes
Larry Trumbo
7968 Crossridge Road
Dublin, Ca. 94568
8/2/06
To the City of Dublin:
This letter is in response to notice P A 06~029. This is to notify you that Sheila Brandes
and Larry Trumbo are AGAINST having a Large Family Daycare & Preschool at
7956 Crossridge Rd., Dublin, Ca. 94568.
Our home is adjacent to the proposed large daycare site at 7968 Crossridge Rd. and
shares a common front yard. We feel that if this is approved it would be detrimental to
our property value and to the Quality of life in our home.
The City of Dublin approved a small daycare center at 7956 Crossridge Rd., Dublin
without any notice to the residence of this area. The daycare has been operating for
approximately 6 months. During this time the noise alld traffic has increased. One can no
longer sit and read a book in ones backyard without hearing children crying and playing.
My backyard no longer is a place where you can go for a peaceful afternoon. Traffic has
increased. 'When parents drop off their children they often park the vl'rong way in the
street. We have been advised by a neighbor that after we leave in the morning cars park
in our driveway in order to drop their children off next door. They cannot pull into the
driveway at the daycare center because cars are always parked in their driveway.
If these problems are present now what will the quality of my life at my residence be like
when the number of children increases from 5-6 children to up to 14 children. Again we
are opposed to the City of Dublin issuing a conditional use permit for a large family
daycare (up to 14 children).
Please see attached concerns and questions.
Thank you,
Sheila Brandes
Larry Trumbo
RErC'~~1!;"l!
AUG 0 1] 2006
OUa~of1ii"~ ,-~':r.. ~"t1 \ ".l....1. '&. ,_
i.:\ \ ." i ~.) \
'<r-"'-.. ,(.....
Issues and Questions for the City of Dublin:
Large size daycare center.
..
What are the requirements for a large day care center. Is a Business License
required from the City of Dublin and the State. Is it current?
III
Has the house been inspected by the State and City?
II
How often is the daycare center inspected and how long is the license good
for?
E
Has the home owners insurance been advised that a daycare center currently
operates and they plan to increase the size? If n04 why not?
II
Lender aware that residence has been converted to a daycare center?
II
Have the people (4) who live in the house been checked by the local police?
If not, will they be?
E
What is a conditional use permit? How long is it for?
My research shows that a large size daycare center is:
II
7-13 children/2 providers.
E
12 children present no more than 3 children may be an infant.
II
Who regulates the number of children?
..
What will be the child age mix? What will the hours of operation be?
Ii
Do they have to have 15 hrs? of training such as CPR, first aid, etc. Do they
have this?
iii
Do they need 1 prior year of child cafe experience as a licensed family care
provider or administrator of a center? Do they have this?
Buyers Awareness report feceived when home purchased in 1988 states that
Ridgecreek is zoned for single family residential.
II Is this a violation of code?
~t::/9"'ll'e~'t. (j'
"~';1"...,
AUG 0 4 Z006
DUBl.IN !"'I...,",,!'U'4IN\.:-
y. to, 1""2.4
I: Variance for single family home. City of Dublin has to issue for this area.
Has this been done?
E Can a sign to advertise be placed at the daycare center?
I'i What kind of businesses are allowed in residential zoned areas? Could I
have a business in my front room with people coming and going.
What effects will this daycare have on my property values?
E Would you approve a large daycare center next to your house?
It Would you buy a house with a large daycare center next to you?
11 House going on the market soon. Will have to disclose to buyers that a
daycare is next door. If unable to sale my house because of large daycare will
the City of Dublin buy my house at fair market value?
Il If sold and have to accept offer that is under the fair market value for a
similar houses in our neighborhood will the City of Dublin be responsible for
the difference in sale price?
Parking and traffic issues:
E
2 parking space in driveway. Four cars in the residence.
Cars park portion of the car extending into our driveway.
II
Fire codes for a large daycare center. What are they? Sprinklers required?
Share 18 yr. old 6 foot fence with gap and in poor condition.
.
Children play in Backyard area adjacent to this fence.
If children able to get through fence will we be liable if my dog bites a child.
II!
Common area frontyard if children play in front and are injured on my side of the
lawn who will be liable?
Comfort, Safety & Welfare of Children:
Square footage of house 2150'. Appears the front room and dining room are used
presently as day care. Approx. 37 sq feet per child if 14 children. Is this adequate
space for the children?
Sincerely,
Sheila Brandes
Larry Trumbo
!!"'il=~=nf=~
n.......~'"-i \If ~__[}'
""u"" A 700"
A II 0 -J:~" Q
OVtll~l!'Il t"...l-'d'tI'iU\tU
\ t... '+
_"~""_~,,,"_M"_'_~'___'U_"___",,,,_~,_____,__~_,,,,W_~""'__....^___"~._____~____""__~~_N^.____w._'__."N.__'"""'__~.,.,.,,,'_.,"_,."___,_m~_."""~,_"
Bryan Moore
From: Dean Finnegan [dfinnegan@incrementalsales.net]
Sent: Monday, August 07,20068:52 PM
To: Bryan Moore
Subject: Dinas day care
importance: High
Dear Mr Moore,
I am writing concerning the possible opening of Dinas Daycare. While I am sure Dina would provide a wonderful
place for kids, I am concerned about the size of the daycare and the problems it would bring to those of us living
on Crossridge road. A 14 person day care would surely bring many additional cars, traffic and danger to the
current residents. Current parking on the cul-de-sac is a challenge and the addition of cars dropping off and
picking up will take space from current residents. In addition, the specific draw to buying here, was the
opportunity to live on a quiet cul-de-sac, where our children were able to play with much less worry of traffic.
There are numerous small children on the street, especially in the summer and the additional traffic is surely a
danger to them. A daycare of this size should not be located in a residential area on a quiet, peaceful cul-de-sac
with children routinely playing in the front yards and street, not to m.ention the current parking problem.
Finnegan Family
8051 Crossridge road
8/8/2006
, \
~"
IZ.l--l
___'__'~__'______"""'H_"N_-",__-----""'-'''''-'_~'-'~H'~_---_-----''''-----.'...'.-.,......-----..:----,....,.,
Bryan Moore
From: Michele Flores [mflores618@sbcglobaLnet]
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 1:42 PM
To: Bryan Moore
subject: Dina's Day Care
Dear Mr. Moore,
I am sending this email in response to a notice I received in regards to the possibility of a 14 child
daycare center operating in my neighborhood.
Although I do not live directly next to 7956 Crossridge Rd, I am strongly against the idea of a large
family daycare center. Besides the obvious noise, increased traffic and decreased home values, what
about the privacy of the neighbors directly next door and across the street? -
I frequently walk by that residence during the day. I've been aware of childcare being conducted
there because I can hear the children in the backyard. This is a residential neighborhood, not a business
district. 14 children is excessive in that size home.
I am truly grateful that I can afford to live in this small, peaceful neighborhood. Please don't add more
vehicle traffic and noisy children.
Sincerely,
Michele Flores
7748 Crossridge Rd
Dublin, CA
8/7 /2006
i.\ "', \2~
Bryan Moore
_",^~___.,,,.._....~.,,,,.......,_,^,~,_,,~.,...,,,,,,__.~.,.'~"m"'~"~m""";w,,,,,,""'_'-'__'~''''M''''~''''''~__'>'__''''''''''___''''''~'''_''''"'''''''''_'__'.',..,_...'''.__,._.___W_-."....'''....._''''.......".".",,,_,..-,..._,,..V_.O,''.......''..__._.''''','_..""#"'...'M,.,"".,~,.,~..--..
From: Len & Leslie [ioflana@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 06,20067:33 PM
To: Bryan Moore
Subject: 7956 Crossridge Road - Day Care application for business
We live at 7713 Crossridge Road in Dublin and are vehemently opposed to
Miss Dina' s Daycare & Preschool permit application.
We have saved for years to be able to afford a nice home in a nice
neighborhood. Approving and opening a Day Care center in our
neighborhood de-values our investment and makes reselling an even more
challenge.
It is also going to bring more traffic to the neighborhood and be
disruptive to the ambience we have created here.
As residents of this address for the past 15 years, it is abhorrent to
consider that a business would open up in our neighborhood. Where would
it stop?
We request that we would be kept appraised of this situation.
Thank you,
Leslie & Len Ofiana
8/7 /2006
q
~'"
Bryan Moore
.~",_"..w."......._~_~.,__,w..,..."","_.__......._"_..".._.-._"",,,_.__""w'~_'~""__'~_"'__>>_-"-'~'~"",',"I"'~^,"_'''''''''''_~~_''__.''__~_~,__."^,~.,."""..._....."._,~.""",~~,"-~",,--............,-,-,,_..._,,.---"....."'"""'...,.....,_...~."-"''''..~^''''~-___C".m_'.''...^''_.y.y,.,,''...,,,~.
,From: Quick, Meghan [meghan@psshelp.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 06,2006 10:09 PM
To: Bryan Moore
Subject: . Dina's Day Car Center
importance: High
Hi Bryan,
We are writing as a concerned neighbor about the city council allowing a 14 child daycare center to operate on
Crossridge Road. We find this to be appalling that the city council would even consider this daycare center to
establish itself on our quiet and peaceful street. This would cause an enormous amount of unwanted traffic on
our street and increased noise and also could be dangerous to our children with all the increased cars. A daycare
center of this size is better suited for a location that actually has and operates other businesses NOT a residential
area. There are plenty of other locations were a daycare center of this size may be better suited, such as an
office space down the street on Sierra Court or as part of some of the new developments that are going in around
Dublin. Please take our concerns into consideration and do not grant Dina's Daycare Center to operate in our
neighborhood, Thank you for taking all of our concerns into account, please feel free to contact us with any
questions. Thank you.
Jason and Meghan Quick
7712 Crossridge Road
Dublin, Ca 94568
925-828-5620
8/7/2006
- I
Bryan Moore
r: 124
I
_.-."'_.....,'....._........_..._~_.._^_W-_"...w,",",.,',.......'"'_._"'_'..,.~....,^''''^_'_.'~~_N_~._____._.__'_A"'._"_...,.,....^'.-...."_"_m______""""___....,,___...;~'......__M--.,.-,.._,...._......~~,_
From: Patrick Seybold [patrick.seybold@gmaii.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 05,20064:27 PM
To: Bryan Moore
Subject: Opposed to Miss Dina's Daycare on Crossridge Road
Hello Bryan,
I will not be able to attend the public hearing an August 8th due to work commitments, although I would
like to voice my opinion regarding the pending approval of Miss Dina's Daycare. I feel this will
certainly lower the value of our home, as well as creating too much traffic and noise for this
neighborhood. This is defInite disturbance to our neighborhood and we whole heartedly disapprove of
this situation.
Thanks,
Patrick and Sheri Seybold
817/2006
;-, I"?JI
_''''.....,-..,_~''_____~,~._~_.,_~~__'_~_____~_.,~~~._____,.''__~."'.._._.__"N_......_"'_.y",.,___.,___,~".~,__V"..",....~.___.~___~._~~...._,.....~."'......_...."_'M.."_..,,"_~,_
Bryan Moore
From: Patrick Seybold [patrick.seybold@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 20064:53 PM
To: Bryan Moore
Subject: Re: Opposed to Miss Dina's Daycare on Crossridge Road
forgot to include my address:
7724 Crossridge Road
Dublin, CA 94568
On 8/5/06, Patrick Seybold <patrick.sevbold@~gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Bryan,
. I will not be able to attend the public hearing on August 8th due to work commitments, although I
would like to voice my opinion regarding the pending approval of Miss Dina1s Daycare. I feel this
will certainly lower the value of our home, as well as creating too much traffic and noise for tins
neighborhood. This is definite disturbance to our neighborhood and we whole heartedly disapprove
of this situation.
Tha11ks,
Patrick and Sheri Seybold
8/7 /2006
1'1 ,"" /z' I
,1 1
Bryan Moore
"-""__~"''^'''^''__'~'''''''''ff_'''"''''''''~_''''''^._____''''''''_''_''"''"''_....._,v_~.~~^~.__....,..,_~....___,.._."'_,..,..,...,'____.."'...,._,,~,.-_..--,____._-.""'--.....-,----......'''''.'''-,-...~..,.-...----'''''''''-~...-.
From: Greg Pallott! [gregpallotti@sbcglobai.net]
Sent: Monday, August 07,20063:53 PM
To: Bryan Moore
Subject: Proposed Daycare Expansion on Crossridge Road
Dear WIT Moore:
My husband and I reside at 7900 Crossridge Road, which is 5 houses from Dina and Yakov
Yaroshevskiy's home. We object to the expansion of their child care business for these reasons:
1. Traffic. Crossridge Road is a narrow street with many cars parked along it. The additional traffic in
the morning and afternoon will be a nuisance to the homeowners and their children trying to travel to
and from work and school.
2. Parking. With up to 14 children, they will require an employee. There is the possiblility of 14 parents
dropping off and picking kids up at the same time. Parking on Crossridge Road is already a challenge
for families with multiple drivers. There is no extra room to park.
3. Noise. I work from home in an upstairs office. The al110unt of noise generated by just the 8 children
there now will be nearly doubled.
4. Property values. While we do not have intentions of selling any time soon, we are concerned that the
other issues stated would be objectionable to any intersted buyer. One of the selling points that
Crossridge Road has to offer is the quiet neighborhood.
Thank you for allowing us to voice our objection to this business.
Best regards,
Mary P all 0 tti
8/7 /2006
....
/', .~~
f
t
"
r/l\
~~...._.~-v..~",,....~___,,y_____,,~'___~'_'_'~"_-""''''''''____V___,__."".___."'...._....''''.H_...~''__~,.,..._~....____ff....___~y.__'''__'___y,.,.....,'_....'.......__.__w.."'..._.
Bryan Moore
From: John.M.Burgess@jci.com
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 4: 15 PM
To: Bryan Moore
Subject: PA-06-029 Miss Dina's Day-care & Preschool
Mr. Moore,
I am writing to you about the request to operate a Large Family Day-care at Miss Dina's Day-care and Preschool
at 7976 Crossridge Road. I regrettably will not be able to attend the planning commissions meeting on August 8,
but would like to voice my concern. I live directly across the street at 7957 Crossridge Road and have been
directly impacted by the current day-care operations. I have lived in my home for just over 2 years and since the
current day care has opened, I have seen an increase in traffic and parking problems around my property. I
understand that I cannot control people parking in front of my home on the curb, but it has gotten to the point were
cars now are constantly parking between my neighbors and mine driveway entrances. The two driveways are
separated only by a mailbox and is not large enough for a vehicle to park. Cars continuously overhang across the
driveway entrances by 2 to 3 feet blocking my ability to put both of my vehicles in my driveway. While this is an
annoyance, it is not as inconvenient as when people park directly in front of my driveway or in my driveway as
they drop off/pick up their children. My only though as to why this is taking place, is due to the lack of available
parking on the street and a lack of any other side streets in our neighbor hood to park on, so they park in front of
,my driveway and on occasion, directly in my driveway. Also, living directly across the street, my driveway has
been used as a turnaround for cars after they drop off or pick up their children.
WillowCreek is the only entrance into our neighborhood. Willow Creek ends at Shady CreeklCrossridge. Shady
Creek and Crossridge form a large circle that starts and ends at Willow Creek. Their are no side or cross streets
on Crossridge to absorb the increase in traffic and parking. Since their is not another way to get out or into the
'neighbor hood other than Willow Creek, we do not get traffic other than residents, since you cannot get anywhere
else on Crossridge or Shady Creek. Since their Is no outiet on the street, it is not a large street and every little
'addition of cars is noticeable.
I appreciate you time in reading my concerns and hope that you will make a fair and reasonable decision.
John Burgess
Account Executive
Johnson Controls
7957 Cross ridge Road
Dublin
817/2006
-""~
I
r'L. ct
-"",
...__"_.__!_,..,.,"""__...._""__,_~__"''''..,____...__.....,~.y'"~.~.w~.~.,~''^.....,~__...._,_W__^'''''".._____~.__,___....,.,......_.._.._,.M._~'''~,_,_~....,...."...._,_^_.__"..,,.,~......__.m''''_.....''~_,_,.~_''''.,''''__,..~..~...:......-....-.."..".
Bryan Moore
From: John Folse [folsefam@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, August 07,20066:16 PM
To: Bryan Moore
Subject: Dina's Daycare - Crossridge Rd.
Dear Mr. Moore,
I am writing as a concerned neighbor regardlng the city council
allowing a 14 child daycare center to operate on Crossridge Road. We
have a Ilwell kept 1I, qu.iet neighborhood for some 18 years. I hope the
extra street traffic in and out of a new business does not destroy
that.
I was informed by my Realator, if a daycare center that size was
in operation on my street, I would have to disclose that information
to a potential buyer. He strongly recommended I do what I can to
protest that from happening. It would be a strong negative to our
home value and alluring quiet surroundings. Please do not grant
Dina IS Daycare Center to operate in our '1residentialll zoned quiet
neighborhood.
Thank you for taking my concerns into account. If there are any
questions, please fonlt hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
John Folse
7870 Crossridge Road, Dublin
8/7 /2006
-g. 511 III \
5 -~ .. ~
.,..""""'..,'_,___._......_~,_._'..,__.....,..".,_~~.....,~.~'_'_'~__.'""''''''''''"''''''H__''__''_,_"_____,__",........._...__.,.,_.___''^'',.,,...'''''''-.-.,~_.....___''_'_._..._''''--,......,-''-''''"...,,''',.,.--.--....~---....~....
Bryan Moore
From: Lothar de Temple [detemple.lothar@ssd.loral.com}
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 1 :53 PM
To: "bryan .moore"@ci.dublin,ca.us
Subject: *** SPAM *** 14-Child Day Care Center
importance: Low
Dear Sir:
As a resident of Crossridge Road in Dublin, I want to state my opposition to the proposed Day Care
Center.
First, this business proposal is in conflict with the CC and Rs recorded in Alameda County, 25 March
1987 for Alamo Creek VI. '
Para. 4.10 states: "No business of any kind shall be established, maintained, operated, permitted or
conducted in any portion of the Project except the business of the Declarant in completing the
development. . . ." It would appear that the proposed day care unit is a business and therefore in
violation of the CC & Rs. Also, per para. 8.2, the terms of the CC & Rs are "in effect for. . . 50 years
:6:'0111 the date of recordation."
Second, as.a long time resident ofthis neighboorhood I am concemed about the impact of this business
on propeliy values. I personally would never buy a home next to or anywhere near a 14-child Day Care
Center.
Third, one of the big re-sale factors I continue to heal" over the years is the quiet neighborhood we all
enjoy, with minimal traffic in the Project. Adding a business of any type to our Project is going to
impact that intangible quality of noise levels and traffic in a negative manner.
Please do not allDfove this day care application.
Lothar and Ilse de Temple
7736 Crossridge Road
925. 833.1784
8/8/2006
~ ""I
j., ,
.-i ...i
17.tt
._______,..._.....~___~....._.______.w_._...~_____"..._~_~.....>__'_..,~,._"""',.."'_._..........-....._..n>.___..__,_""""'""______~...___.,,~__..___"____'>,....,.._,.._._,..~....-..--~..
Bryan Moore
From: ALAN NIELSON [alannielson@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08,20063:40 PM
To: Bryan Moore
Subject: Dina's Day Care - Crossridge Rd., Dublin
Dear Mr. Moore,
Please let this letter be notice of my disapproval of the proposed Dina's Day Care, (or any other day
care) in our neighborhood. The Alal110 Creek Development was intended to be a peaceful residence, not
a business area. I understand that this home is already being used for day care for up to six children. The
additional traffic has already caused concerns for the neighbors. Traffic has already increased. Parking is
already a problem for us on Crossridge Rd. The increased parking and traffic that would come with this
daycare is certainly unwanted.
