6a - Laserfiche WebLink

as a Small Family Daycare home and would not allow for expansion. To take this action, the Commission would have to make findings regarding why the Small Family Daycare application could not be approved under State Law and the Municipal Code. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION State law dictates what cities may consider when reviewing an application for a conditional use permit for a large family day care home. Based on the analysis discussed above, staff believes that any potential impacts of the proposed large family day care home can be adequately mitigated through the attached conditions of approval and recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of the project. Primary Author: Jenny Soo, Associate Planner, 925-931-5615 or isoo(a�citvofpleasantonca.gov Reviewed/Approved By: Steve Otto, Senior Planner Ellen Clark, Planning Manager Julie Harryman, Assistant City Attorney Gerry Beaudin, Director of Community Development P18-0314, 3149 Chardonnay Drive Planning Commission 9 of 9 e. E. Fire Code Requirements. Large family daycare homes shall meet all regulations of the state fire marshal adopted as part of the California Administrative Code and relating specifically to large family daycare homes. California Health and Safety Code Section 13235 states that family day care homes must obtain a fire safety clearance by the local fire enforcing agency. Here, the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department conducted a pre-inspection and verified compliance as it relates to State law. Thus, staff does not believe there are any issues related to the Fire Code. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this application was sent to surrounding property owners within 1,000 feet of the site, as shown in Exhibit F. As previously mentioned, prior to the January 31 , 2019, the Zoning Administrator hearing, staff received email and/or phone correspondence in support and opposition to the proposed large family daycare home. The written correspondence is provided as part of Exhibit E. Staff will provide the Commission with any correspondence that may be received after the writing of this report. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This project is categorically exempt (Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities) from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, no environmental document accompanies this report. ALTERNATIVES Staff presents the following options for consideration by the Commission: 1 . Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Large Family Daycare Home subject to the conditions in Exhibit A. This option would allow the operation of the Large Family Daycare Home as approved by the Zoning Administrator; 2. Deny the appeal and approve the Large Family Daycare Home with conditions modified by the Commission. This option would allow the Commission to adjust the conditions of approval; 3. Uphold the appeal, therefore denying the proposed Large Family Daycare Home. This option would allow the existing Small Family Daycare home use to continue operating P18-0314, 3149 Chardonnay Drive Planning Commission 8of9 y do not contribute to the noise environment in a constant and continuous way that would support a Code Enforcement action. While one could imagine an extreme example of a situation where human voices would be considered to violate the Noise Ordinance (e.g., a stadium filled with people adjacent to a residential district, or loud recreational activities in the middle of the night), groups of children playing outside during daytime hours do not generally rise to the level of a violation because this P18-0314, 3149 Chardonnay Drive Planning Commission 7 of 9