SR 06:033 - Laserfiche WebLink

SUMMARY: The original application by the Thuse family was to expand the existing small family daycare to a large family daycare for up to 14 children. The Zoning Administrator referred the application to the Planning Commission due to the substantial amount of opposition by the applicant's neighbors, residents in neighboring developments, and by the members of the Homeowners Association. Staff felt that the conditions of approval mitigated the issues expressed by the opposition and, therefore, recommended approval. The Planning Commission took public comments and rendered a decision to deny the application based on traffic and safety concerns ( 4-1 vote). The applicant revised the application to request up to II children and appealed the Planning Commission's action to the City Council for a final determination. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: BACKGROUND Mrs. Megha Vilas Thuse, the owner and resident of 5276 Genovesio Drive, applied for a conditional use permit to expand her existing small family daycare (1-8 children, subject to limits and regulations imposed by the State Childcare Licensing Department) to operate a large family daycare home (up to 14 children). In accordance with the Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC), notices for the request were sent to surrounding neighbors. A Zoning Administrator hearing was requested due to concerns regarding traffic, noise, facility use, and the appropriateness of conducting a large family daycare in this high-density, small-lot, single-family residential area. Due to the quantity of public concerns, the Zoning Administrator referred the application to the Planning Commission. State laws allow the City to review and take action on requests for conditional use permits to operate large family daycares. The City has the authority to determine if a proposal meets the large family daycare requirements outlined in the Pleasanton Municipal Code including spacing between large family daycare facilities, traffic, parking, noise, and fire safety requirements. During the review of the project, staff communicated with the neighbors and the applicant regarding issues related to the daycare facility. Staff attempted to formulate a resolution to the concerns raised by the neighbors but was unsuccessful in reaching a compromise for the neighborhood. Additionally, staffs initial concerns of traffic and parking were resolved through conditions of approval that enabled staff to recommend approval of the request to the Planning Commission. The project was first scheduled for the June 22, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, but was continued due to a request for additional information by a Commissioner. The item was then heard at the July 13,2005 Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Commission took several public comments in opposition and heard from the applicant regarding the proposal. The SR:06:033 Page 2