I appreciate the need for day care services in the City of Dublin, however, I believe residential
neighborhoods are not the ideal location. There are many commercial spaces available in business or
downtown areas. .
I urge you to NOT approve this or any other day care facility of this kind in our neighborhood.
Alan Nielson
7895 Crossridge Rd.
Dublin, CA 94569
8/8/2006
5.-. tYb l~L\
t t...-
Bryan Moore
__.-_m_"'~~___"''"'_''.~__'~____'__'_'"''''__'_'''''''''-'''''_'''''''~__'''~"'_^""""_"'_H._'"~''''''_'''_'~_'''
___....._,,_,~,._~_........,rl___"~~__~.,_,..."'~__"'......."",,____"'~"'.,__...,'.
From: t.ecabert@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 3:53 PM
To: Bryan Moore
Subject: *** SPAM *** Daycare- 7956 Crossrldge
Importance: Low
Mr. Moore,
I live at 7812 Shady Creek Rd. which is just down the street from the proposed daycare & preschool @
7956 Crossridge Rd. I am opposed to the City providing a permit for this type of operation because of
the negative impact this will have on the neighborhood. Property values will negatively impact potential
sellers in the area and I believe potential home buyers will also shy away from the area due to the
increase in traffic and noise that would result from allowing a daycare & preschool of this size to
operate. I am not opposed to daycares or preschools because my own child has attended them, but I
really don't feel that a daycare & preschool at the above mentioned address would be a good fit for this
neighborhood. These types of facilities need to mesh well with their neighborhood surroundings and be
welcomeq with open arms by the entire neighborhood. I don't believe this neighborhood fits this role at
this time.
Thanks for your time.
Tim Ecabert
8/8/2006
I
--"1' . I '21."
b~)'
~"''''''_.''V.'___M"",,,,_'''''___N_W''''''''''_'_''''''''_'''''''''''~-'''''''''''''''''__'''''''''~_""'_...N........_~__~.___,,"""""__'...._....'N.V.'''''''''~,..,~''''W_---,-_.~--_._-,..-..-w,,-''''"....,^...~.__V__,~....
Bryan Moore
From: Michael Utsumi - Fox Real Estate [meutsumi@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 2:53 PM
To: Bryan Moore
Subject: PA 06-029 CUP for Large Family Daycare
Dear Bryan,
Purpose of my note is to express my disapproval on the proposed CUP for a Large Family Daycare at
7956 Crossridge Road. As an eight year resident of Willow Creek, I am opposed to the development of
a commerical enterprise in this neighborhood. This is simply not a case of "NIMBY". I al11 basing my
opposition on two primary factors:
1. Precedent - As you know, Willow Creek is designated as R-l by the City's own Zoning Districts &
Mapping. Though there is a CUP for Large Family Daycare, it concerns me that the introduction of
such a commercial enterprise would negatively impact not only Willow Creek, but any other subdivision
within the city. Specifically, the CUP petition would contradict - from the Residential Zoning Districts
_ 8.20.010 P.A "minimize traffic congestion...1t alld 8.20.010 P.Fl "Retain the scale and character of...It.
I am aware of several neighbors (including myself) who are self-employed and work principally from
home. However, it is transparent to the neighborhood as there arelis no commercial signage that is
visable. I would presume that signage would be a potential element to the business enterprise.
2. Net Benefit - In analyzing this proposition - or any other, I have to ask myself who benefits most?
Tnere may be a potential benefit to some parents in Willow Creek seeking this type of service. I would
also presume that the burgeoning business would also market to communities outside of this
subdivision, In my estimation, I feel that the business/title owners would retain the greatest net benefits
from the enterprise - while the neighborhood, in general, would share the net deficiencies in the form of
added traffic, impact on parking at least twice a day and a potential erosion in home values.
Thank you for your consideration and the opP0l1unity to share my views on this matter. Please contact
me should you have any questions.
Michael Utsumi
Willow Creek Resident
meutsumi(@.comcast.net
925-895-7362 Direct
8/812006
t :"
1,; A, 'i:l"'
" -:\'\."
it.
rJ J t' .--;-."
7-
::L'-!r /,i / .
~ _. v.,....-"
t-,
~. ~~.
,-1lJ.~- (j~ '4_DIJ2y.~)~'XJ(Q..~--,~~~().f2:e )
'. \J \' ~,- J
J~)1L~-~fLQ.,.j-D:.--f~"~~7"~M. IJ) mil
,.,t:VVLU} ,.,',..~tt.J...l._.-J~--.._~~~.t....l._.~_..Lr'~tLfzS -.l<!~~~'bfJj~, ,:[/L.t;:--o:J",,,,
.,..D..vJ1b.:U11/.:.c..u...'.._.____................__.. ... "n" ..__ ... ...., ,;: ".'. ,., "
~. . ~~ (j)-:7
.,,-~..~~--_JSJ~~:..,.--I-.D,.,J.,.lt \Q, :.._/J4.uU....J1'U9;d,JLe/if!.
~-1=G.D~~_._~~.e--. .... y ~W.LM.. ~,......
: ->i~~:"~7"~1'~,~~~-""-(~~=~;;)~~"':'''-J2;:a6~);'(1[6L'' .'T))~ b 2,i'j~',
. .,. _.~,_. .....- .....J. ---.f:..---. ,:-Je.. L- ,v. V V;"i~'-~'--'; ,V.- ... .u. . ..~.~ -, ~ ". --_:/:.7'6
~'....~Fr.._~d .~. .[ 0 I~ F~'
.~~W..W~(\!vI1/W~.d-vJL[ .
'?=:)V~J~ti~ . ~1ftw6!, ..~. :~fJ~ w.dJ k
~~\'-::ll::2\ ~\ ,-'l'\ . -1\ ' . d
~'--'t;,L-- \ U(jJ' .//.11 /' [t .~ t l" I~ Sl
r, \ -\..-/ {\c...Jn. - I / A /(11 J; . -' J ,.r' I ~ .4 / ~ .
....... lii;/' \~\ },)..,0V\/I fl/w\ /\~ I) '/~-\X!:ri" V ~\~~ff ~' '~J-l if' ";)' f/'..o ',-.-/
'.. C~ .Yif -.. ........... ,) t ,V'='-1\;,/ l ! l/ tL).,-AJ \,_/ (~"'h;1;{...>Cj i
.'-f~ ~-0'
, /"" i)
(l' V"~~~~ ^.~ /'r ' \, -' 'r:;&.i/vfl j A";)
, ." f. (lAfvLj.I~/. ,'\j I) L '-' ,. ~'--C/
/ . / ~
,/ . . .cd.J1 .. . .
.- REC'elVEO
.. AUG ..' (fI'~On5
DUBLIN! PlANN~NG
-0;-,
,5'7 (.+.; /21.1
August 3, 2006
Crista Haar
7969 Crossridge Road
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: P A 06-029 Miss Dina's Daycare & Preschool- Conditional Use Permit for a Large
Family Daycare (up to 14 children)
, Dear PlromIDg Commission,
As a neighbor of Dina & Yakov Yaroshevskiy, I can tell you they are very nice people
and I have had the opportunity to see the daycare facility they currently have. I
appreciated the opportunity to see the facility and they were very forthcoming about
planning a daycare facility in their home.
However, I an1 concerned that increasing the number of children will cause disruptions in
our community regarding noise level and safety when parents are dropping off and
picking up children. Vie live diagonal and across the street from the day care. As a parent
of a 5 Y2 year old little boy who loves to play in the front yard (under my supervision), I
find myself frustrated by the lack of respect some of the parents have in where they park
(opposite side of street, driveways, etc.) and how fast they drive. I am concerned that if
more children are at the day care my son's safety may be compromised.
Thank you f~r your time and consideration,
~::r~ Ik ~__
Crista Haar
ltlt!=""J::.~ ff-W-"
n_~'u-M ~i' =I_~,;
AU'-' f~ h 7' U' I"J'"
, \.;!:U{_,\J
DUBlH\~
'. Name [ Addre1 )
~a[J""a- Samii1:ln 17980. Crossridge Road
Jaiti Sharma 15050 Hacienda Drive
fanya Dumay 14436 Fleetwood Road
Smith a Prabhakar _17497 Oxford Circle
Sheila Brandes ._____._l7968 Crossridge Road
~~JY2rumbo __lZ968 Crossr~, Road
~amoncito Firmeza _ !7I49 Crossrid~ Road
)avid Davis 1808t Crossridae Road
~Davis 18081 Crossridge Road
Stephen Safos 18074 Crossridge Road
Michael Utsmi . 17883 Crossridge Road
Lothar De Temple i7736 Crossridge Road
A.lan Nielson 17895 Crossridge Road
Greg Hilst 18075 Crossridge Road
Behrooz Izadt i 7980 Crossridge Road
i City
IDublin
IDublin
IDanville
IDublin
iDublin
[Dublin
jDublin
IDubliin
IDublin
IDublin
IDublin
IDublin
IDublin
IDublin
IDublin
5c~
c::, tI, "
J Phone ! .. iavor I Opposed. 1 Spoke ,of Silent
1925-833-7632 i I x ~' x' . I
~~~B~:~~~~ 1-- ~: 1_ ~ ~--
! 925-833-6~_91...._!-___ x! 1 x -T---'---"-'
1925-829-5547. i x i ----X-T--.---
i 925-829-5547 . · ! X I ,v-
inia -~---'--l~=+ x-==i---'x---r-"~~-'
1925-828-3264, j ; x r--x- ,---
i 925-828-3264: I x -.----;-X--
1925-413-94461 I x i x I ..
1925-895-7362 I 1 x I x i _
1925-833~1784 . ! I x i x
\ ~1:-833-1704 I I ~ ! ~ :
i925-833~7632 i i x I I "X--
r-- . .___~!'1~n!~ ___~_ _.___ _____ _~~dl~~ss __ __ _. ._~~tx __~ho~~__l__Date _~f_ Let!~L~!~t!!~_ .___. _... __ ___ ._.__ \ ~_~~?r \ O_ppose_
ir)i~a~~~rancisG()7\ba(C:____ f~~~{~~i;~~~~~:t- ~~~ ....... ~~ ~~ _- ~ : 7~J;;~~~ _~ ~:::.-.= ~;:._~~...._.::.- L~ .. \+ . ..
~_~..?~JJ~egar~.._____________~Q~:!..~~~~~!~ge RO~~n~ Q~~~!:!___n_ ______!l/a ___nn .n___~1712006 dIinnegan(CD.increnlElntalsales.netL_______1 -~---
,~J~tl~~e.i.l~res ___ ,~_ J.Z~~_grossr~~ge ~~<=:~~ Q':l~I!I"!__~___ n/a___._ ~------~/6~~2.Q.~~Tlflon:~s618@Sbcqlohal:net , ' .,_______, _.__~__.
~.!3!1~_~(:J~i~_?fi~!:!.a " 2I1~_Cr~sr~ge R~~~___._ Dublin____ ______f!!~______ __.8/6/2006 lofiana@corncasLcom __~.__ ___________I._,___~_~__
~~i~J~kr~ ~:~~i Seybold----- ~H~~~~;:~:~~~ ~~~~~-- g~~TI~------ 925-8~~-5620-----~~~~~~~~ ~ai~~~:~~~j~:~Oa~.com--- ---.------ 'n.._~-.---
_._.__,._._,____._,_,____.______'~_ _,_,__~_,______________,__,_~.__~_..._.__~___.,___...,____._____.______ . _ _.' '_ _ .'_n.__ .__._______n _..._
Mary & Greg Pallotli 7900 Crossridge Road Dublin nla 8/7/2006 QreQPallotti@sbcQlobal.net x---
.--,....-- .-- ,--~---'-""'--'--------- --'-'---~-----'---- -.-.---.--.- -.. ---'---'-'-"- - . ,. - -, -- ' . - -.. ...- -.-------.- -..-.----,
~s>~n~:_~.l!~ge~~_________!~~I.~~s>ss~~ge Road_ Du~~!:!.._________...!'!...~~____ 8/7/?006 io~n.m.burQess~ici.com .____......,___...__ .___2<..______
John Folse 7870 Crossridge Road Dublin nla 8/7/2006 folsefam@corncast.net x
.,..._,__.___~..____,.____... --..-----...-....---J--------..-------.- '_' _. ______..._.__ __._____._ _.___!---__.----.--, ' - - .- - c ,- __.____._n.. ,----.----- - -.....--.----.-.
Lothar and Use de Temple 7736 Crossridge Road Dublin 925-833-H84 8/8/2006 detemple.lothar@ssd.loral.com x
___.______~__._' ---.---,--J---------....,-..-.-.-----...-~.----.----.~ -'---'- -.."-----.--. , .-" -.'---" ..-..
Alan Nielson 7895 Crossridge Road Dublin 8/8/2006 alannielson@sbcQlobal.net x
_____~__.__.._____..m__m...._____ --f---------------- --.---. ..-...---.. -.---- .." - -. .-.-.-.- -"-~----..-.-. -----
Tim Ecabert 7812 Shady Creek Road Dublin 8/8/2006 t.ecabert@comcasLnet x
_ _' _. _._.. _ ____. _ __________ ____~_________ _______ __ _ _ -----.-\--- ..~-~ ---- - -- --- - ._.__.~-
~~!l9~_~ts~~_i _______ ______._ i~8~~r:.<2.ssridge Road __ DubliJ]_._ 925......8g5-7~62 -- --- ____~/~~2006 meutsumi@comcast.net E' ...m__~..__..._
Ricl1ard & Kathy Rantz Crossridge Road Dublin . 8/8/0006 rkrantz23@sbcQlobal.net x
SheilaBrandes-&LarryTrunlbo7968 Crossridge Road- DubHn---- -nla-- - -----8/2/2006 sheila.brandes@kp.org - --.. - -- - -- -.x-~-
- - __________u__________ ________ .___________ __ __ __________ -- - ___'n'__ - -..-.....-...----.
Maria Theri:m nla Dublin n/a 8/10/2006 maria.theren@ucoP.edu x
___.... __ ~ - ______________ ---- ---- ------ .--- --- -------- ----I----- -------- - ----- -,- - - -- ---- - -- --- --.
There~~May~~__ _ ' ,.I~~~grossri~ge F3oa~___.Q~~!!':!......______n/a______ ____~/~/~006 !h~resa.maye!@mer\lyns.(;S!m--.---L--~----- ___._~_____
~~~t"5~vfcte~~y~SaiX __ ;~~; ~r~~~r~~~ Road _ ~:~~ni!)11192!J:.8,~~2g26,... ..- ~;~;;~~~ iealllled(iJ(lrIetr~:;:laPDralsaLCOIrI ~--X-'- x__
--"",J
"1
~:
Map Depicting Pro:~ct and 300 Foot Pu' \ic Noticing Area
,
loO J 4
Attachment 8
(P I (\{) tf
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
September 5, 2006
TO:
FROM:
Mayor and City Council Members
J eri Ram, Community Development Director ~
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of a Conditional Use Permit to authorize
a Large Family Day Care Home for Miss Dina's Day Care (PA 06-029)
Attached to this memorandum is the draft Planning Commission Resolution which recommended
approval of the Large Family Daycare, including the draft conditions of approval. Unfortunately, this
attachment was inadvertently left out of your Staff Report for tonight's meeting. Staffwill note that
City Council was provided this item, for the record, at the meeting.
C:\Documents and Settings\maryjow\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\OLK9D\Memo to CC - 9-5-06 - Denial Daycare.doc
Attachment 3
t.o ? cJ10 I Z II
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MISS DINA'S
DAYCARE TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE HOME
AT 7956 CROSSRIDGE ROAD. (APN 941-2784-034)
PA 06-029
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Dina Yaroshevskaya, has requested approval of a Conditional Use
Permit for the operation of a Large Family Daycare Home, known as Miss Dina's Daycare, located at
7956 Crossridge Road; and
WHEREAS, a Large Family Day Care Home, which serves between nine (9) and fourteen (14)
children, is permitted in a residential zoning district with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planned Development (P A 85-041) states that except as specifically modified by
the design criteria or Conditionals of Approval of said PD, the property will be subject to the guidelines of
the R-1 Single Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the prOVIsIOns of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the project is Statutorily Exempt per Section 15274;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on August 8,
2006; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said plJ-blic 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 its 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 Large Family Daycare Home is compatible with other land
uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity because: 1) the Daycare complies with
State laws that require the primary use of the site to be a single family residential use with the
Daycare as an accessory use; and 2) as conditioned, the noise and traffic impacts will be
minimized by restrictions on the hours of operation and the low number of vehicle trips that may
be generated by the project.
Attachment 1
(Q ~ Un 1"2-~
B. The use 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: 1) the proposed Large
Family Daycare will comply with all City of Dublin and State regulations; 2) the Large Family
Daycare will be located in an existing site; and 3) the use is compatible with the neighborhood; 4)
as conditioned, the Daycare will be a licensed daycare facility; and 5) as conditioned, the children
shall remain either inside the home or in the backyard for pickup by their parent or guardian.
C. The use will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood because: 1)
as conditioned, noise and traffic impacts will be minimized by the Conditions of Approval which
establish limits on the number of children enrolled and the hours of operation; 2) signage which
advertises the Daycare is prohibited by Section 8.64.030.Q of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and
3) parking and traffic will not be impeded in the vicinity as a result of the use, due to the drop-off
and pick-up times ofthe children being staggered throughout the morning and evening.
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 because the proposed Large Family Daycare is located in an
existing residential dwelling.
E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use being
proposed because: 1) the Large Fal11ily Daycare will be located on an existing site; 2) the site is
bordered by Single Family Residential homes on two sides and Open Space to the rear of the
property; and 3) the Daycare complies with State laws that require the primary use of the site to be
a single family residential use with the daycare as an accessory use.
F. The Large Family Daycare Home is not contrary to the specific intent clauses, development
regulations, or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located
because: 1) Section 8.12.050 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance permits a Large Family Daycare in
all residential zoning districts with a Conditional Use Permit approved by the Planning
Commission; 2) the Planned Development Zoning District (FA 85-041) in which the subject
property is located states that the property is subject to the requirements of the R-1 Single Family
Residential Zoning District; 3) Section 8.76.080.B of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires a total
of two (2) parking spaces and four (4) loading spaces for the subject property to support the
dwelling unit and the Large Family Daycare, based on the requirement that the dwelling unit have
two (2) parking spaces plus one loading stall per every four children served by the facility; 4) as
conditioned, the Applicant will be required to keep the garage clear and to park two vehicles inside
of the garage during the Daycare hours of operation; 5) as conditioned, the driveway will be
required to be kept clean and free of the property owners cars in order to provide two loading
spaces for parents and guardians of the children in the Daycare; 6) as conditioned, a total of two
parking spaces and two loading spaces will be provided which results in a deficit of two loading
spaces; 7) Section 8.76.050.E of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance permits a reduction in the required
number of parking spaces when the required finding can be met; 8) the requested parking
reduction has been determined to be warranted based on the available parking and loading spaces
on Crossridge Road; 9) the parking reduction is also further warranted because the spaces will only
be required during pick-up and drop-off times which are staggered throughout the day; 10) as
conditioned, impacts are further reduced by the limited hours of operation; and 11) the use of child
daycare equipment in the backyard does not require a permit and is consistent with other daycares
in the City of Dublin.
