Minutes_March 13, 2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

certain capacity and put legislation in place to ensure those uses are treated like single-family homes to help address community needs for child care. Chair Allen inquired how many large family daycares the City currently has in operation and whether any have ever been denied, and if so, what was the rationale. Mr. Beaudin responded that, according to the State's permitting system, the City currently has 17 large family daycares. He explained that the City has denied two large family daycare applications in the past, one of which resulted in a legal challenge; and one which was withdrawn following the denial. Assistant City Attorney Julie Harryman indicated that she was aware of two denials. She explained the first instance when City Council denied an application in 2005, which was appealed by neighbors, and the applicant sued. The City litigated and lost because the Judge disagreed with the traffic issues the neighbors had alleged; the applicant went on to open a large family daycare home for 14 children in 2005. She went on to explain that in 2014, one large family daycare went before the Planning Commission, which they denied based on legal factors. The applicant had proposed to use guest parking as a place for their patrons to drop- off and pick-up, which was seemingly distant from the residence with no sidewalk for parents to safely walk with their children. Based upon the Commission's denial, the applicant decided not to pursue the case further. Commissioner Ritter inquired when the court overruled the denial in 2005, whether it was based upon any findings. Ms. Harryman responded that local control is often discussed by the City and a particular set of Health and Safety codes has allowed for large family daycares. She said the State restricts the criteria for considering these applications to the certain areas identified in the agenda report, which include spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking and noise control. The State has restricted the City from identifying factors such as decreased property values or other similar areas of concern for neighbors. Based on this, she asked that the Commission stay within their purview based on the State statute. Commissioner Balch referred to the topic regarding traffic, referencing a one-way street that had been mentioned, and requested it be displayed on a map for visual reference. Ms. Soo displayed the map showing Vineyard Avenue, and pointed out Touriga Drive, which is a two-way street, Chardonnay Drive also a two-way street and Sauterne Way, which used to be a two-way street but is now restricted where people cannot exit onto Vineyard Avenue. She stated there is no physical barrier, but the street is striped, making it a street to enter onto, but there's no source to exit. Commissioner Brown asked for staff to further clarify the traffic route in this area. City Traffic Engineer Mike Tassano explained that from 2001 to 2003, Vineyard Avenue had a stop sign in place of the traffic signal on Montevino Drive, where the traffic begins to move uphill. Since there was a lot of congestion at the stop sign, drivers would often turn onto Touriga Drive and speed along Chardonnay Drive as a route to Sauterne Way, which exits Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 18 March 13, 2019