CCMIN100405 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Brozosky pointed out there is some confusion on what the City could regulate for family daycare centers between eight and 14 children. He asked if the City had any ability to regulate large family daycare centers between eight and 14 children, or is the City given certain criteria and not allowed to further refine or restrict the requirements of the State? Michael Roush, City Attorney, said the City has adopted a standard that states it will require a conditional use permit for these types of uses. In a memorandum to Council, he pointed out that with respect to deciding whether Council wanted to consider adopting a number somewhere between eight and 14 children, he laid out the risks, benefits and burdens involved in doing so that Council could take this into consideration if it decided to go down this road. Mayor Hosterman declared the public hearing open. Beverly McWilliams, appellant, said the neighborhood has been friendly and helped each other. There were traffic and safety issues before the Suttons wanted to expand their existing small daycare center into a large family daycare for up to 14 children. At the Planning Commission meeting, the neighbors offered to work with the Suttons to accommodate two of her existing clients that are pregnant and as mentioned in a flyer they distributed to the neighborhood. This offer was turned down and mediators with the City offered to assist the neighborhood to identify issues and suggest solutions, and the Suttons were unwilling to accept a compromise acceptable to all parties. She mentioned that 39 homes on Paseo Navarro signed a petition in opposition to the conditional use permil. Traffic continues to be a problem and the Sutton's customers are leaving their cars running when they drop of children and speeding around the two blind corners on Paseo Navarro, which is affecting the entire neighborhood. She asked Council to protect this neighborhood and keep it as safe as possible. Peter MacDonald, representing the applicants Doug and Patricia Sutton, said the applicants agree with the staff and Planning Commission recommendations in support of family daycare. He believed it was a mistake for the City to treat daycare providers the way in which it treats developers as it puts the daycare provider, the neighbors and the Council into a no-win position. He pointed out that the Statute states, "it is the intent of the legislature that family daycare homes with children should be situated in normal residential surroundings so as to give children the home environment, which is conducive to healthy and safe development." The Statute further states, "a city shall not prohibit large family daycare homes on lots zoned for single-family residential dwellings." Based on the Statutes, Council has three alternatives: (1) it can make it a permitted use; (2) make it a non-discretionary permit subject to objective standards; or (3) go through a use permit process, which he believed was mistake. He pointed out that 14 vehicle trips per day is the equivalent of two homes. Paseo Navarro is a street that has 45 homes and having a large family daycare is the equivalent of living on a street with 47 homes, and the impact of that type of increase in traffic would not affect property values. He noted that parents with children in their vehicles are generally regarded as safe drivers. This application amounts to no more than a three percent increase in traffic and there is no other street in Pleasanton where a facility of this type would have any more or less impact. Council cannot deny the application without making findings that an honest person would have a hard time making with a straight face. Beyond that, the legislature speaks about family values that he hoped Council shared. The people of this community need daycare and the best place to provide this type of service is in caring homes such as the Suttons. Patricia Sutton, applicant, spoke in favor of staff's recommendation as children come first. Pleasanton City Council 6 1 0/04/05 Minutes