2
i \4 t7i r/\'\
G,t/ 0
G. The Large Family Daycare is consistent with the Dublin General Plan because: 1) the
proposed use is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit and meets the intentions of the zoning
district in which it is located; and 2) as conditioned, the Large Family Daycare will operate in such
a manner as to limit impacts on the surrounding properties.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby conditionally
approve a parking and loading reduction of two (2) off-street loading spaces because: 1) the staggered
drop-off and pick-up times typical of a Fal11ily Day Care Home will reduce parking and loading demand;
and 2) the number of on-street parking spaces available in front of the property will be able to compensate
for the space. The Zoning Ordinance parking requirements are, therefore, excessive in this case, and
overflow parking will not adversely impact adjacent uses.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby conditionally
approve P A 06-029, a Conditional Use Permit application to operate a Large Family Daycare Home, as
generally depicted by the Site Plan and Floor Plan received by the Planning Department on June 16,2006,
and a Written Statement received by the Planning Department on August 3, 2006, stamped approved and
on file with the Dublin Planning Division, subject to the conditions below.
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 8 children in the Daycare Home), and shall be
subject to review and approval by the City of Dublin. The following codes represent those
departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval: [PL.]
PI [B] B .1d' [PO] P r d [ ] Al d C F' D
annmg, Ul mg, o Ice, an F ame a ounty Ire epartment.
NO CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY/ REQUIRED
DEPART.
,. PLA~Gf:GO~I)I[TlIJ~~S '(< '. ", ['<., = ", ,',............'......... .; !,.
1. This Conditional Use Permit approval for PL Ongoing Standard
P A 06-029 is to allow the operation of a ,
Large Family Day Care Home at 7956
Crossridge Road in a PD (Planned
Development P A 85-041) Zoning District.
This approval shall generally conform to
the project plans and statements stamped
approved, consisting of a Site Plan and
Floor Plan (received by the Planning
Department on June 16,2006), and a
Written Statement (received by the
Planning Department on August 3, 2006).
2. The maximum number of children present PL Ongoing Standard
at the Daycare facility at anyone time shall
not exceed 14.
" The large family Daycare Home shall PL Ongoing Standard
.).
operate Monday through Friday between
the hours of7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., and
shall be closed on weekends.
4. Children sounds shall be controlled so as PL Ongoing Standard
not to create a nuisance to the adjoining
residential neighborhood. No outside
3
La '-.~ ()'612'~
NO CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE I
AGENCY! REQUIRED
DEPART.
activities may take place before 9:00 a.m.
and after 5:00 p.m.
5. The operator of the Center shall require PL Ongoing Standard
that children remain either inside the
Center or in the backyard for pickup by
their parent or guardian.
6. This use shall comply with all applicable PL Ongoing Standard
Planning, Building, Alameda County Fire
Department, Police Department, Dublin
San Ral110n Services District and State of
California Department of Social Services
regulations and ordinances.
7. This approval shall be null and void in the PL Ongoing Standard
event the approved use fails to be
established within one year, or ceases to
operate for a continuous one-year period.
8. The occupants of the home shall have no PL Ongoing Standard
more than two vehicles parked at the
project site as long as a daycare home is
being operated at this address. The garage
at the subj ect site shall be kept free and
clear for parking the two vehicles during
the Daycare hours of operation so that
parking spaces in the driveway and on-
street in front of the home are available for
pick-up and drop-off.
9. The Applicant shall be responsible for PL Ongoing Standard
cleanup and disposal of project related
trash in order to maintain a clean and litter
free site.
10. Signage advertising the daycare home is PL Ongoing Standard
prohibited.
11. No future modificatioIis to the site or PL Ongoing Standard
exterior portion of the residence shall be
made without prior review by the Director
of Community Development, and must
comply with all applicable zoning,
building code and engineering regulations
including issuance of building permits.
12. At any time during the effectiveness of this PL Ongoing Standard
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.
13. rfthe Day Care employees additional PL Ongoing Section
employees not residing in the home, then 8.76.080.B
additional parking will be required.
14. No structure is allowed in the City PL 60 Days from City -I
Landscape Easement to the rear of the date of Approval Landscape
4
NO
CONDITION TEXT
property. The existing structure shall be
removed.
The sleeping/napping area shall have an
access and means of egress window or
door as re uired b CBC 310.4.
16. The sliding doors shall have landings that
are the width of the door opening. CBC
1003.3.3.1.7.
17. Provide residential smoke detectors in all
sleeping rooms and in the day care areas.
18. Provide a 2Al OBC fire extinguisher in the
da care area.
19. Provide a manual pull station in an
approved location tied to a fire alarm
signal that is 15 db above ambient noise
levels. This is not a fire alarm "s stem."
20. Exits shall be openable from the inside
without any special knowledge or effort.
This means that any deadbolts shall open
when the lever hardware is used and no
additional chains or latches are allowed.
The exits must continue all the way to a
public way, so if a gate is in the exit path,
it must be openable from the inside
without s ecial know led e or effort.
21. An address shall be provided on the house
that is clearl visible from the street.
22. An on site inspection is required prior to
Fire Department approval (after
submission of an 850 form .
23. The gate on the rear fence of the site shall
be kept locked from the outside during the
Da care Center's hours of 0 eration.
;;~~~J;filll5~tII~.~;llt;>,
24. The Applicant must be licensed and comply
with all State of California Community
Care Licensin CCL re uirements.
25. The Applicant must apply for a City of
Dublin Business License. A copy of the
approved State of California Community
Care license must be submitted. All
employees, both paid and volunteer, shall
complete a Mandated Reporter class and
rovide verification of such.
26. Police Services will periodically make
unannounced inspections of the facility aild
may require verification of fingerprint
clearance for staff members as reported
back on the State of California CCL
"Personnel Re ort".
5
RESPON.
AGENCY!
DEPART.
F
F
F
F
F
F
Lo /..Q 0).... \:: t \
c.:.)
WHEN SOURCE
REQUIRED
Easement
Ongoing Standard
Ongoing Standard
30 days from date Standard
of Approval
30 days from date Standard
of A roval
30 days from date Standard
of Approval
Ongoing Standard
F 30 days from date Standard
of A roval
F 30 days from date Standard
of Approval
F Ongoing Standard
PO
PO
PO
Ongoing
Standard
Ongoing
Standard
Ongoing
Standard
I
Lot U'b I Zl{
NO CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE I
AGENCY/ REQUIRED
DEPART.
27. The applicant is to follow the California PO Ongoing Standard
Community Care Licensing guidelines
regarding the ratio of staff on duty to the
number of children present in the business.
28. Staff members are to receive Personal PO Ongoing Standard
Safety training that is provided by the
Dublin Police Crime Prevention unit.
29. The gate on the rear fence of the site shall PO Ongoing Standard
be kept locked during the Daycare Center's
hours of operation.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of August 2006 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Plming Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:\P A#\2006\06-029 Lg Family Day Care CUP\PC Reso.doc
6
lo~ cr~ 12,\.{
'--"
To Mayor Lockhart, Members of the City Council, Planning commission.
The following are some changes and clarifications to CUP for our Large Family
Care application:
1. The maximum number we are applying for is 12 kids instead of 14.
2. Extending our driveway from 2 to 3 parking spaces.
3. Parking our cars in the garage.
4. To arrange the traffic issues we will submit the letter to parents (traffic policy).
5. Follow the schedule children play outside no more than 21;2 hours daily: 1 hour
from 10:40 to 11 :40 AM, and 11;2 hour afternoon.
To reduce outside noise we will keep no more than 6 kids outside at once.
Sincerely, Dina Yaroshevskaya.
i1~",...
'\..., 'i,
('\_ ...." ,t::;'....
vt,p ,.
OS?
DUe rJJ06
1..11'1 Pi.. ,'.
~i\J"\I"i
I,ltc.a;
Attachment 4
loq ub \ --Z}-!
Miss Dina's Daycare.
7956 Crossridge Rd.
Dublin, CA 94568
City of Dublin Traffic Policy for Miss Dina's Daycare.
Dear Parents/Guardian,
Following are the conditions of approval by the City of Dublin for our Large
Family Daycare:
1. Daycare patrons shall use driveway of the Miss Dina's Daycare facility
for parking, loading and unloading of children at all times.
2. Daycare patrons shall drive safely and follow all traffic regulations on
Crossridge Road and the surrounding neighborhood and shall be
mindful of adjacent property owners' concerns when driving to and from
the Miss Dina's Daycare & Preschool facility including but not limited to
the posted 25 mile per hour speed limit.
3. Daycare patrons shall not make U turns or park in the neighboring
driveways nor shall they make U turns within the street right of way or
any other maneuvers that are unsafe and or would obstruct the flow of
traffic.
4. Under no circumstances shall daycare patrons honk the car horn,
double park, park in the middle of the street, leave engines running, or
park the wrong way on Crossridge Road while dropping off or picking up
children from the Daycare.
We sincerely request you to strictly follow the conditions listed above;
without any exception. If you are observed any of the conditions stated
above, we may be forced to refuse our services to you in order to avoid
cancellation of our Daycare license by the City of Dublin. We appreciate
your understanding, cooperation and help.
Sincerely,
Dina Yroshevskaya
I the undersigned acknowledge that I have read and understood the above
conditions of City of Dublin and I conform that I shall follow all the conditions.
Signature:
Date:
REC~lVEn
SEP 0 5 200B
DUBl/,..} PIli
"~...,j\4NIN('i
PMENT
10 Cf'OI2l\
The City of Dublin's child care industry
provides a social and economic infrastructure
that is critical to the City's overall economic
vitality and quality of life. In 2001, the industry
generated over $10.8 million in revenue, while
supporting approximately 400 local jobs. In
addition to 233 people employed directly in child
care homes and centers, an additional 170 jobs (in
construction, retail, manufacturing, ete.) are supported
by the existence of the local child care industry.' These
jobs bolster the local tax base, while providing a necessary
service that enables other Dublin businesses to thrive.
In addition, child care helps sustain the City's growing
workforce by enabling parents to take new jobs, stay in
existing jobs or training programs, or return to work after
an absence.
Dublin's job market is estimated to grow by 30% by the year
2010, while its population will increase by 58%, more than any
other city. To meet the demands of its escalating development,
public and private investments are needed to sustain and grow
Dublin's child care industry.
Population'
Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,973
Children under 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,050
Age breakdown:
Infant (0-2) ......................... 14%
Preschool (2-5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%
School-Aged (6-13) ..................58%
Children as percent of total population ....17%
Expected population change by 20105 . . . . . . 58%
(17,500 new residents)
Family Economics'
Median family income ............... $83,123
Median home value ................ $330,700
Median monthly rent ................. $1,356
Poverty rate among children under 18 . . . . . 3.2%
Families with income less than $35,000 ... 12.1 %
Children receiving public assistance' . . . . . . . .236
RECEIVED
SEP 0 5 2006
OUB!.,Jr-~ P!#~,NN~Nr;j
Jobs Created by the Dublin Child Care Industry in 2001'
Direct
Employment
Indirect
Employment
Total
Employment
406
o
100
300
400
500
200
Home-based
Care
Revenue Generated by the Dublin Child Care Industry in 2001'
(in millions)
Center-based
Care
Total
Revenue
$10.93
o
$5.00
$15.00
$10.00
1. Based on employment multiplier for child care developed by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2,3. Based on data
provided by Child Care Links, calculations by Alameda County LINCe. 4.2000 Census. 5. Projections 2000, Association of Bay Area Governments 6.2000
Census, 7. Alameda County Social Services Agency (includes CaIWORKs, MediCal, and Food Stamps).
Dublin Profile' 2002 . Alameda County Local Investment in Child Care (LINCe) Project
32
Child care workers are underpaid
2001 Average Annual Salaries'
Child Care Assistant in East County.................. $20,240
Child Care Teacher in East County..................... $27,400
Child Care Director in East County.................... $48,760
Child care workers are more highly educated on average
than workers in other industries, yet their salaries fail to
reflect their level of education or responsibility,2
This graph compares "high" child care wages in the eastern
region of the county to other Alameda County occupations.
The latter are mid-level wages based on "some experience"
and/or "new to the firm." (Occupational Outlook, 2001,
www.calm is. cahwnet.gov).
Teacher salary information is from 2000-2001 California
Department of Education Certified Teacher Salary Profile,
average schedule salary paid (hourly wage calculated based
on 40 hrs/wk, 52 wks/yr).
CblldIare CosLailld care is a significant portion ofJamjJy income
o
Annual Child Care Costs in Alameda County
Family Child %of Median Child Care % of Median
Care Home Income Center Income
Infant (under 2 years)' $7,349 9% $10,891 13%
Preschool (2-5 years)' $7,079 9% $7,843 9%
School-Age (6-13 years)' $5,218 6% $5,115 6%
These costs are for one child. The consensus among
experts is that 10% of a family's household income
is the most families can" afford. "6
In Alameda County, the cost to send a preschooler
to full-time, center based care is nearly double the
cost of tuition for two semesters at the University
of California, Berkeley. For an infant, the annual
cost of full-time, center based care is almost three
times the cost of tuition.'
For most age groups, demand for child care in Dublin is greater
than supply. The city has a total of 1,726 licensed child care
spaces, with shortages in infant and school age care.
. Demand Estimates: Determining the true demand for child
care is difficult because it is often unclear whether parents'
choices reflect their true preferences or result from location
and cost constraints. Therefore, these charts illustrate the
gaps in Dublin's child care supply by age group using two
methodologies:
· Best Case: This conservative estimate calculates demand
based upon statewide utilization patterns for
different provider types and income levels.
· Worse Case: This broad estimate assumes that all families
in which both parents or a single-parent-head-of-house-
hold works would demand licensed care.
· Supply: This is the total number of licensed spaces in a child
care center or family home that are regulated by the state,
according to Child Care Links, the local child care resource
and referral agency.
500
400
300
200
100
0
~
~ 1000
a-
~ 800
~
u
:!! 600
:;:
u 400
'0
i; 200
.c
E 0
~
z
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
423
Supply
Best Case
Demand
Worst Case
Demand
Preschool
Supply
Best Case
Demand
Worst Case
Dema nd
School-Age
2.166
588
671
Supply
Best Case
Demand
Worst Case
Demand
1. Based on "high" salaries in East County for each position. A Profile of the Alameda County Child Care Workforce 1995-2001, 2. A Profile of the
Alameda County Child Care Workforce 1995-2001. 3,4. Assumes full-time care for 12 months; California Child Care Resource and Referral Network
Survey of Regional Mean Market Rates. 2001. 5. Assumes full-time care for 3 months (summer) and part-time care of 9 months (school year).
6,7. Alameda County Child Care Needs Assessment, 2002.
Dublin Profile' 2002 . Alameda County Local Investment In Child Care (L1NCC) Project
33
vl00102
~
~
@)
E
~
~
@)
~
~
~
~
"g
@)
@)
~
~
~
0=
~
00
g
d
"g
W
"g
~
00
00
b
00
o
~
b
00
W
~
~
~
d
~
U
00
"g
00
E
00
=
~
r
ILOr
Lj
City of Dublin Child Care Profile
Families and Children
Based on the 2000 U.S. Census, Dublin had approximately 4,700 children aged bilih to 12 years old,
accounting for just under 16 percent of the city's total population. Dublin has a significantly higher
propOliion of White children than the county overall. Eighty-four percent of children ages five through
17 speak English at home, compared to 63 percent county-wide. Only two percent of children live below
the poveliy level, significantly less than nine percent county-wide.
Dublin children under six years old are more likely to have parents in the workforce than county overall.
Approximately 59 percent of Dublin children under six are in households headed by two working parents
or a working single parent compared to 55 percent county-wide.
Child Care Demand and Supply
Child care demand in Dublin is similar to that of the county. Dublin families with children aged two to
four years are slightly more likely to demand family child or center-based care than county-wide.
Approximately 54 percent of children two to four demand center-based or family child care which is
similar to the 52 percent county-wide. Sixty
percent of the city's child care supply is for
preschool-aged children, resulting in a surplus of
over 250 slots. Conversely, Dublin has a
moderate gap in supply of child care for infants
and toddlers as well as school-aged children.
Dublin ECE Supply, 2006
300 I
200 t---
100
III
:::l
e-
:::l
~ (100) i
S!.. (200) i
(300)
(400)
Special Populations
Similar to the county as a whole, just over seven
percent of school-age children residing in Dublin
Unified School District are enrolled in special
education. Only ten percent of school-age
children are English Learners (EL), meaning that
their family speaks a primary language other than English at home, and they are not yet considered to
have the requisite English skills to succeed in the school's regular instructional programs. This is
considerably lower than the county-wide EL rate of 27 percent.
o 0 - 1 Years IillI 2-4 Years II 5 - 12 Years
~~....
S("p\..~/v~
ell. 0 S' 'C
:e<!I.1t .0/ ?006'
oCAt
~ 1lI1lt11itr;;
"-7
Alameda County, Early Care and Educationfor All, Needs Assessment Report. June 2006
/3 cf-- 12\t
City of Dublin Profile
Age by Race
Non-Hispanic or Latino
Black or Asian and
Hispanic African Pacific Other Race Two or
Age Cohort or Latino White American Islander (a) More Races Total
Percent of All Children 0-12 15% 63% 3% 11% 1% 7% 100%
o - 1 Years 107 444 12 95 8 49 715
2 - 4 Years 157 644 26 127 4 85 1,043
5 - 12 Years 446 1,901 105 285 21 195 2,953
13 Years + 3,349 15,680 2,852 2.628 184 569 25,262
Total 0-12 Years 710 2,989 143 507 33 329 4,711
Total Population 4,059 18,669 2,995 3,135 217 898 29,973
Age by Poverty Status, Children 17 Years and Younger
Below 200% of Poverty Above 200% of Poverty
Age Cohort Number Percent Number Percent
Under 5 years 175 10% 1.546 90%
5 years 44 12% 324 88%
6 to 11 years 259 13% 1.768 87%
12 to 17 years 275 14% 1,657 86%
Total 753 12% 5,295 88%
Language Spoken at Home, Children 5 to 17 Years
Language Spoken at Home Number Percent
English 3.719 84%
Russian 261 6%
Portuguese or Portuguese Creole 136 3%
Miao, Hmong 77 2%
All Other Languages 245 6%
Total 4,438 100%
Workforce Status by Presence of Children in Families
Workforce Status by Age Cohort
Number
Percent
Under 6 years:
Single working parent or both parents working
One or more parents not working
6 to 17 years:
Single working parent or both parents working
One or more parents not working
1,216
847
59%
41%
2,806
1,032
73%
27%
Notes: (a) Other includes the category American Indian and Aiaska Native
Sources: U,S. Census 2000 SF-l, SF-3; Bay Area Economics, 2006.
Alameda County. Early Care and Education, Needs Assessment Report, June 2006
/4 Ci:Q \ '[1.\
City of Dublin Projections and Gap Analysis
Projections by Age Cohort
% Children
Age Cohort 2005 2006 2010 2015 0-12, 2006
Infants and Toddlers 854 914 1.198 1,397 15%
Preschoolers 1,246 1.334 1,748 2,036 22%
School-Age Children 3,643 3,699 3,933 4.293 62%
Licensed Child Care Demand by Age
2006
2010
2015
Infant and Toddler
210
275
321
Preschool
725
951
1,108
School-Age
920
978
1.067
Licensed Child Care Supply by Age, 2006 (c)
Full Time (a) Part Time Only (b) Total Full and Part Time
Infant and Toddler
Family Child Care 56 3 59
Center-Based 44 44
Subtotal 100 3 103
Preschool
Family Child Care 161 7 168
Center-Based 611 212 823
Subtotal 772 219 991
School-Age
Family Child Care 77 4 81
Center-(After/Before School) 163 315 478
Subtotal 240 319 559
Licensed Child Care Gap Analysis by Age
Surplus/(Gap)
Full Time (a) Total Full and Part Time
2006 2010 2006 2010
Infant and Toddler (110) (172) (107) (172)
Preschool 47 (179) 266 40
School-Age (680) (738) (361) (419)
Total (743) (1,088) (202) (551)
Notes: (a) tncludes full time centers that also offer part time care.
(b) Represents centers only offering part time care, Part time care is 30 hours or less per week.
(c) Assumes supply remains constant from 2006 to 2010
(d) Numbers in parentheses denote additional supply or surplus.
Sources: Association of Bay Area Governments Census Tract Projections 2005; U.S, Census 2000 SF-1 and SF-3; BANANAS; 4Cs of Alameda
County; Child Care Links; National Survey of American Families, 2002; Bay Area Economics, 2006.
Alameda County, Early Care and Education, Needs Assessment Report, June 2006
City of Dublin & Dublin Unified School District Special Populations Profile
Age Cohort
Number
Special Education Enrollment (2004-05) 1
o - 1 Years
2-4Years
5 - 12 Years
Total 0-12 Years
18
61
265
344
Sources: Regional Center of the East Bay (birth through
two years); plus DataOuest (birth through 12 years).
Notes: RCEB information (most of the birth through two) is based
on family's address. DataOuest information (all of three-year old
and above) reflects the number of students in special education
residing in the school district and not those served by the school
district.
1 RCEB data is from March 2006; DataOuest information is
from the 2004-05 school year.
California Children's Services Clients (May, 2006)
Age Cohort
General
Caseload
o .1 Years
2.4Years
5 - 12 Years
Total 0-12 Years
Medical
Therapy
Program
6
6
16
27
, RCEB data is from March 2006; DataQuest information is from
the 2004-05 school year.
3
o
8
Source: California Children's Services;
11 Notes: City is based on family address. Children in the medical
therapy program are a subset of the general caseload,
Number
Children Receiving County Mental Health Services (July 2004 to June 2005)
Age Cohort
0-1 Years
2-4Years
5 - 12 Years
Total 0-12 Years
o
2
22
24
English Learners in the School District (2004-05)
Source: Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services;
Note: City based on family address.
Number
Grades K-6
243
Percent of
Enrollment
10%
Source: Data Quest
Alameda County, Early Care and Educmlonfor All, Needs Assessment Report, June 2006
IS- D'b \ L{
City of Dublin & Dublin Unified School District Special Populations Profile
Children from Migrant Families in the School District (Fall, 2005)
There is no migrant program in Dublin USD.
Children from Families Receiving Public Assistance (March, 2006)
Age Cohort
Cash Assistance
Adoption
Assistancel Food
Cal-WORKS Kin GAP Foster Care Stamps Medi-CAL Total
16 1 1 5 46 69
27 4 0 10 52 93
93 12 0 18 106 229
136 17 33 204 391
o - 1 Years
2 -4 Years
5 -12 Years
Total 0.12 Years
Source: Alameda County Social Services
Notes: These are unduplicated counts. Adoption Assistance,
KinGAP, and Foster Care numbers refer only to children who
were living in Alameda County when they were removed from their
family and whose foster/adoptive arrangement is in Alameda County.
Children with Substantiated Maltreatment Reports (January to December, 2005)
Age Cohort
Number
0-1Years
2 -4Years
5 - 12 Years
o
3
12
Total 0.12 Years
15
Source: Alameda County Social Services
Alameda County, Early Care and Education for All, Needs Assessment Report, June 2006
;Lo l/b l-Zq
9-1-06
Dear Dublin City Council and Mayor Lockhart,
t
rr'
I .'
t\
We are writing to express our adamant opposition to the enlargement of Dina's Day Care Center. We were at the
Planning Commission meeting in August and only one of the mothers who spoke was from Dublin. Dublin has
more day care centers than San Ramon, Livermore and Danville. Again, why is the mayor so concerned about
meeting the needs of other cities? (e.g. as in opening the Alamo Creek path to San Ramon increasing the con-
gestion and problems in our area) Maybe she should run for the mayor of one of those cities since she consis-
tently ignores the needs and wants of her own constituents. I would like to have a mayor and city council who
considers the wishes of their own residents and what is good for the majority (over 50 neighbors as opposed to a
few families, many of whom don't even live here).
I\1ost households in our neighborhood have at least two cars. This means that excess cars must park in drive-
ways or on the street. Already, there are too many cars driving over the speed limit at busy times of the day. So
where are these extra cars for the daycare going to park? I don't believe it when Dina says her driveway can
accommodate all the in and out traffic. How are you planning on monitoring that? Or are you just taking her
word? Someone who has already shown disregard for the CC&Rs that keep the quality oflife in our neighbor-
hood peaceful, safe and pleasant. Plus, there will be 28 more people driving up the street at the same time of
day, sometimes in a hurry, backing out of the driveway on an already dangerous corner. This is for our good?
In addition, how many of us would like to live in close proximity to a Day Care Center? Fourteen children right
next door eve7Y day. How about volunteering your house? What? No takers? Next question: How many of you
would like to see the value of your house devalued by thousands of dollars? When we bought our house three
years ago we paid top dollar to be in an established, less-traveled, neighborhood next to two regional parks in
a quiet location. Now with the opening of the Alamo Creek path and the potential of a day care center opening,
we stand to lose thousands of dollars of our investment due to increased auto, pedestrian traffic and noise. We
would have never bought this house or paid what we paid if those conditions existed at the time we bought it.
As I'm sure you read in the Valley Times recently, sales of homes in Dublin are now down 41 %. Houses sit
unsold for much longer than in previous years. How would a day care center make our house competitive with
similar houses in other areas of Dublin? My understanding is that one can't even convert their garage to a living
space in Dublin so I fail to understand allowing a day care center to operate.
With all the new building, development and available office space in Dublin, why must we expand an already
(unwanted) busy day care center in a well-established, quiet neighborhood for the needs of a few? I think your
so-called vision for Dublin is very myopic and not taking in to account the quality oflife here which Mayor
Lockhart expresses so much supposed concern about. Nice line on your resumes but not much "quality of life"
as I see it.
Please, listen to the majority of Alamo Creek neighbors and not permit Dina's Day Care to be enlarged ih our
neighborhood. Thank you.
Tom and Maria Van de Griff
8080 Crossridge Rd.
Dublin, CA 94568
_I r r
, 1/\
.
J
i
Sept. 1,2006
Fawn Holman
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, Calif. 94568
RE: Dublin Planning Commission Decision PA-06-029
Ms. Dina's Daycare Preschool Conditional Use Permit for a large Family Day,
(up to 14 Children~.
I am very much against having a Day Care of this size in our neighborhood.
I have been on both sides of the fence, I open the Day Care Center at 7197 Amador
Valley Blvd. here in Dublin in 1992. At that time I had a choice of purchasing one of the
two homes that were up for sale. The other home was further down into the neighborhood
which I thought would be a poor choice so I choose 7197 Amador Valley Blvd., because
it was almost adjacent to a shopping center, the first house on the street which I felt it
would be less disturbing to the neighborhood.
Also Amador Valley Blvd. is a heavy traveled street therefore the traffic would not
matter, but to have a Day Care Center in this area would be disruptive to the area and
bring more traffic. Shady Creek is a small street and we don't need any more traffic on it.
The way this area is built, it is secluded, you only come in if you live here are you are
visiting otherwise there is no traffic, also the fact it is one way in and one way out tells
you it is inclusive no businesses are allowed. It will also bring down property values.
Please reconsider and DO NOT approve this Day Care Center of this size, six (6)
children are enough.
Respectfully,
/J .
~~~ ('>/k---
Edie O'Guinn
---. q I-.,y- \
! I
. \
Bryan Moore
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
webserver@govpartner.com
Thursday, August 31,20063:01 PM
Bryan Moore
Request Reassigned
Bryan Moore ,
The Request ID 869 was just reassigned to you.
The details of the request are presented below.
Submit concerns or questions to the City Council.
Contact Details:
Prefix Mr
Full Name Joseph Banchero
Email huck162@sbcglobal.net
Telephone 925-828-5311
Address1 7622 Quail Creek Circle
Address2
State CA
ZipCode 94568
City Dublin
Language Preference: English
Preferred Method of Response: E-Mail
Request Address
Number
Direction:
Street
Type
Apt
City
State
Zip Code
Dublin
CA
Comments or Concerns
What is your comment or concern? (Please include all information necessary for proper
response.) I am opposed to increasing the day care permit from 6 to 12. Our Quality of
life has already suffered with increased traffic with only 6 children. Making a left turn
onto Shady creek is difficult enough because of the angle with the normal traffic.
My wife and I moved from the corner of Dutton and Woodland in San Leandro, one of the
main attractions to our location was a quiet neighborhood with little traffic.
Please don't let the mayor change your vote. With all due respect she can support one
on her block right next door to where she lives.
Thanks Joseph Banchero
------ The City of Dublin Comments
1
....-...!..
17 t/
The Citizen activity #1 was _~nt to the Citizen on 8/31/2006 ~:59:50 PM by Caroline Soto
Bryan, is this something to which you can respond? Thanks.
Caroline
This Request was Reassigned to Bryan Moore by Caroline Soto at 8/31/2006 3:01:10 PM.
Reason: 0
An email was sent to the new owner at this email address: bryan.moore@ci.dublin.ca.us
------ End of The City of Dublin Comments
To update this request, please go to:
http://com2.govtsystems.com/RPDUB/admin/webforms/defauIt.asp
This is an automated email sent on 8/31/2006 3:01:10 PM - P. Time. DO NOT REPLY to this
email.
Regards f
Caroline Soto
Email: caroline.soto@ci.dublin.ca.us
2
.' 'I ' I! t.l
. ~ (
RECEIVED
AUG 3 1 2006
, . ( 11., DUBUN PLANNING Y:- ()l(~'
o ' Cd t 0\ vubl;~ ~/111&>>>w-
/YYl;r ~'M E I'M /IlL A A FxJ,
~6 ~ ~ ~ fiu/tHCIS UJ Rbi{d,
~, (i.~ ~ '1Q q6- Cft 0 go> p:Lg'1/l (2.&. I2JA
. -'{
&()hL \L~~~ tl! ~ ii~ '/fCL ~
~D tv ~~ -to r-YJlL~ D {.~ riA. &ClLt~'
- iL ~, ,~.,.
U~ ~ aJ2.~ ,{b, 'tD ~."
~~rLct ULJJ~' ~ l-<9.$ to AJ
&l.UJ ~~olj l '
.i~T*, Ovvtfu y1Jw/
\JJ.dY !&. .~, ~.,' 1kz..cRc~~
~() ~' (9vL- ~ <1,? '
~~~ ~M~ U~.
Lf1u:o ~ /' ( /. ,() () / i'n ~.-J
. I ~ "/va,, )\.e~Wx,'\Ll~ lJLk1/~v.., ~~
~; ~~;Jf'~"l[~ Ah~
E rnl JIIl;.4 tlll\.1O 1)
Page 1 of 1
'-)L1
\.,- \
Mary Jo Wilson
From: Foxworthys [billfoxworthy@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 8:59 PM
To: planning mgr
Subject: Miss Dina's Daycare Use Permit
Fawn Holman, City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, Ca. 94568
Re: Dublin Planning Commission Decision, PA 006-029 Miss Dina's Daycare Preschool Conditional Use Permit
for a Large Family Daycare (up to 14 people)
To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of the Willow Creek Development, and I am not in favor of Miss Dina's Daycare (at the present
state) and their request to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for a Large Family Daycare (up to 14 children).
I do not believe that such a Business in our neighborhood is appropriate. The additional traffic, (and all of it's
safety concerns) the potential it will have on home values, and noise and nuisance it will generate will create
neighbor issues. One of the reasons we purchased our home in this development is that there were provisions to
keep businesses like this out of the neighborhood.
I do understand the need for such businesses, but they should be located in areas where they work best, I do not
believe that place is in a residential neighborhood with the facilities to handle that many children. I don't believe
that this location provides the children the environment necessary for children to receive the best "day care" or
learning environment.
Sincerely,
Bill Foxworthy
Resident of the Willow Creek Development
9/5/2006
., . \
,/ "\
September 1, 2006
i>leCEIV~1h
;;;;~"i!
SEP () 5 2006
DUBLIN PLANNING
RE:
Miss Dina's Preschool Conditional Use Permit for a Large
Family Daycare (up to 14 children),
Mayor Janet Lockhart's appeal.
Dear Members of the Dublin City Council,
First of all, I am not against Miss Dina's (small family) Day Care. In fact I
support it. I am against the fact the Mayor of Dublin felt the need to appeal the
decision of the Planning Commission, PA 06..Q29, of August 8,2006. Her presumption
was that not allowing a Large Family Day care (9-14) at the Yaroshevskiy's residence
will have a significant and material effect on the quality of life within the City of Dublin.
Whose life? The folks who live in the neighborhood of Crossridge Rd. will be effected
by the fact that up to 14 more vehicles will be driving up and down Crossridge Rd., two
times a day, five days a week. This will cause traffic problems with day care parents
double parking and parking in neighbors driveways while "just dropping off or picking
up" their children. This is also a safety concern. There is only one way in and out of
Crossridge Rd. In case of an emergency, the extra cars and people might pose a
hazard for any emergency vehicles that would need to get through to their destination.
The hill behind 7956 Crossridge Rd is covered by dry grasses at least half of the year,
and even though maintained, is a fire concern. Other negative aspects of a large day
care include decreased property values and increased noise. We moved to
Crossridge Road because it is a quiet residential neighborhood. We would not have
moved here if there was a large day care center on our street.
We have been residents of Dublin for over 10 years. Our two children
went to Shannon Preschool and Resurrection Lutheran Preschool. R.L.P. had
children coming from San Ramon and Pleasanton as well as from Dublin. Both are
outstanding and affordable preschools I day cares. In Dublin alone there are over
twenty Child Care Centers, fifteen are named as preschools. In our neighboring
communities of San Ramon and Pleasanton there are over fifty of these child care
facilities. (Tri-Valley phone book).
In closing, our greatest concern is that our mayor is listening to one voice
over the many voices who oppose this expansion. These houses were not built to be
day care centers.
Thank you for your concern.
1t-e- ~~~ :JJ/S
The Rosefields of Crossridge Road, Dublin
,--, ,
. 'C.
.~
August 23,2006
Sheila Brandes
Larry Trumbo
7968 Crossridge Rd.
Dublin, Ca. 94568
Dear Mayor,
It is our understanding in regards to Miss Dina's Daycare Appeal
that Dina did not file the appeal herself but you filed the appeal. As
mayor you filed the appeal on behalf of the City of Dublin because you felt
that not having this daycare center would have an adverse effect on the City
of Dublin. If in fact you are appealing for the City of Dublin and
representing Miss Dina's Daycare Center we consider this to be a conflict of interest.
We request that you withdraw your appeal and let Dina and Yakov appeal for
themselves. If you choose not to withdraw we respectfully request that you
abstain from voting on this appeal at the upcoming meeting as you have already
shown that you are biased.
Thank you,
.<~ Z-, C7 //
~~~
Shei1(Brandes
Larry Trumbo
RECEIVl=r,
AUG 2 9 2006
DUBLIN PLh.'''''',o'i\3
'b.r'l CL.....
....'_i C \ 2:-'\
August 25, 2006
~ECEIVED
AUG 2 92006
DUBLIN PA-ANhulIu;
Jeri Ram, Community Development Director
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, Ca. 94567
RE: Dublin Planning Commission Decision, P A 06-029
Miss Dina's Daycare Preschool Conditional Use Permit for a
Large Family Daycare (up to 14 children)
Dear Ms. Ram,
This letter is pertaining to the decision to appeal the Dublin Planning Commision
decision to not allow Miss Dina's Daycare Preschool conditional use permit for a Large
Family Daycare. This daycare center is my next door neighbor and has been
nothing less than a complete nuisance since it started eight months ago.
We object to the Mayor appealing the decision of the planning commission and to her
personal involvement with Dina and her husband. A registed letter was sent to the Mayor
requesting that she abstain from voting on this issue at the Council meeting on Sept. 5th
since she obviously has a biased opinion already in regards to this matter.
.
In the Mayors appeal she states that the decision to decline the daycare center will effect
and "have a significant and material effect on the quality of life within the City of
Dublin". Which part of the City is she speaking of. The daycare center will affect the
quality of life of the neighbors on Crossridge Road. It will add traffic, noise, and decrease
our property values. Children are dropped off by parents in a hurry often parking the
wrong way. During the day there are crying children throughout the day that can be
heard next door. As a registered nurse it has only been recently that I work days instead
of nights. In the past I had to sleep during the day and if this day care was in operation
several years ago I would not have been able to sleep during the day.
We understand all to well that daycare centers are needed by working mothers/fathers but
they are better suited in a business area such as Sierra Court and not in a quiet residential
neighborhood. I urge you to do what you can to stop this Large daycare center on
Crossridge Rd.
Sincerely'?( ,
~{4M~
.~->~
Larry Trumbo
Sheila Brandes
7968 Crossridge Road
Dublin, Ca. 94568
..
Greg & Mary Pallotti
7900 Crossridge Road
Dublin, CA 94568
~\
September 5,2006
Dublin City Council
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RECEIVFn
SEP 0 5 2006
Re: Miss Dina's Daycare and Preschool
DUBLIN PLANNINb
Madam Mayor and Council Members:
We reside five houses away from the proposed Daycare expansion. We have already
voiced our opposition to the Conditional Use Permit to the Planning Commission on the
basis of additional noise and traffic, as well as the lack of parking on Crossridge Road.
We still have those concerns and now have additional questions:
The formula used to determine the average number of car trips daily is
inadequate. Is it possible to study actual car trips to prove the negative impact on
the neighborhood?
The applicant stated at the Planning Commission meeting that the ages of the
children she cares for are between one and five years, and that the additional
children will be in this same age group. Her husband's email of August 3 to Brian
Moore states that the children will be from six months to twelve years. Does the
difference in ages require her to employ additional caretakers? If so, where will
they park?
The applicant was quoted in the 8/30/06 Valley Times stating they planned to use
the garage for parking and free up the driveway for loading. Since there are four
adults living in the home and four vehicles there, how does this free up the
driveway? They are still required by law to have one off street loading space for
every four children.
Of the four people in favor of this expansion, only one lives in the neighborhood. The
others live in East Dublin., Pleasanton and Danville. Therefore, they cannot reliably
judge traffic, parking and noise issues on Crossridge Road. This business is clearly
benefiting the applicant and residents of surrounding communities. The Mayor's
statement that the denial of this permit will be presumed to have a significant and
material effect on the quality of life within the City of Dublin is puzzling. The quality
of life in the Willow Creek development is exactly what we are trying to preserve by
asking for the denial of this permit.
S"J!t"fJdtlt ~ ~,
G;;g6' Mary Pallotti d
'B I O"~ '2--~\
City of Dublin
Request ID: 869
Request Form: Concerns/Questions to the City Council
Received: 8/31/2006 1 :59:54 PM
Status: Active
Priority: Normal
Assigned To: Bryan Moore
Contact Details
From: Mr. Joseph Banchero
Email: huck162@sbcglobal.net
Telephone: 925-828-5311
Address1: 7622 Quail Creek Circle
Address2:
City: Dublin State: CA
Pref. Method of Response: E-Mail
Zip Code: 94568
Request Address
Number:
Street:
Type: --
City: Dublin State: CA
Direction: --
Apt:
Zip Code:
Comments or Concerns
What is your comment or concern?
(Please include all information
necessary for proper response.)
I am opposed to increasing the day care permit from 6
to 12. Our Quality of life has already suffered with
increased traffic with only 6 children. Making a left turn
onto Shady creek is difficult enough because of the
angle with the normal traffic. My wife and I moved from
the corner of Dutton and Woodland in San Leandro,
one of the main attractions to our location was a quiet
neighborhood with little traffic. Please don.t let the
mayor change your vote. With all due respect she can
support one on her block right next door to where she
lives. Thanks Joseph Banchero
Staff Activities:
ALL ACTIVITIES
The Citizen activity #1 was sent to the Citizen on 8/31/2006 2:59:50 PM by
Caroline Soto
Bryan, is this something to which you can respond? Thanks. Caroline
This Request was Reassigned to Bryan Moore by Caroline Soto at
8/31/20063:01:10 PM. Reason: 0 An email was sent to the new owner at
this email address:bryan.moore@ci.dublin.ca.us
Citizen Activities:
ALL ACTIVITIES
Dear Mr. Banchero, Thank you for your emaH regarding the "Permit to
. - ,
"
"'" . \
8 g ot- I
Authorize a Large Family Day Care Home, Miss Dina's Day Care". Your
note will be forwarded to the City Council for response, and the City Clerk
for the record. You should receive a response shortly. Thank you. In the
meantime, if you have any questions, I can be reached at (925) 833-6650.
Sincerely, Caroline P. Soto Secretary to the City Manager/Deputy City
Clerk
Miss Dina's Daycare Preschool
· Appeal
· Dublin Planning
Commission decision,
P A 06-029
· Position: Against
· 9/5/06
Miss Dina's Daycare
Preschool Conditional
Use Permit for a Large
Family Daycare (up to
12). Small daycare center
already in existence.
~"'I
~
cSdi
-
N
---4:.,
Increase in traffic
and Safety of children living on Crossridge
· Safety issue for children that live
in the neighborhood.
· Children play in the street. Ride
their bikes and run across the
street.
· Parents bought their home in our
neighborhood so that their
children could do this.
· This is not Amador Blvd. where
children do not play in the street.
· As a property owner and tax payer
of Dublin for over 18 yrs. I feel
the quality of my life should be
taken into consideration before
children who come into our
neighborhood for childcare.
~
~
cl:i
~
~,
Parking Problems
· Four cars in Residence already. 2
in driveway and 2 on the street.
· Garage presently not available for
parking
· Dublin Zoning Ordinance states
that the applicant would be
required to provide 2 parking
spaces and four loading spaces.
· Presently the garage is not
available.
· Where will home owners park their
cars?
· Monday is when the garbage is
collected. Further reduction in
parking with three garbage cans
per dwelling.
..s.':::>
....---
~
~
---+
Nuisance
· Noise: Children play, fight, and cry.
This is what children do. This will be
going on five days a week for as long
as I live in my house.
· I have worked for the past 18 yrs. In
order to live in my house and hopefully
soon be able to retire and enjoy my
home and backyard in peace and
quiet. The Mayor and the City of
Dublin is attempting to take this away
from me. I thoroughly resent that
there is no respect for me and my
quality of life. Several years ago I
worked nites in the emergency room
and if this had happened then I would
not have been able to sleep during the
day.
· The children's outdoor play area is
right below my bedroom window.
~
\~
~
--
~
~
Decrease in property value
· Will be difficult to sale my
house with a large daycare
center next door, if able to sale
will most likely be at a reduced
price when compared to
comparable houses in the
neighborhood.
· Will have to disclose to buyer
that daycare is next door.
· Mayor and City Council
members would you approve
this daycare if it was next to
your house?
· Would you buy a house that
had a daycare next door to it
within approximately 15feet?
These are small backyards,
~
~
Q:.
~
~,
r/ /
f
/
\
.. ;,,1
ARTICLES
I.
II.
III.
IV.
iTlis fs 10 c~r:;i-y Ibt .r..{', ..'
~ ,H..,) f$ ;1 1"'~.')
and 0;' ~::t C:::'Y oLQ.~fJ a ra't ion 0
Re.$..t.r.:LC.t:l9J!S ......._...;..~....
eN.., ,: " ". .:__.:_._...:.....r(',~-:..".." :.: ,. : ,j
I. ,~'. C. ".~ "',: ~:',.':~ ,;; ,..I:\J i:l.meda
('''I'''' ~ H... . I . ........::....
...... .." "-'JL~....., l1t2 i::~ r.",l...-. l '1 8'
~~~~;l~.~~......i.. i:c.;:;.~:;'.i;..~.'~.:_'.~:... '../-
{ ""'~ ,.r,~ ..~).....__.. ~~ ,1'J 25th
day d..m~.__.Mar.c:h::::~.~~::..:~~.:::::..j9:. ai'
rmt- ,... ..~, II .. . .",
fin.. I I~~~';;..;;.l ilTtf 1i",''''',lTY r"','n"'7
,~~~--
l\
qy D~" r
.,..,'., .., .--.4:9"''''
!.NQ.~!
TO
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS,
CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
OF
ALAMO CREEK VI
A STANDARD SUBDIVISION PROJECT
INTENTION OF DECLARATION
1.1 Facts
1.2 Applicability of Restrictions
DEFINITIONS
OWNERSHIP AND EASEMENTS
3.1 ownership of Lots
3.2 ownership of Party Fences
3.3 Easements
USES AND RESTRICTIONS
4.1 Use and Occupancy of Lots
and Residences
Rental of Residences
Animals
Structures for Animals
Parking
Signs
Storage of Waste MaterialS
Antennas
Invitees
Restriction on Business
Window Coverings
Utility Service
Improvements, Alterations and Repairs
Temporary Occupancy
Nuisances
Clothes crying Facilities
Fences
Barbeques
Mailboxes
Basketball StandardS
Garages
Mineral Exploration
Machinery and Equipment
Disease and Insects
Restrictions on Further Subdivision
Right of Entry
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17
4.18
4.19
4.20
4.21
4.22
4.23
4.24
4.25
4.26
PAGES
1.1
1..1
1.1
2.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.4-
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
"~,~
-"'::JY..
..~.'
t'~.
':11
;.
i; "
~..
r~ ' .
:/
I'
,;
I N D E'X
- - -, - -
, ;} ,
, >~ t
TO
.},
.'
"
,.
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS,
CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
. OF' j~:, ': h'
ALAMO CREEK, VI ;. 1;,
A STANDARD SUBDIVISION 'PROJECT
~ ~
:t
ARTICLES .
I. INTENTION OF DECLARATION" :,
1.1 Facts
1.2 Applicability of Restrictions
II.
DEFINITIONS
,:
I'
OWNERSHIP AND EASEMENTS
3.1 Ownership of Lots
3.2 Ownership of Party Fences
3.3 Easements ,..' ,
: I,
I
III.
fl'! ' l
;~ :' t~~;;- t\~') 1'2 ,ll
','
USES AND RESTRICTIONS
4.1 Use and Occupancy of Lots
and Residences ,
Rental of Residences
Animals '.
Structures for Animals
Parking
Signs
Storage of Waste Materials
Antennas
Invi tees , ,
Restriction on Business'
Window Coverings
Utility Service
Improvements, Alterations and Repairs
Temporary Occupancy
Nuisances .,,'
Clothes Crying Facilities
Fences
Barbeques '
Mailboxes
Basketball Standards
Garages
Mineral Exploration.
Machinery and Equipment
Disease and Insects"
Restrictions on Further Subdivision
Right of Entry I,
IV,
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17
4.18
4.19
4.20
4.21
4.22
4.23
4.24
4.25
4.26
,I
, ;
PAGES
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
,
-~--"--
~
ARTICLES
v.
VI.
VII.
e
..--..II""'.
~ .:
; ~
~.-
"
. I ~:
~ t. "
,\
i1 ::
it.
l~ . .
IMPROVEMENTS
,'I":,
.':
;.. ,.:..
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
PROJECT
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
6.17
'. :', if'
Maintenance of Res1dences
Maintenance and Repair of Party Fences
Architectural Control
Landscaping .;. : ~:,
Right of Entry, ,;' "
Damage or Destruction to Residences
and/or Lots ' .',' : ,:"
.' . , !,;,.",;
, : : ;: ); ~ ;"'
, '
1'1.
'~Lo
i i i l
l {
PAGES
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.2
6.1
6.1
6.1
, 6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE'~
Organization ,", "
Designation of Members and Terms
of Office
Duties
Meetings ; ,,:: '; ,
Project Architectural' Committee Rules
Application for Approval of Improvements
Basis for Approval of Improvements
Approval by Declarant Under
Master Declaration~.: " ;' ;f '
Form of Approval . :: '
Proceeding with Work .
, Failure to Comp1ete'Work
Inspection of Worle. , ;
Application for Preliminary Approval
Waiver ,
Estoppel Certificate
Liabili ty , '
.Color Compatability
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
7.1 Limitations of Restrictions
7.2 Rights of. Access and Completion
of Co~struction .. '
7.3 Size and Appearance of Project
7.4 Marketing Rights
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
8.1 Rights of City
8.2 Term of Declaration
8 3 Amendments
~ Enforcement
~ Subordination
ct.f' Construction of provisions
8. Binding
.8 Severabili ty , "
8.9 Gender, Number and,Captions
EXHIBITS
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.2
, I
.
n/?Q/Qt:..
r1--, 0-' i JLi
'-']/ C:yI.i'
,r,:-
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS,
CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
OF
ALAMO VI
A Standard.: Subdivision Project
, ' .
THIS DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, 'CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF
Alamo Creek VI ("Declaration") is made this day of ,
19_, by Ahmanson Developm~nts, Inc., a :.California corporation
("Declarant") . .:',' '
, "
ARTICLE :I
INTENTION OF DECLARATION
1.1 FACTS:
following facts:
This Declaration is made with reference to the
1.1.1 Property OWned by Declarant: Declarant is the
owner of all the real property and Improvements thereon located in
the City of Dublin, County of, Alameda, . State of California,
described as follows: .
Lots 1 through 145, inclusive, as shown on
that certain subdivision map entitled IITract
5511" filed for record on.
1986, in Book of Maps at Page
the Official Records of the County of
Alam~da, State of California.
,
'in
1.1.2 Nature of Project: It is the desire and
intention of Declarant to subdivide,.' develop and sell the Project
and to impose on the Project mutual benef;i.cial restrictions,
!Ton i tions, covenants,' easements, and agreements' under a
co prehensive general plan of improvement for the benefit of all
L s in the Project and the future owners of said Lots.
1.2 APPLICABILITY OF RESTRICTIONS: All of the Project shall
be subject to the provisions of this Declaration. Declarant
hereby declares that the project .shall. be held, conveyed,
hypothecated, encumbered, leased~ rented, used, occupied and
improved subject to the limitations, covenants, conditions and
restrictions stated in this Declaration. All such limitations,
covenants, conditions and restrictions are declared and agreed to ~
be in furtherance of the plan for the subdivision, improvement and
sale of the Project and are established and agreed upon for the
purpose of enhancing the value, desirability and attractiveness of
the project. Each and all of, the limitations, easements, uses,
obligations, covenants, and restrictions stated in this
Declaration shall be equitable servitudes, shall run with the land
and shall inure to the benefit of, be binding upon and enforceable
by all OWners and all other parties having or acquiring any right,
title or interest in all or any part of the Subject Property.
1.1
9/5/86
;t .,
h
i:
,
.1
. . I i \ 1
('c. C'jl
'"1 ;3 !)~ \, "
~~
~..
ARTICLE II
DEFINITIONS
Unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning, the
terms used in this Declaration, the Map and any grant deed to a
Lot shall have the meanings" specified in this Article.
2.1 CITY: The term "City" shall"mean the City of Dublin,
County of Alal}leda , State of' California. : ,,:
2.2 COUNTY: The term "County" shall mean the County of
Alameda, State of California.
2.3 DECLARANT: The term "Declarant" shall mean Ahmanson
Developments, Inc., a California corporation. The term
"Declarant" shall also mean successors in interest of Declarant if
(i) such successor(s) in interest acquires more than one Lot for
the purpose of resale to another, and, if Declarant expressly
assigns to such acquiring party the rights and duties as a
successor Declarant by a written document e~~ecuted by Declarant
and recorded in the County in which the" Project is situated.
2.4 DECLARATION: The term' "Declaration" shall mean this
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Alamo
Creek VI, and any amendments thereto.
2.5 EXHIBIT: The term "Exhibit" shall mean an attachment
to this Declaration so labeled, each of which shall be deemed
incorporated in this Declaration as though set forth in full.
2.6 FAMILY: The term "Family" or "Single Family" shall
mean one or more persons each related to the other by blood,
marriage or legal adoption; or a group of not more than three (3)
persons not all so related, including their domestic servants, who
maintain a common household in a Residence.
2.7 GARAGE: The term "Garage" shall mean the enclosed
garage parking area located within a Lot.
2.8 IHPROVEMENTS: The term. n 11!\provements" shall mean
buildings, facilities, q+J:v~ways, parki1'lg.~as, . fences,
screening, walls, retaining -waIls, stairs, decks, hedges,
windbreaks, plantings, plant~d trees and shrubs, poles, signs and
fther structures and all landscaping constructed or to be
constructed upon the Subject Property.
. 2.9 INVITEE: The term "Invi~ee" shall mean any person
whose presence within the Project is approved by or is at the
request of a particular Owner, including, but not limited to,
lessees, tenants and the family, guests, employees, licensees or
invitees of Owners, tenants or lessees.
2.1
9/5/RF.
.:~
'.:'*
/I '
,q U i",', !, ? ,l,.1
,vb''''';
2.10 LOT: The term ffLot" shall mean the residential Lots
designated as Lots 1 through 145 located within Village VI on the
Map, all Improvements thereon, and all ,easements appurtenant
thereto as reflected on the Map areas reserved or granted in this
Declaration or in the Master Declaration.it,
'.: ~ ~ '
2.11 MAP: The term,: "Map" shall :;mean that certain
sUbdiVision-map entitled;. "Tract 5511," recorded on
, 19_, in Book' ; :"of iMa.ps at Page _, et seq.,
in the Official Records of, the County.' :.: ii"
~ l . :
~ . .. '. .
2.12 MASTER DECLARATION: The tern "}1aster Declaration"
shall mean that certain Master Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions of Alamo Creek, recorded on
September 19, 1986, as Recorders Series,'No. 86-230450, in the
Official Records of the County of Alameda,' State of California.
..... ,
2.13 MORTGAGE: The term "Mortgage'" shall mean any duly
recorded mortgage or deed of trust encumbering a Lot.
2.14 MORTGAGEE: The term "Mortgagee" shall mean a Mortgagee
under a Mortgage as well as beneficiary under a deed of trust.
2.15 OWNER: The term "OWner" shall mean the holder of
record fee title to a Lot, including Declarant as to each Lot
owned by Declarant. If more than one person owns a single Lot,
the term "Owner" shall mean all owners"df that Lot. The term
"Owner" shall also mean a contract purchaser (vendee) under an
installment land contract but shall exclude any person having an
interest in a Lot merely as security for performance of an
obligation.
2.16 PATIO GARDEN: The termftPatio Garden" shall mean any
enclosed or fenced patio t deck or garden area of a Lot, as
originally constructed by peclarant, or as subsequently modified
or eI'l:closed by an Owner.'
2.17 PROJECT: The term "Project" shall mean that certain
real property shown on the Map as Lots 1 through 145, inclusive,
in Village VI and all Improvements thereon.
2.18 PROJECT ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE: The term "Project
Architectural Committee" or "Project Committee" shall mean the
committee appointed pursuant to Article VI of this Declaration.
2.19 PROJECT DOCUMENTS: The term "Project Documents" shall
mean this Declaration, the Master Declaration, and the Rules, and
any amendments thereto.
. ,
I
2.20 PUBLIC PURCHASER: The term "Public purchaser" shall
mean a person or entity not directly' or indirectly controlled or
owned by Declarant. An entity which acquires an ownership
interest in any portion of the Project as a result of a corporate
or other reorganization of Declarant is also not a Public
Purchaser.
2.2
9/5/86
. .J,
, ,~'
i~ .
:~, '
~..
unit
<.'
, "H
2.21 RESIDENCE: The term ftResidenceM
designed for human occupancy.
"~..:: .' ..
/
'01"
;,. V
rill'
shall mean a dwelling
2.. 22 RULES: The term "Rules"':'shali mean the rules adopted
by the project Coromi ttee, ,including Arch! tectural guidelines,
restrictions and procedu:r:es ." ::':t';, " j~,;
i" '0
2...23 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL' USE::'; The term "Single Family
Residential Use" shall .mean occupation and use at a Residence in
conformity with this Declaration, the'Rul'es, and the requirements
imposed by applicable zoning laws ,or' other sta,te or municipal
rules and regtt~ations.. ';.~: ,;1' '
,'j:.
.,
",. ." .1
2.24 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 'The term :"subject Property" shall
mean Lots 1 through 145, inclusive, 'in Village VI as shown on the
Map, and all Imp~ovements thereon~' "
,;
" ~ .
2.3':'
.. .
'.', ~ J'<
,,:.;{'
, '. ~
.-
iJ
I '1 '
10 / l\.I.,\ I }., ~ t '
~,. 6"
,r,:...
.... .
T-
','
i:
, .,
ARTICLE III
',j
OWNERSHIP AND EASEMENTS
j.. ,.', r' .
3.1 OWNERSHIP OF LOTS': Title"t~:ekch Lot in the Project
shall be conveyed in fee to an Owner.',! J;,f more than one person
and/or entity owns an undivided interest: in the same Lot" such
persons and/or entities shall constitute one Owner. .
. . " ,\:,
't~'~'" ': :', L H'
3.2 OWNERSHIP OF PARTY FENCES: : Any fence originally
constructed and placed upon a common lot :boundary line shall be a
"party fence". The owner, of a Lot upon :which a party fence is
situated shall own to the center of the party fence.
.~ ..
.3.3 EASEMENTS: The ownership' interests in the Lots
described in this Article are subject to the easements granted and
reserved in this Declaration. Each 'of the easements reserved or
granted herein shall be deemed to be established upon the
recordation of this Declaration and :"shall' thenceforth be deemed to
be covenants running with the land ,for .the use and benefit of the
Owners and their Lots superior to all'other encumbrances applied
against or in favor of any portion'of'the Project. Individual
grant deeds to Lots may, but shall not be required to, set forth
the easements specified in this Article. i,
3.3.1 Easements On Map:, The Lots are sl;lbj ect to the
easements and rights of way shown on,' ,the Map.
, 3.3.2 Reciprocal Appurtenant' Easement: Some Lots may"
be served by utilities and drainage"facil.ities which are located i
on or under another Lot or Lots. There' is hereby created an
appurtenant easement for the use and ben'efi t of the respective
Lots served, as dominant tenements, on, under and across the Lots,
burdened thereby, as servient tenements, for utility, telephone,'
sewer and drainage pipes, sprinkler systems, lines, conduits and
culverts, and utility meters. Each such easement shall be and is
located outside of the foundation lines and patios of the
residence located on the servient tenement, and the specific
location of each such utility easement shall be determined by the
physical location of the improvements thereon and thereunder
installed, constructed and completed at the time of the first
conveyance of each respective servient tenement. No residence,
structure, planting or other material of any kind shall be built,
erected or maintained upon any such easement, reservation, or
right-of-way which may damage or interfere with the installation
and maintenance of utilities, or which may damage, interfere with
or change the direction of flow of drainage facilities, and said
easements, reservations and rights-of-way' shall at all times be
open and accessible to public and quasi-public uti~ity
corporations, and other persons erecting, constructing and
servicing such utilities and quasi-utilities, and to Declarant,
its successors and assigns, all of ,whom shall have the right of
ingress and egress thereto and therefrom, and the right and
3.1
_It__ ,_ "'"
.. ",-,'1#" .
, ,
.:.~
. "
10"" ."
J c.~/\
l'I
l'"
:.:';"'.;
.r,-
privilege of doing whatever may be necessary in, under and upon
such locations to carry out any of the purposes for which said
easements, reservations and rights-of-way are hereby granted.
I ..: ,~~,. .., .~ I
3.3.3 Encroachment: There are.' reserved and granted for
the benefit of each Lot, as dominant tenement, over, under and
across each other Lot, as. servient. tenements, non-exclusive
easements for encroachment,' support'~ occupancy and use of. such
portions of Lots as are encroached upon~used and occupied by the'
dominant tenement as a result of any, original construction design,
accretion, erosion, addition, deterioration, decay, errors in
original construction, movement, settlement, shifting or
subsidence of~any building or structure or any portion thereof,
encroachment due to building of balcony 'overhang or projection, or
any other cause. In the event any. portion of the project is
partially or totally destroyed, the' encroachment easement shall
exise-for any replacement structure which is rebuilt pursuant to
the original construction design. 'The. easement for the
maintenance of the encroaching Improvement shall exist for as long
as the encroachment exists; provided, however, that no valid
easement of encroachment shall be 'created due to the willful
misconduct of any Owner. Any easement'of encroachment may but
need not 'be cured by repair and restoration of the structure.
!"
. 3.3.4 Support, Maintenance and Repair: There is hereby
reserv~d and granted a non-exclusive easement appurtenant to all
Lots, as dominant tenements, through each Lot, as servient
tenements, for the support, maintenance and repair of all Lots.
3.3.5 Additional Easements: Notwithstanding anything
expressly or impliedly to the contrary, this Declaration shall be
subject to all easements granted by Declarant for the installation
and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities necessary for
the development of the Project. ,
3.3.6 Party Fences: Each Owner of a Lot containing a
party' fence and the Lot upon which such party fence is located
shall have a reciprocal non-exclusive easement over and across
such portions of the contiguo~s Lot: as is necessary to maintain
such fence. '
3.3.7 Project Architectural Committee Easement: The
project Committee shall have an easement over and across each and
every Lot for purposes of enforcing Section 6.11 of this
Declaration.
\.
3.3.B Landscape Maintenance Easement: ~andscape and
Lighting District No. 1986-1, Tract 5511, City of Dublin shall
have an easement over and across Lots 1 through 6, 15, 16, 77, 7 B',
79 and 110 through 145, inclusive, for the purposes set forth in
Article VII of the Master Declaration.
~.
3.2
B,/29/86
II" \.1
f4tf Pr ~Qj ? t~<1J Pr (~ )~ T~r i &.,1,.
" , N{ J-o e:.c
L~41y 5Vf:>--c4"<t ).pi! ?t,~( ~ ____fIl-
S M "',( /t~;TI~"h"- ~r"- 8-/ ~ /LIt? -IJ/lh.f/'
( USES AND RESTRICTIONS V0"1IJ cJ e;.. f- /) .n .
'-11 <-".",. ;1(;6)' ~
4.1 USE AND OCCUPANCY OF LOTS 'AND RESIDENCES: Each Lot and J
Residence within the Project shall be ,. improved and used
exclusively for single family resid,ential purposes. No' gainful
occupation, profession, trade or other non-residential use shall
be conducted ~on any Lot or in any 'other building constructed
thereon. No oWner may permit or cause anything to be done or kept
upon, in or about his Lot which might obstruct or interfere with
the rights of other Owners or which 'would be noxious, harmful or
offensive to other Owners. Each Owner shall comply with all of
the requirements' of all governmental'authorities, federal, state
or local, and all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations
applicable to his Lot and Residence. However, nothing herein
shall be deemed to prevent the rental or leasing of any Residence,
from time to time by the Owner thereof subject to all of the
provisions of this Declatation. .
! 0 -.;~
, :.:..1
. "
.r,...
4.2 RENTAL OF RESIDENCES: An Owner shall be entitled to
rent or lease his Residence to a single family provided that:
4.2.1 There is a written" rental or lease agreement
specifying that (i) the tenant shall be subject to all provisions
of the Project Documents and (ii) a ;'failure to comply with any
provision of the Project Documents shall constitute a default
und~r the agreement. The Owner shall at all times be responsible
for the 'compliance by his' tenant or lessee with all of the
provisions of the Project Documents;
4.2.2 The period of the ~ental or lease is not less
than ,sixty (60) days nor' greater than two (2) years;
4.2.3 The Owner gives eaCh", t,enant a c~ of the Project
Documen tS.1 ~ff;' <:;<. Po /
/t 4.3 ANIMALS: A~wner may keep tW~(2) dogs, cats or other
customarily uncaged household pets within his Lot. Each OWner may
(also maintain a reasonable number of small caged animals, birds or
fish. The Rules may increase the number and type of animals which
may be kept. No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall
be raised, bred or kept in a~y Lot or on the project, except that
two (2) neutered cats or two (2) ,dogs or ,other ordinary household
pet, such as a bird or fish, may be .kept in a Lot. No pet sha~l
be permitted to run free within the Project except on the OWner1s
Lot and shall at' all times while otherwise within the Project be
on a handheld leash~ An Owner is permitted to exercise his pet on
the Project outside the confines ,of the OWner's Lot only upon the
condition that solid bodily wastes ,of such pet are immediately
removed.
4.1
"
.':.J'
. , . ~
~I ; I
r~ ~.J'
.r,-
r;r
4.4 STRUCTURES FOR ANIMALS: 'NO structure for the care,
housing or confinement of any house or yard pet shall be
maintained on a Lot in a dilapidated condition or in such a manner
as to be unsightly from neighboring property.
~ 4.5 PARKING: Vehicles shall~ot b~ parked, stored or kept
anywhere in the Project exct:!pt wholly within an enclosed garage or
carport or other parking spaces designated therefor. All Parking
Areas 'shall be used solely' for the parking and storage of motor
vehicles used for personal transportation. No boat, trailer,
camper, motorcycle, golf cart, commercial vehicle, mobile home,
truck camper J.arger than a half (1/2)-tonpick-up truck, permanent
tent, other recreational vehicle'or dilapidated vehicle shall be
parked, stored, kept, placed, maintained, constructed,
reconstructed or repaired upon any", Lot tor street wi thin the
project in such a manner as will be visible from neighboring
property or adj acent streets; PROVIDED ~ HOWEVER, that the
provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to emergency vehicle
repairs or temporary construction shelters or facilities
maintained during, and used exclusively in connection with, the
construction of any work or improvement on a Lot which has been
approved by the Project Architectural Committee. No commercial,
industrial or trade vehicles of any nature shall be parked or
stored on any Lot or on the streets of the Project, except for
commercial, industrial or trade vehicles providing services to the
Owners of Lots and in that event only for the duration necessary
to provide such services i provided, however, no commercial,
industrial or trade vehicles shall be parked overnight or on
weekends on any Lot or street in the Project. Garage doors shall
remain closed, except when the garage is in use.
';?'4.6 SIGNS: No signs whatsoever" (including without
limitation commercial, political and similar signs) which are
visible from neighboring property shall be erected or maintained
on any Lot or other area of the Project, except the following:
(a) Such signs' as may be required by legal
proceedings; ,
(b) Residence identifi'cation signs, subject to the
approval of the Project Architectural Committee as to suitability;
(c) During the ,time of construction of any residence
or other improvement by Declarant, i.dentification signs regarding
financing and construction and Project marketing signs;
(d) Not more than one "for sale" or "for rent" sign
having a maximum face area of three square feet. Any such signs
shall be attractive and compatible with the design of the Project
and shall comply with any applicable ordinances of the City (or
County) within which the Project is located.
(e) All signs must be consistent with and in
compliance with the Project Documents.
4.7 STORAGE OF WASTE MATERIALS: All garbage, trash and
accumulated waste material shall be.placed and kept in individual
covered trash containers or receptacles. , The containers shall be
maintained and kept in an enclosure area and in no event shall
they be maintained so as to be visible from neighboring property,
I
,
I'
~
4.2
1/30/86
...:.L.
....1'''
.i~'
. . . ~
/()~
t 11 1.11' II
. '
<<':,..
'"
or within view from any street or other area used for the storage
of building materials or other materials other than in connection
with approved construction.,
4.B ANTENNAS: No antenna for transmission or reception of
television signaisl "ham" radios or any other form of
electromagnetic radiation shall be erected, used or maintained
outdoors, whether attached ~o a building or structure or otherwise
si tua ted on any Lot. 0'
4.9 INVITEES; Each ,Owner. shall be responsible for
compliance with the provisions of the project Documents by his
Invitees." 0" ~ .
J 4.10 RESTRICT~ON ON BUSt;;E~t~~o fr.;if.::(~qfny kind shall
oe established, maintained, operated, permitted or conducted in
any portion of the Project except the business of Declarant in
completing the development and sale of the Lots in the Project and
except as may be pe~i tted by local >o,~d~n~nce./ 777'h' IJtJPli~5 To ~/?1tYtc/c:(r. i
4.11 WINDOW C~VERINGS:. . All d~ape~ i~ window shades or other /5vs;rtt'-t
window coverings installed in the windows of Residences which are
visible from the exterior of the Residence shall comply with the
Rules, if applicable. Any drapes or .other window covering
installed in compliance with the Rules may remain for the useful
life thereof. All window coverings ,shall be installed within
ninety (90) days after close of escrow for the Lot.
4.12 UTILITY SERVICE: No line~, wires or other devices for
the communication or transmission or, electric current or power,
in9luding telephone, television and radio signals, shall be
constructed, placed or maintained anywhere in or upon any Lot,
unless the same are contained in conduits or cables constructed,
placed and maintained undergroundo~ concealed in, under or on
buildings or any other approved structures. Nothing herein shall
be deemed to forbid the' erection and use of temporary power or
telephone services incident to the construction of approved
buildings. ,::'
4.13 IMPROVEMENTS, ALTERATIONS AND REPAIRS: No improvement,
repair, excavation or other work which in any way alters the
exterior appearance of any Lot or,the improvements located thereon
from its natural or improved state e~isting on the date such Lot
was first conveyed in fee by Declarant to an Owner shall be made
or done without the prior approval of the Project Architectural
Committee, [except as specifically authorized herein~\ All repairs,
maintenance and care of the exterior surfaces of reiidences shall
be undertaken by the Owner in compliance with Article VII. All
landscaping within a Lot shall be installed and maintained by the
Owner.
I
.
4.3
,
.. '''' ^ I,...,..
. I j
'. ;",~,., '
.: ......
"
')1
/00 t.J).J \ 2; l\
, \J
~'"
:~ I
4.14 TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY; No trailer, basement of any
incomplete building, tenant shack, garage, and no temporary
building or structure of any king shall be used at any time for
residence, either temporary or permanent." Temporary buildings or
structures used during the construction:, or improvement of a
Residence shall be expressly approved by the Project Architectural
Committee and shall be removed immediately after the completion of
construction. :';
~ 4.15 NUISANCES: No rubbish or' debr'is of any kind shall be
r~p1aced or permitted to accumulate on or adjacent to a Lot so as to
render any Lot, or portion thereof, unsanitary, unsightly,
offensive, or detrimental to any of the property or occupants of
property in the vicinity thereof.:':NO' noxious or offensive
activity shall be carried on, in or upon any Lot nor shall
anything be done therein which may be or, become an annoyance or
nuisance to other Owners. Without limiting any of the foregoing,
no exterior speakers I horns, whistles, bells or other sound
devices, except security devices used exclusively for security
purposes, shall be located, used or placed on a lot.
4.16 CLOTHES DRYING FACILITIES: No outside clotheslines or
other outside clothes drying or airing facilities shall be
maintained on any Lot, unless the Project Architectural Committee
finds such facilities to be adequately concealed so as not to be
visible from any adjacent property. :
4.17 FENCES: No fence, hedge, or wall or other dividing
instrumentality shall be erected or maintained on ~ny Lot other
than as are initially installed by Declarant, without the prior
approval of the Project Architectural Committee. Approval by the
project Architectural Committee shall not relieve a Lot Owner from
the responsibility for obtaining approval for the installation of
any such fencing from governmental agencies having jurisdiction
over the Project.
4.18 BARBEQUES: There shall be no exterior fires whatsoever
except barbeque fires contained within receptacles designed for
such purpose,
4.19 MAILBOXES: There shall be no exterior newspaper tubes
'or freestanding mailboxes, except as may have been initially
installed by Declarant or thereafter approved by the Project
Architectural Committee.
4.20 BASKETBALL STANDARDS: No basketball standards or fixed
sports apparatus shall be attached to any Residence or garage or
erected on any Lot without the prior approval of the Project
Architectural Committee. '
~ 4.21 GARAGES: Garages shall be used only for parking motor
~ehicles. Each Owner shall be responsible for the maintenance and
repair of his garage and shall keep his garage area, including the
interior thereof, in a neat orderly condition with all storage
4.4
, "1
r:~~
,>
.:\
\D\
\ \. ..
>~:H/~,
~..
'I.,
areas completely enclosed. Garage doors ,shall be kept closed at
all times except when necessary for the movement of motor vehicles
and other items stored therein. :! :
i,'
!{
4.22 MINERAL EXPLORATION: NO', property within the Project
shall be used in any manner, to explore for or to remove any water,
oil or other hydrocarbons;, gravel,: earth or any other earth
substance or other minerals of any kind. !~;
, .' " ': "X ,: '" (, .
4.23 MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT:;: No machinery or eqUipment of
any kind shall be placed, operated or maintained upon or adjacent
to any Lot or~~ny other area of the project, except such machinery
or equipment as is usual and customary in, connection with the use,
maintenance or construction of a private:residence or appurtenant
structures on the Project. " - ;"',; ;1 '
'4.24 DISEASES AND INSECTS: No Owner shall permit anything
or condition to exist upon his Lot, which., shall induce, breed, or
harbor infectious plant diseases or' ;noxious insects.
4.25 RESTRICTIONS ON FURTHER'SUBDIVISION: No Lot shall be
further subdivided nor shall less than all of a Lot be conveyed by
an Owner thereof. No easement or other interest in a Lot shall be
conveyed or transferred without the prior written approval of the
project Architectural Committee. :' : h '
"
~ ,I
.~ 4.26 RIGHT OF ,ENTRY:; Upon t;;~nty-:four '(24) hours written
~'notice (emergencies excepted) and, during reason~ble hours
Declarant or any member of the Project Architectural 'committee or
any authorized representative of any of-them, shall have the right
to enter upon and inspect any building site, lot or parcel and the'
improvements thereon for the purpose of 'ascertaining whether or
not the provisions of this Declaration have been or are being
complied with, and such persons shall not be deemed guilty of
trespass by reason of such. entry.
V<'/ y r 17> po,- f,;'1 f P
4.5
1/,:tn/Q(:,
~"~~
I ,I "~
, 1: 0 g :)'~:J'
t' 1
;,
f",-
'.:,
;,
'f,;'
ARTICLE V,
" ,
~~ '
"
IMPROVEMENTS
5.1 MAINTENANCE OF RESIDENCES: ' . Each Owner shall maintain
and care for his Lot and all Improvements located on his Lot in a
manner consistent with the standards established by the. Project
Documents. No building or structureon~any Lot shall be permitted
to fall into disrepair. Each such building and structure shall at
all times be ~k.ept in good condition and, repair and shall be
adequately painted or otherwise finished.. Prior written consent
of the p'roject Architectural Committee shall be obtained before
any exterior painting or refinishing of a Residence or exterior
appurtenances thereto. No Owner' shall ;do any act or work that
will "impair the structural soundness of any building or the safety
of any Lot on the projeqt. '
: ~, .
, ,
l,'<\'., '
-;
5.2 MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF PARTY FENCES: The OWners of a
lot containing a party fence shall be responsible for maintaining,
repairing and replacing it. The costs of such maintenance, repair
andJ or replacement shall be shared' equally by the OWners;
provided, however, that all costs of any maintenance, repair or
replacement necessitated by the negligent, or willful action of an'
Owner shall be borne by that Owner.> In the absence of negligent
or willful conduct any necessary maintenance, repair or
replacement performed by an Owner shall entitle that Owner to a
right of contribution from the other, Owners of the party fence.
The right of contribution shall be appurtenant to the Lot and
shall pass to the successor(s) in interest of the OWner entitled
to contribution.
_~;C 5.3 ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL: No building shall be erected,
~ placed, altered or removed on or from any Lot until the
construction plans and specifications and a plan showing the
location of the structure have bee'ri approved by the Project
Architectural Committee. The Project Architectural Committee
shall have approval rights as" to quality of workmanship and
materials, harmony of external design with existing structures,
and location with respect to topography and finish grade
elevation. No fence or wall shall De erected, placed or altered
on any Lot nearer to any street than the minimum building setback
line unless similarly approved. Any such approval shall be
obtained pursuant to the procedure provided in Article VI.
~ . ;
\
\
5.4 LANDSCAPING: All landscaping in the Project shall be'
maintained and cared for in a manner consistent with the standards
of design and quality originally established by Declarant and in a
condition comparable to that of other first class residential
subdivisions in the County. Specific restrictions on landscaping
may be established in the Rules.',. All, landscaping shall be
maintained in a neat and orderly condition. Any weeds or diseased
or dead lawn, trees, ground cover or shrubbery shall be removed
5.1
A 'J ?, I Po F.
.::.~
.. '.~
" ,
')0':#/ ()6 )}
1",-
and replaced. All lawn areas, shall be neatly mowed and trees and
shrubs shall be neatly trimmed.
.,.;.,'
5.4.1 Lots: Each owner'shali"be responsible for all
landscaping located within his Lot. , If landscaping within Lots is
not installed by Declarant, each Owner ,shall install, plant and
complete permanent 'landscaping wi thin his Lot. within six (6)
months after the close of escrow fqr the ,sale of the Lot to the
owner.
~
5.5 RIGHT OF ENTRY: ,In. order; to effectuate the provisions
of Sections 5~1 through 5.3, inclusive, Pec1arant may enter any
Lot whenever entry is necessary in connection with the performance
of any maintenance or construction which ,Declarant is authorized
to undertake. Entry shall be made with as little inconvenience to
an Owner as practicable and only after reasonable advance written
notice of not less than twenty-'four (24) hours, except in
emergency situations. '
:,
5.6 DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION TO RESIDENCES AND/OR LOTS: If any
improvements on a Lot are damaged or destroyed by fire or any
other calamity, the insurance proceeds, shall be paid to the Owner
of the Residence or the mortgagees ,the~eof, as their respective
interests may appear, and such Owner or mortgagee shall use said
proceeds to rebuild or repair the daniage., In the event that the
insurance proceeds are insufficient, to complete such rebuilding or
repair, the Owner shall pay in advance such additional sums as may
be necessary to complete such rebuilding or repair., In the event
said Owner does not commence such rebuilding or repair within a
reasonable time, the Project Architectural Committee and/or any
Lot Owner may bring appropriate legal action to compel the Owner
to perform such rebuilding or repair. All plans and
specifications for the reconstruction, repair or rebuilding of any
damaged or destroyed improvements ,shall be submitted to and
approved by the Project Architectural Committee pursuant to
Article VI prior to the commencement of any such work.
5.2
ill'). lac
.. > .-"
" 7'Q>4ir
. ".J. .
I / () rJI--,
f.J
L I
i;
i!
.r,...
. ~ I
'5
ARTICLE VI
PROJECT ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE
6.1 ORGANIZATION: There shall" be' a 'Project Architectural
Committee consisting of th~ee (3) persons. There shall also be
one alternate member who may be designated by the Comm~ttee to act
as a substitute on the Committee in the event of the absence or
disability of any member. "
1
6.2 DESIGNATION OF MEMBERS AND TERMS OF OFFICE:
6.2.1 Initial Members: 'The :initial members of the
project Architectural Committee shall be appointed prior to the
conveyance of the first Lot to a 'Public', Purchaser and by the
Declarant under the Master Declaration. Declarant shall have the
power to appoint two (2) of the initial members of the Committee,
and the Declarant under the Master Declaration shall have the
power to appoint one (l) of the' initial members. Such
designations shall be reflected by recordation of a Notice of
Appointment of Project Architectural Committee, which notice shall
specify the names and addresses of each' Member of the Committee,
the term of each Member, and the principal address of the'
Committee for the purpose of giving Notices. Declarant shall
designate one member to serve a term of "one (1) year and one
member to serve a term of two (2) years. ;: The Declarant under the
master Declaration shall appoint one member to serve a term of
three (3) years from the date of appointment. The alternate
member shall serve a term of three (3) years and shall be a person
mutually agreeable to Declarant and'the Declarant under the Master
Declaration. Thereafter, the terms'of,all Project Architectural
Committee members appointed shall be three (3) years. Any new
member appointed to replac~ a member who has resigned or been
remov~d shall serve for 'the unexpired term of the member whom he
has replaced. Members who have resigned, been removed or whose
terms have expired, may be reappointed~ however, no person shall
serve as a member of the Project Architectural Committee, either
as a regular or alternate member, for a period in excess of six
(6) years in any ten year period.
6.2.2 Appointment and Removal: Until such time as the
Lot OWners other than Declarant own, ninety percent (90%) or more
of the Lots within the Project, the right to appoint and remove
two (2) members of the Project Architectural Committee shall be,
and is hereby, vested solely in Declarant unless prior to said
time Declarant waives its rights hereunder by notice in writing to
the Lot Owners~ provided, however, one (1) year after the closing
of the first sale of a Lot in the Project, a majority of the Lot
Owners shall have the right to appoint one of such two members to
the Committee. The right of the Declarant under the Master
Declaration to appoint one (1) member to the Committee shall exist
until the date upon Which said Declarant under the Master
Declaration no longer owns at least twenty percent (20%) of
'.
6.1
.'::o:.t
',. .J
"
..,
" .1
i' "
\ ,
v ' , i:
/ / 1 0)--. I ':,: ~ 1
CJ '
'.
</':"..",
Residential Lots or Condominiums in anyone of Villages ~ through
VII, as designated on Exhibit "A" to the Master Declaration. When
Declarant or the Declarant under the Master Declaration waives or
no longer has the right to appoint and remove the members of the
Committee, said rights shall be vested solely in the Lot OWners.
acting by majority vote. Exercise of the right of appointment and
removal, as set forth herein, shall be, evidenced by the.,
recordation of a Notice of 'Appointment of Architectural committee
specifying each new Committee member.or'alternate member appointed
and each member or alternate replaced or removed from the Project
Archi tectural Coromi ttee. . I""
, ,
"; '>'
'I . ~
the
the
Lot
6.2t.~ Resignations:' Any:member or alternate member of
project Architectural Committee may at any time resign from
Committee upon written notice,delivered to Declarant or to the
Owners, whichever then has the right to appoint members.
" . ~ . I
6.2.4 Vacancies: Vacancies;: on the project
Architectural Committee ( howevercaused,shall be filled by the
Declarant, the Declarant under the Master Declaration, or the Lot
OWners, whichever th:n has the powe~ to appoint members.
6.3 DUTIES; It shall be, the duty of the Project
Architectural Committee to consider" a~d act upon proposals or
plans submitted to it pursuant to the terms hereof, to adopt
Project Architectural Committee Rules, to perform other duties
delegated to it by a majority of the, Lot Owners, and to carry out
all other duties imposed upon it by this Declaration.
, ,
6.4 MEETINGS: The proj ect Architectural Committee shall
meet from time to time as necessary to properly perform its duties
hereunder. The vote or written consent of any two (2) members
shall constitute an act by the Committee unless the unanimous
decision of its members is otherwise required by this Declaration
or the Rules. The Committee shall keep and maintain a record of
all actions taken by it at ,such meeting or otherwise.
'.
to.,
6.5 PROJECT ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RULES: The Project
Architectural Committee may, from time to time and in its sole
discretion adopt, amend and repeal, by unanimous vote, rules and
regulations to be known as "Project Architectural Committee
Rules." Said Rules shall interpret and implement the provisions
hereof by setting forth the standards and procedures for project
Architectural Committee review and guidelines for architectural
design, placement' of buildings, landscaping, color schemes,
exterior finishes and materials and similar features which are
recommended for use in the project; provided, however, that said
Rules shall not be in derogation of the minimum standards required
by the Project Documents. '
"
6 ~ 6 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENTS: Any Owner,
except the Declarant and his designated agents, proposing to
perform any work of any kind whatever which requires the prior
6.2
~/29/86
~ .
o:'J'
. 0'
, i
! \,
.. ,:
/ / ;;;~
:;0
!/
.;: .. \
"
approval of the Project Archi te~tural ' dommi ttee pursuant to
Article IV, or any other section of this Declaration, shall apply
to such Committee for approval bY', notifying the Project
Architectural Committee of the nature of the proposed work in
wri ting and furnishing such information' as the Committee may
reasonably require.;' "
6.7 BASIS FOR APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENTS: The Project
Architectural Committee shall grant ,the requested approval only
if: ' '
, .
(al ~ The Owner shall have complied with the provisions
of Section 6.6 ~above;
, , ... . ~,
(b) The Project Architectural Committee shall find
that the plans and specifications conform to this Declaration and
to the Project Architectural Committee Rules in effect at the time
such;plans were submitted to such Committ~e;
(c) The members of the Project Architectural Control
Committee in their sole discretion determine that the proposed
improvements would be compatible with the standards of the Project
and the purposes of this Declaration as to quality of workmanship
and materials, as to harmony of external design with the existing
structures, and as to location with respect to topography' and
finished grade elevations, and ,
6.8 APPROVAL BY DECLARANT UNDER MASTER DECLARATION:
Notwithstanding the rights and duties, of the Project Architectural
Control Committee as set forth in this Article VI, 'all plans and
specifications for the construction of single family homes, or
Residences in the Project, whether to be constructed by one or
more Owners or by the Peclarant shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Declarant under the Master Declaration, pursuant
to the terms and,condition~ of the Master Declaration.
'6.9 FORM OF APPROVAL: All approvals given under Paragraph
6.7 shall be in writing; provided, however, that any request for
approval which has not been rejected within thirty (30) days from
the date of submission thereof to the Project Architectural
Committee shall be deemed approved.
6.10 PROCEEDING WITH WORK: Upon receipt of approval from the
project Architectural Committee pursuant to paragraph 6.9 above,
the Owner shall, as soon as practiCable, satisfy all conditions
hereof and diligently proceed-with the commencement and completion
of all construction, reconstruction, ,refinishing, alterations and
excavations pursuant to said approval, said commencement to be in
all cases wi thin one (1) year from the date of 'such approval. If
the Owner shall fail to comply with:this,Paragraph, any approval
given pursuant to Paragraph 6.8 above shall be deemed revoked
unless the project Architectural Committee, upon written request
of the Owner made prior to the expiration of said one (1) year
period, extends the time for such commencement. No such extension
shall be granted except upon a" finding by the Project
6.3
o,/")o/nr
~::i:;;
. .'
I',
.."
1/-:::'" ::) I (I'
',..
.t:""
Architectural Committee that there has been no change in the
circumstances upon which the original approval was granted.
6.11 FAILURE TO COMPLETE WORK: The Owner shall in any event
complete the construction, reconstruction, refinishing, or
alteration of any such improvements 'within one (1) year after
commencing construction the~eof, except and for so long as such
completion is rendered impossible or would result in great
hardship to the Owner due tb strikes, fires, national emergencies,
natural calamities or other supervening ,forces beyond the control
of the Owner or his Agents~ If an OWner fails to comply with this
Paragraph, th~ Project Arcnitectura1Committee shall notify the
Owner of such l failure, and the Committee shall proceed in
accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 6.12 below as though
the failure to complete the improvement ,were a non-compliance with
approved plans. ' '
6.12 INSPECTION OF WORK: In'spection' of work and correction
of defects therein shall proceed as follows:
"
6.12.1 Upon the completion of' any construction or
reconstruction or the alteration or refinishing of the exterior of
any improvements, or upon the completion of any other work for
which approved plans are required under this Article, the OWner
shall give written notice thereof to the Project Architectural
Committee.
6.12.2 Within sixty (60) days thereafter the Project
Architectural Committee, or its duly authorized representative,
may inspect such improvement to determine whether it was
constructed, reconstructed, altered or refinished in subst~ntial
compliance with the approved plans. If the Project Architectural
Committee finds that such construction, reconstruction, alteration
or refinishing was not done in substantial compliance with the
approved plans, it shall notify the OWner in writing of such
non-compliance within such'sixty (60) day period, specifying the
particulars of non-compliance, and shall require the OWner to
remedy such non-compliance.
6.12.3 If upon the expiration of thirty (30) days from
the date of such notification, the Owner shall have failed to
remedy such non-compliance, the Project Architectural Committee
shall notify the Owner in writing of such failure. The Committee
shall then set a date on 'which a hearing before the Committee
shall be held regarding the alleged non-compliance. The hearing
date shall be not more than thirty (30) days nor less than fifteen
(15) days after notice of the non-compliance is given to the Owner
by the Project Architectural Committee. Notice of the hearing
date shall be given at least ten (10) days in advance thereof by
the Committee to,the Owner and, in the discretion of the Board, to
any other interested party.
6.12.4 At the hearing, the' Owner, the Project
Architectural Committee and, in the Committee's discretion, any
other interested person, may present information relevant to the
6~4:
8/29/86
.:'..;;.,t
" "
. ':..
} - ~, ': :
to
/1 t-f 0'b
r I
1:...
..
question of the alleged non-compliance. After considering all
such information, the Committee shall determine whether there is a
non-compliance and, if so, the nature thereof and the estimated
cost of, correcting or removing the same. If a non-compliance
exists, the Committee shall require the Owner to remedy or remove
the same within a period of not more than forty-five (45) days
from the date of the Committee's ruling~' I f the Owner does not
comply with the Committee'.s ruling ,within such period or within
any extension of such period as the Committee, in its discretion,
may grant, the Committee, at its ,option; 'and at the expense of the
owner, may either remove the non-complying improvement or remedy
the non-comp~ianc~~ '
l : ~','
:. :~:
6.12.5 I f for any reasdn~, th~i: proj ect Archi tectur al
Committee fails to notify the Owner, of: any non-compliance within
sixty._ (60) days after receipt of said notice of completion from
the OWner, the improvement shall be: deemed to be in accordance
with ,said approved plans. '
, ,
6.13 APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY' HEARING: Any Owner
proposing to construct improvements requiring the prior approval
of the Project Architectural Committee may apply to the Committee
for preliminary approval by submission of preliminary drawings of
the proposed improvements in accordance wi th the proj ect
Architectural Committee Rules. The purpose of the preliminary
approval procedure is to allow an Owner proposing to make
substantial improvements an opportunity to obtain guidance
concerning design considerations before expending substantial sums
for plans and other exhibits required to apply for 'final approval.
Applications for preliminary approval shall be considered and
disposed of as follows:
6.13.1 Within thirty (30) days after proper application
for preliminary approval, the Project Architectural Committee
shall conside;r and act :upon such request. The Project
Arch:j..tectural Committee' shall' gran:t the, approval only if the
proposed improvement, to the extent its nature and characteristics
are shown by the application, would be, entitled to a final
approval on the basis of a full and complete application. Failure
of the Project Architectural Committee to act within said thirty
(30) day period shall constitute an approval. In granting or
denying approval, the project Architectural Committee may give the
applicant such directions concerning the form and substance of the
final application for approval as it may deem proper or desirable
for the guidance of the applicant.
. '~
6.13.2 Any preliminary approval granted by the project
Architectural Committee shall be effective for a period of ninety
(90) days from the date of issuance. Durin'g said period, any
application for' final approval which consists of proposed
improvements in accordance with the provisions of the preliminary
approval, and which is otherwise acceptable under the 'terms of
this Declaration, shall be approved by the Project Architecture
Committee.
6.5'
8/29/86
~.;J
. "
I I 'I
"
.;::....
.1 J t....-:-' .. "';.
f i '-" '
- .;
L/
j.~' ,
6.13.3 In no event shall any preliminary approval be
deemed to be an approval authorizing construction of the subject
improvements. (:
6.14 WAIVER: The approval by the, Project Architectural
Committee of any plans, dr~wings or specification for any work
done or proposed, or for any other 'matter requiring the approval
of the Project Architectural Committee under this Declaration,
shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any right to
withhold approval of any similar plan, 'drawing, specification or
matter subsequently submitted for approval.
, ,"',
I '
6.15 ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE: , within thirty (30) days after
written demand is delivered to, the Project Architectural Committee
by any Owner, and upon payment to:theproject Association of a
reasonable fee (as fixed from time '.to time by the Architectural
Committee) the Project Architectural Committee shall record an
estoppel certificate, e~ecuted by any two (2) of its members,
certifying (with respect to any Lot of said Owner) that as of the
date thereof either: (a) all improvements made and other work done
upon or within said Lot, comply with the restrictions contained in
this Declaration, or (b) such improvements or work do not so
comply in which event the certificate. shall also identify the
non-complying improvements or work and set forth with
particularity the basis of such non-compliance. Any purchaser
from the Owner, or from anyone deriving any interest in said Lot
through him, shall be entitled to rely on said certificate with
respect to the matters therein set forth, such matters being
conclusive as between the Committee, Declarant and all OWners and
such persons deriving any interest through them.
'6.16 LIABILITY: Neither Declarant, Declarant under the
Master Declaration, nor the Project Architectural committee nor
any of its members shall be liable to any Owner for any damage,
loss or prejudice suffered or claimed on account of: (a) the
approval or disapproval of any plans', drawings and/or
specifications, whether or not defective, or (b) the construction
or performance of any work, whether or not pursuant to approved
plans, drawings and specifications; or (c) the development of any
property within the Project, or (d) the execution and filing of an
estoppel certificate pursuant to Section 6.15, whether or not the
facts therein are correctf provided~ however, that such member has
acted in good faith on,the basis of , such information as may be
possessed by him. Without in any way limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Project Architectural Committee, or any member
thereof, may but is not required to, consult with or hear the
views of any Owner with respect to any plans, drawings,
specifications or any other proposal submitted to the Project
Architectural Cqrnrnittee,
6.17 COLOR COMPATIBILITY: The colors of the exterior
surfaces and roofs of all improvements constructed on Lots 3B
through 63, inclusive and 9B-14S, inclusive, shall be compatible
with the natural surroundings of the scenic corridor of the Open
Space Parcels described in the Master Declaration. Such colors
6.6
.~;.~.
-. .)
! '
~,...
'i~~~".: " ,
....
. ....
. ...'-'.~...,
';',i~:.(
, ,~~,
'"
'.: .: i;t " : f. ~,f
II ;
.' : .'
Ii
.,
'{)
shall be as established or approved by the City in its review of
the improvements to be constructed :,on said Lots during the City's
Site Review process. ~o other colors shall be subsequently used
in any repainting, refinishing or reroofing of such improvements
without the prior approval of the ,Cityi. This section is made
expressly for the benefit of the City which shall have the right,
but not the obligation to enforce its terms.
,
i
"
, ,-
; H'
i ",' r1
, ; t: h
H'
':i:::
.1 '",
:1
.,
,Ci ::,:~ttl:::: ~, " !:
6 ~ 7: ,
t '~. ,~ .
" F.
, , ,.i
I
,J'
~ '
8/29/86
.1.:_,
... SF
~!:'~t
. .J .
,jJ/,
/ / I ell; I L,t
f ,
,-,../
.
'"
,r,:-
--:;1'
.. ,
,.1'.
ARTICLE VII
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
7.1 LIMITATIONS OF RESTRICTIONS: Declarant is undertaking
the work of developing Re~idences" Lots' and other Improvements
within the Project. The completion-of, the development work and
the marketing and sale, rental and other disposition of the Lots
is essential to the ~stablishment ,and welfare of the Project as a
residential ~ommunity, In order that, the work may be completed
and the Proje6t be established as'~ fully occupied residential
community as rapidly as possible,' 'nothing in this Declaration
shall be interpreted to deny Declarant the rights set forth in
this Article. ',; ,
" ...,,,: :0'
. 7 . 2 RIGHTS OF ACCESS AND' COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION:
Declarant, its contractors and subcontractors shall have the right
to;
"
, 7.2.1 Do wi thin any Lot owned by it whatever is
reasonably necessary or advisable' in ,connection with, the
completion of the Projectl
"
7.2.2 Erect, construct and maintain on any part or
parts of the Project, including property, if any, annexed thereto,
such structures as may be reasonably necessary for the conduct of
its business to complete the work, establish the 'project as a
residential community and dispose of the Project in parcels by
sale, lease or otherwise.'
7.2.3 Conduct on any part of the Project, including
property, if any, annexed thereto, its business of completing said
work and o~ establishing ~he Project as a residential community
and ,of disposing of the Project in .parcels or Lots by sale, lease
or otherwise, and
7.2.4 Maintain signs on any portion of the Project as
may be necessary for the sale, lease or disposition thereof.
7.3 SIZE AND APPEARANCE OF PROJECT: Declarant shall not be
prevented .from changing the exterior appearance of the landscaping
or any other matter 'directly or indirectly connected with the
Project in any manner deemed desirable by Declarant, if Declarant
obtains governmental consents required by law.
,
,
7.4 MARKETING RIGHTS:
t \ ,
7.4.1' Generally: Subjec't to the limitations of this
Section, Declarant shall have the' right, to: (i) maintain model
homes, sales offices, storage areas: and related facilities in any
unsold Lots within the Project as .~e,necessary or reasonable, in
the opinion of Declarant, for the sale or disposition of the Lotsl
and (ii) conduct its business of disposing of Lots by sale, lease
or otherwise. , ':~'
7.'1
';;,'
'B/29/fHi
r
~
. . .
, t,
,~
., ,...,:':,
.;~'
'. -.. <
. : J
II .c;-(, \'i I ':''' L
J G ,""0 .,..
,e..
it. I .
f? utI &/~ l~ I( 1
~ ',.
ARTICLE VIII,,'
MISCELLANEOUS 'PROVISIONS
),,:' .f
," :. ~ .
B.l RIGHTS OF CITY:: The City of , Dublin is hereby granted
the right, but not the duty, to enter" upon the Project, after
reasonable notice to the affected:pwner(s) and opportunity for a
hearing, to make or cause to be ma~e any repairs or engage in any
maintenance necessary to abate any' nuisances, health or safety
, , ""
hazards, or .where approprJ..ate, to assess' the Lot Owners for any
such repair or maintenance" '\':: '"
i cr 1 Decl~on T~~1l0Fco~:f~:'r;o~~~~~~~f1:r~v~:~n~f O;if;:iiso)
~p~~t years from the date of recordation,of this Declaration( thereafter
~ this, Declaration shall be automatically' extended for successive
periods of ten (10) years, until a vote of seventy-five percent
(75%) of the Lot Owners shall determine that this Declaration
shall terminate.
B.3' AMENDMENTS: After the conveyance of title to the first
~ Lot, this' Declaration may be amended by a vote or written consent
f, of record Lot Owners constituting 'not~es5 than seventy-five
percent (75%) of all Lot Owners 'other ,than Declarant. Said
amendment shall be effective upon the recordation in the Office of
the Recorder of the County in which ,the Project is situated of an
instrument in writing executed by' said Owners .in ,the manner
provided by law for the conveyance of real property and upon such
recordation such amendment shall be valid and binding upon all
'Owners of Lots in the Project, and,their successors in interest.
~
/1?
;r-
B.4 ENFORCEMENT; Any Lot Owner shall have the right to
institute such legal action as may be necessary to enforce the
terms, covenants and conditions of this Declaration, or to recover
damages from any other Owner(s) for a violation of the provisions
hereof. / lJ '.: m \./. /" r' .. ./' ~ r= n
/..;> &:i:/?5 70(/, <--q~?< ,,)~<- 1'1 Lovr'/ rOr rqrnaf)t?j
B.5 SUBORDINATION; A breach of .any of the conditions
contained herein or any reentry by reason of such breach, shall
not defeat or render invalid the lien'of any mortgage or deed of
trust made in good faith or for: value on any Lot, or any part
thereof, but said conditions shall<be 'binding upon and effective
against any Owner of said Lot whose title thereto is acquired by
foreclosure, trustee's sale ,or o1=-he,rwise'(
B.6 CONSTRUCTION OF PROVISIONS: The provisions of this
Declaration shall be liberally construed to effect its purpose of
creating a uniform plan for the development and operation of the
Project. Failure to enforce any :provision hereof shall not
constitute a waiver of the right to enforce said provision or any
other provision hereof.
'~ '
B.l,
, 3/30/86
: / () I
I, I - "'''''
, ".,.)
,11
r,~ -,
....-.;....~
- -: ',1' -
... .......
11 /~
I '
. ' ,
- J
~"
t' ,,;',
~
~;
7r
8.7 BINDING: This Declaration shall be for the benefit of
and shall be binding ,upon all Lot Owners, their respective heirs,
legatees, devisees, executors, ,administrators,: guardians,
conservators i successors, purchas~rs" lessees, encumbrancers,
donees, grantees, mortgage~s, lienors and assigns. '
'. "0.." . , ' j, i?:;; , -: ':." ,
'8.8 SEVERABILITY OF" PROVISIONS: ; The provisions hereof
shall be deemed independent ,and, severable; the invalidity or
unenforceability of any ope provi'sion 'shall not affect the
validity or ~nforceability of. any o,,~er provision hereof.
l . -1\'; ,:,!.
8 .9 GENDER, NUMBER AND CAPTIONS:-': As used herein the
singular shall include the plural 'and the masculine shall include
the feminine. The titles and captions of each paragraph hereof
are not a part 'hereof and shall:not affect the construction or
interpretation of any part hereof ~"; , " ,
IN WITNESS WHEREOf, the undersigned Declarant has executed
the within Declaration the day and,year first above written.
DECL~T
~:>~f;!r.: . l ~.'
'AHMANSO~ DEVELOPMENTS, INC., a
Caiifornia corporation
.-~
C-,,6 t/ P :[:? (z;..-
Agent
~
. .~
."~
",
""1
.,.;" ,
9/5/86
8.2
--:r-
N
----
;()
C,',
,~
(0
,~
"""
~rpil
~elay~
whicl\ she runs with help from
her daughter-in-Ia\v, but she did-
n't have a permit to allow more
children.
"I want to expand," she said.
"I have a good program, and par-
ents come to me, but I can't take
them. "
But Mayor Janet Lockhart
steppe(i in on hetl,lehalf, and
gave YClf9shevskayaa call; Lock-
hart toler her she wanted to ap-
peal the commission decision
and have it heard before the
cmmcil.'
"She Called me all by herself,"
said Yafoshevskaya, who emi-
grated from Russia 10 years ago.
She said she Was shocked that
the maY(i)r wanted to talk to her,
.;PLE'A$AN'roN:
18-y~ar-ol~ says she w~,
raped by family friend; ,
feared she couldn't care,
for child, police say
By Eric Kurhi
TIMES STAFF WRITER
A Livermore woman whojj
lice say killed her newq~
daughter this month hadhet'
raignment ppstponed two m(
weeks. f
Carmen (1atica Gil, 18, 'W
scheduled to'enter a plea in cOl
Wednesday, but the public G
fender requested more time
review the c~se.
The publtc defender's offi
previously was unsure whetb
it could take the case because
reasons it wouldn't disclose.
According to police, Gilsa'
the baby wa~ conceived when
family friend raped her in Me;
ico, Police said Gil told invest
gators she thought the bat
W'oqtd be better off dead i.)ecaw
she 'could not provide for her an
the family would be shamed.
Uvermore police said ~e;
day that they cannot inyestigat,
the rape accusation because j
did not occur within their juris
diction.
"That would be up to official:
in Mexico to pursue," said Div
ermore police Chief Steve Kru~
Gil, who moved to Livermore
\ . SUSAN TRIPP POLLARQ
CHILDREN at Miss Dina's Qaycare and BreschOoll'lap in the front room wrile Dina Yaroshevskaya checks on;1hem Wednesday.
Neighbors opJH)s~.bigger dJlycare
III DUBUN: Mayor helps
businesswoman appeal
councirs decision not to
grant her e"Pansion from
six children to 12
By Sophia Kazmi
'nMK<; STAFF WRffER
It's Miss Dina'versus the
neighborhood,
Dina Yal"ash~kaya, who. op-
erates Miss DiJ:1a's Daycare and
Preschool from !;ler Crossridge
Road harlle, -Wants to increase
the num~,~: af children inh~r
care ITamSlX to. 12. l
But sanl~ 20 neighbors COrl-
cerned with the expansion have
complained tt) City Hall. They
don't want to. see the numhAl.., jn_
neig~bor'sbusiness.
"It's a five-day-a-week busi-
nessfor as long as you live here,"
Trumbo said.
Far a while, it loa ked like the
neighbors might have won. Ear-
lier this manth, when the permit
to anow Yarpshevskaya to. have
tip to 14 children in her daycare
was up before the city's Planning
Catntrlissian, it was defiied by a
3-2 vote.
YlU'oshevskaya moved to. the
neighborhaod in October. A
teacl)er for 40 years, most of it
,spent in her native Russia, she
wanted to apen her own schoal.
Jt is a way to. giVe bacts:ta a coun-
try that ha&helpedh~r, she said.
' $h~ said other parents had ex-
pressed an interp.I'lt in h......"'l~~
creased because more children
means more traffic - With mare
paren~ dropping off and picking
up their children "'- and mare
noise on the quiet street in north
Dubltn.
La,try Trumbo, who. lives next
daor,. is Opposed to the expan-
sion. He said a look in the tele-
phone book shows there are
plenty of daycare centers in the
area, and he doesn't see the need
tn 'OA.rJ' __......:.. ,-11" 'II
Friend tes1
FROM p,..JE 3
Part of the project includes re-
placing old sound wans along
both sides of tpe freeway in
Danville, ..
'<" '_ Commutersd9 not seem too
l- concerned by the hubbub. '
;_ "It really doesn't bother Jne at
n all," said Charlie Koehler of Con-
Ie cord. He said he commutes to
,d work in San R~mon via 1-680
during the wee; haurs .of the
19 morni~~. "I've 40ti<::ed there's
a- been constructian, but I haven't
paid much attention to it."
er "1 noticed the lanes on the
an freeway were shifted,," said..paul
ed Peterson of Pleasant Uill, a com-
ler muter who works in San, Raplon.
ity "Traffic stillbaqks up like it was
ars before the constrilction lirtarted."
The impactti~ the lane!! has
QC- beet). IIlinitIlal cOIllpared to other
om projects, AnU:a saId.
,rth Drivers have expressedi con-
he cern thatthe on..ramps are,more
igh- dangerous during constru<,ttion.
"The lane merging .onto the
w a freeway on CrowCanyo~ is very
:her narrow now," sai<J:,Kelly J;lostwick
l1Jllg of Dublin. "It's scary, especially
)out
Yeax:'
~~i- Daycare
I
-. l-
()-
,.-'",
\.
and
dm,"
10 to
is-ex.-
~d,
ment.
kechi
I gun-
d,and
chest.
rept as
BXatrii-
,bullet
It ' t11e
ooWing
ime,:'-
~~
'. ; MtC lU., lANEWS
VEHICLES travell:lIOngnort~bouMlnterstate 660 in Danvm~,
at night." ,'1
"It seems like the constJ:'4~on
is causing Jnore bac~~ups ()~ city
streets as people try to get~bnto
the freeway/, said Susan,ost-
wick of Dublin. ?
Usa Bobadilla, San R~on's
transportation lllanager,\& said
there have been very few.!Fom-
, 1t
plaints of any effectqn city
streets.
For deta.i.l$ on the a\Qliliary
laneS, call thehotline at~~5-300-
7107 or,e-maU i680@ccta~net.
MediaNews writer Reb<<pt:a F:
Johnson contributed to tijis
story,
Livermore
WUSSINCSQ1flL FOUND:
police n::ported Wedn~day that
a missing l+-year-old Uver-
more girl paS been found.
The girlwas found on Inter-
national Boulevard in oakland
and is in good physical condi-
tion, according to a police news
release.
Chelsey Dias-George had
been missing since early Satur-
day,.when sh~ was last seen by
her friend!! gettin.ginto a car
with a young mMeteen about 4
a.m. on International Boulevard
and 12th AVenue itl Oaklanp.'
The three girls had spent
Friday night in Oakland after
being picked up at I.iv~rmore
Hi~h School about 3 p.m. by an
adult male who gave them a
ride. '
police alerted the/mema to
the girl's diSa.ppearance be-
ca\1seof h~rrisky behavior. Po-
lice said th~ girl had never run
away befote.
~ $Qphia Kazmi .
nanllez to14 inve~Q.g;;uJ,J''' ma.
he was respon~ible fOl thr l:l
crimes and that he inte~Lded t
haVe s~ with each j)f the vic-
tims.
Montalvo-Hernandez is at
Santa Rita Jail with hail set at
$75,000. He pled not guilty
Aug. 24 and is scheduled for a
pretrial hearing oct, 5.,,,
-frio "''''{
;.J
,t
~
Antitich
FUNERAL Si!TFOi\ FA.
THER OF $LAYIJlG VI~I"
AIELu,.-.oIlE(;K; The fattrel'
of murd~r vi<;:tim Katbleeil
.Aiello-I,.oreG\{, diedlastiVleek,
the day after a Contra'Colilta
County jury recommended~at
an Indian!!. d,rifter be executed
for hetmurder.
. '^ ~eral fpr Paul Aiello, 8~,
will be:,5aturday. He died Fri-
day aft~ra brief iUnesl>, accorq-
itlg to the AieU;p fcunUY. '
}he Was~gton resigent
was in C(jntrllCostaCQun~.at-
tenping the triMof hisd,~ugl;l-
t~r1s kUler,~obert Frazier, whO
v;rils convict~d qf killing Aiello-
LQreck on May~3, 2003, dur-
il1g a'lunchtime;','o/alkon a pop-
Ular canal trail in concord.
AieUo, aforrller,J\ntioCh res-
ident,brought manyjqrQrs and
members of the aud,ieJl,ce to
tears when he testifieij. during
the penalty phaseaboufloSitlg
his "little doll."
After atte1;!.~ng nearly every
day of the trial, Aiello was hos-
pitalizeqthenigl;lt before ajury
recommended the death
'penalty for Frazi,er.
The former }@ltioch resident
is survived\>Yh1s w;ie, Helga;
children Loretta, Bill, LeQ, Sa-
rina'and,Joe; 12gt!afidchUdren;
and seven great-grandchildren.'
Acelebration of his life.wi1l
be from 2 to 5 p.m. Saturday at
the NewJ;lridge Marina Yacht
Club, 20 Fleming Lane, Anti-
och.
,~i
that the Plant:rlng corpmi~~ion's
decision would haye"a ~~gnifi-
~ant and material effe~t" on
Dublin's quality of life.'
Trumbo retorted: "~t's"going
to affect the quality of life for the
people in the neighborh()pdY
Any resident, includijpg the
council mem\>ers can fil~an ap-
peal to a l?lanningComWission
decision. Yaroshe~kaya $aid her
daycare rll~$. urider ~. strict
schedule. Children are}outside
for about-two hours fo~mostly
structured play. She said,;there is
some noise, but theY!1re not
"noblY" nor wildly ':fUnning
around when they ate (;l'utside:
As for traffic, she sEli,d if she
gets the permit, she would use
the garage, so parents would not
have topark on the street.
Liv~nnore
MA" .~_D$ JlQr
QUILTY r~ .1'TEMP'I'E'
RAPJ,~~UIlE .
CHARGES: A tiVe.rinore man
bas pleaded pot guU~ to '
charges that he attempted to
rapeon~ wOll;1an and~xposed
himself to another last Decem-
ber.
Daniel Montalvo-Hernan-
dez, 18, was arrested Dec. 15
after victims identified him in
surveilla~ce foot~e.
He is charged with grabbing
a 15-year-old girl near a bus
stop De~.~ witltthe intent of
~ $exu~y aSsl:\.ulting heF The girl
l>roke freeap,d got away.
The p.e}{tday, police say, he
approached a different WOlllan
Ul~ar theSafi1ebu!, stop on East
AVenue anl;l Charlptte WaY, par-
tiaUydisrobed atld masturbated
virus, That marked the mist West in front of her.
.. .".'_..i _....n^ .,t",mmlT\lt from
But neigh\>ofE:mma? Abad,
who is retired and who h~ lived
at h~r Cl'ossridgehom~ ,for the
last 18 year!>, said it's .:qot just
noise and, traffic; she,l'orries
about her property val\1~s, She
said having a daycar~ \pear a
home she wanted, to bti)lL would
be a turn-off for ber. ,;
Abad also added that if the
City C9uncil allows theexpan~
sion, it might set a ball, pr~cedent
for her nei~hb()rhood, . ,;. .
"We don't want any f)psiness
here," Abad said. "If you;let one
business here another\>psiness
!::8.n sliY. 'Why not me?'~' ,
FROM PAGE 3
let alone help her by writing the
appeal. ,
Lockhart saidithe city has al-
ways been in support ofllrovid':
ing daycare centers, especially in
neighborhoods. Spe appealed tl1e
Planning Cornmi~sion's decision
so the City Coun~il could take a
look at the isSllEl of neighb\Jrhood
daycare centeta.. which !t will
take \1p TuesdaYl.night, and also
becau$e the cOnlmission's vote
was close.
"lpersonaUy'elieve children
shoul4.f1of be Prl:t in daycare in
shoppirtg,centers and ware-
hous~i" LQckhatt said.
lp.~er .appeal,Lockhartwrote
,.. '~
Sophia ~zmicovel'S Duplin
and Castro Valley. Renel; her at
925-847-2122 or skazmi@
cctirites.com.
..t::~~;natt:J.~
I> __~:J
_ Kelli Phillips
-
~tv;\.- ~~
#',., ~
'I } ., II
"'lj'? Y P'-f""'"
...",..::.,::;-"" [---;-'\, ' 1r
t:'~,=,T../ t: ~ \.' 'c.. LI
(~,l-r\(
() lJ E~~ L i \\1
. "f..
L\ tJ l:'
',',~'.' ''',
,:', !
;. "". l".
August 15, 2006
r',.r'\"1 'l'ir:,!"UH:'~H'l,~ OF"('C:
...1~ t). Vl;l"~~~\:r..\,....t'.-~; ,'-' ~ ~//MO!'
Fawn Holman, City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Dublin Planning Commission Decision, P A 06-029
Miss Dina's Daycare Preschool Conditional Use Permit for a Large
Family Daycare (up to 14 children)
I wish to appeal the action of the Dublin Planning Commission of August 8,
2006, in the matter of the Miss Dina's Daycare Preschool Conditional Use
Permit.
My reason for the appeal is the presumption that the action of the Dublin
Planning CommissIon will have a significant and material effect on the
quality of life within the City of Dublin.
Regards,
0AL~ffi;:J
Janet Lockhart
Mayor, City of Dublin
cc: Richard Ambrose, City Manager
Jeri Ram, Community Development Director
ber=INltlo
Chapter 8.
,,,,~.~,,. ",. ':~. ~,;li" .. '." <
Skk ~ c~
Co~~j c~ Lf-~
(u~nJ (c..t;)
:;)0. G~. ~ca^
fern~ ~trntnC\ r-e.>
J ~:;2,
d....
" l
,:i '-.. ,t i
,.., I
. "-",,,'
e term Sexual Encountet Center shaH mean any business, agency or
lsideration or gratuity; provides a place where thtee or lnote persohs;
:amily, may congregate, assemble or associate for the purpose of
activities" or exposing "specified anatomical areas''; of any
\ substantially similar to the above by the Director of Community
ss Establishment.
(Y\~ J'~~, ~OOb V,5,tJ
he term Shopping Center shall mean a commercial development ort a
smgle parcel or contIguous parcels, containing five or more retail stores, service uses, ot other
tenants, where each have indiVidual entrances from a common public area such as a parking tot, tnatt
corridor or atrium, Also includes such commercial developments where individual tenant spaces are
subdivided as a commercial condominium, with parking and pedestrian circulation areas owned in
common,
I;
i
I
,;1
II
I
Single-Family Residence (use type). The term Single-Family Residence shall meatl a builditlg
designed for and/or occupied exclusively by one family, Also includes factory-built housing, tnodulat
housing, manufactured housing, mobile homes, and the rental of bedrooms within a single-family
dwelling to no more than four borders. A residence with mote than four boarders COhstitutes a
boarding house, which is included within the definition of "Multi-Family Residence".
Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facility (use type), The term Small-Scale Transfer and Storage
Facility shall mean facilities with wastestreamS small enough to be exempt from manifest tequirements
as described in California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Article 6. Wastes fro111 any
given generator must not exceed a total volume of five gallons or a total weight of 50 pounds. A
household hazardous waste collection facility is considered to be a small-scale transfet and storage
facility.
Small Family Day Care Home (use type), The term Small Family Day Care Home shall mean a
home which provides family day care to 8 or fewer children, including children under the age of 10
who reside in the home. A Small Family Day Care Rome shalt be considered a residential use of
property. No permits or business license are required.
;~,:~,r/t;:,:, .i\~1!':,',,;~.I.J Ar..'. The term Specified Anatomical Area, ,halltneall:
, 3th'!%,~'" ~~;{" '1:,7~
,fi~i;.~'<.<. ' ~.J"':'~','han completely and opaqttely covered human genitals or pubic region, buttock;
'. ;:.,;;)ffl,;,7;.'.)~5:'<:';;~r breast below a point immediately above the top of the areolae; and/or,
\;','~~,'(::?,.';fl;:,':\,.,','",.,,:,i;:,#.,.!'b male genitals in a discernible h1rgid state; even if completely and opaquely
:' ,;' . .,J~~~~:":,,'~Z~T::'I '
:..,-",,,,,.,,,,. I., i.u v 1.,1 cd,
Specified Sexual Activities. The term Specified Sexual Activities shall mean:
.~ a. Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal;
............. I
""~ity of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
8-26
I
September, 1997
Amended October 19; 2004
,
\'.
L.M.E,
53,0'
'"
'"
'=l
~...._..... ......,_:'- .-.....-.- .-...,.. .--...-.-.... ...--...!" ....... ,,'-'-' "''''- .-' ....-............
,
I
Backyard
,
, '"
,'''
;~
I
"
VI
""
q
33,0'
8,0'
VI
...
'=l
;,.,..... ,
21,0'
23.0'
Playground
...
'"
i::
6.0'
'"
'"
'"
, I r I --'
I f- 101.--1 {-- I () --I f- 10 - 'I
I I I
1 1
I (/' I @ I Q) I
I l!/ I I
I ~ I
I , I I
I I I
\ I I
r "1'--4 46.0' l- 71"-:-1
hp"Y,S'1Y\ !:.xF"":'\\ll""i
CROSSRIDGE RD
/dzJ 9J /;)!7i
i'
Site Plan
" --"--~--,.........
Proposed modification for
the 3 on-site loading spaces.
I
.......
N
RECEIVED
SEP 1 1 zooa
DUBLIN PLANNING
Attachment 5