Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReview Res 2015-06 Family Day Care Permit 14-188 - S. Clark - 74085 Fairway DriveCITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE USE PERMIT FOR A MAXIMUM OF 14 CHILDREN LOCATED AT 74-085 FAIRWAY DRIVE. THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PER SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1, EXISTING FACILITIES) OF CEQA GUIDELINES SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner APPLICANT: Samantha Clark 74-085 Fairway Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO: Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 DATE: January 22, 2015 CONTENTS: 1) City Council Staff Report dated January 8, 2015 2) Memorandum dated January 14, 2015 from Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer 3) Resolution No. 2015-06 Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2015- 2015-06 approving Large Family Day Care Permit 14-188, subject to: 1) Overturning the Planning Commission's conditions of approval related to provision of a van ferry from the Day Care Facility to Hope Lutheran Church or Washington Charter School; and 2) Overturning the Planning Commission's condition of approval limiting the dates and hours of operation, allowing the applicant to operate Monday through Friday year round from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and 3) Requiring that the applicant share 50/50 in the cost of constructing a new, ADA compliant sidewalk from the day care site to Portola Avenue. Resolution No. 2015-06 Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 2 of 4 January 22, 2015 Executive Summary At its last meeting, the City Council directed staff to investigate the legality of constructing a mid -block crossing, with associated lights and signage, to allow children attending a large family daycare center at 74-085 Fairway Drive to cross that street directly in front of that home. After studying the legality, technical feasibility, cost, and safety of such a mid -block crossing, staff recommends an alternative method of accomplishing the same goal, using methods that staff believes are safer and more cost effective. This staff report provides the answers to questions posed by members of the City Council, and explains the rationale behind the recommended alternative approach. Approval of staff's recommendation will approve Large Family Day Care Permit 14-188 subject to: • Overturning the Planning Commission's conditions of approval related to the hours of operation and to implementing a van ferry system. This will allow the applicant to operate Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. year round, and will obviate the need for purchasing and operating a special vehicle-, and • Requiring that the applicant share in the cost of constructing a new sidewalk from the day care site to Portola Avenue. Background In response to direct inquiry regarding the legality of installing a mid -block crosswalk to serve the Large Family Day Care operation proposed on Fairway Drive, staff consulted with the City Attorney who determined that such a crossing is, indeed, permissible. Such crossings have been installed in other cities, and have used several different types of painted street markings, signage, area lighting, and warning lights to increase the safety of the crossings. Ultimately, however, mid -block crossings remain inherently more dangerous than crosswalks at controlled intersections, regardless whether the controls be via traffic signals or stop signs. In light of the concerns for safety (see attached memorandum from Transportation Engineer Mark Diercks), several alternatives were studied for accomplishing the same goal: getting children between 74-085 Fairway Drive and Washington Charter School or Hope Lutheran Church. Each alternative was evaluated relative to the other alternatives based upon safety, cost of implementation, and degree of disruption or impact to neighbors and local traffic. XXsry f112k3XgroupstP1anning\Tony BagatotStan Reporls%arge Family Day Care Permits\ta-im M House\City CounanCCSR_Large Family Day Care Continued oocx Resolution No. 2015-06 Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 3 of 4 January 22, 2015 The alternatives and their relative merits are summarized on the following table: Method Safe Cost Neighborhood Impact Ferry by van (or other $30,000 plus vehicle) Highest operational Minimal costs Bus children to child care center on bus now serving YMCA. Highest $2,700 per Minimal (Availability of this option year not confirmed at time of report preparation.) Mid -block crossing with Lowest $35,000 Moderate striping, lights, si na e Walk east and cross at Lantana; move stop sign Moderate $1,000 High adverse impact from Black Rabbit to Lantana Add sidewalk and walk east to Lantana; move Above $22,000 Highest adverse impact stop sign from Black Moderate Rabbit Rd to Lantana Ave High Minimal Walk west to Portola Ave, (unchanged No Cost (unchanged from current crossing at all -way stop from current condition) condition) Modest improvement Add sidewalk and walk High (sidewalk improves safety west to Portola Ave, (improved $30,000 and property values in crossing at all -way stop over current general, but may draw condition) objections from some ro erty owners Staff recommends the last scenario (shaded above), in which the City and the applicant would share in the cost of adding a sidewalk on the south side of Fairway Drive between the day care site and Portola Avenue. This alternative is the only one that actually improves upon the pedestrian safety for the neighborhood, and is lower in cost than would be a mid -block crossing, which is inherently more dangerous. It also avoids setting a precedent; mid -block crossings are frequently requested by other private businesses that would similarly benefit from such an installation. If the City Council adjudges day care facilities to be in short enough supply as to warrant even greater assistance, they could reduce the amount of financial participation by the applicant that staff has recommended. 11srv-fii2k31groupslPianningtTony BagatolStaH ReportstLarge Fam, ly Day Care Perm15114-188 M House\City CounciRCCSR_Large Family Day Care Continued docx Resolution No. 2015-06 Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 4 of 4 January 22, 2015 Environmental Review The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity under the California Environmental Quality Ac proposed Large Family Day Care Use Permit CEQA analysis would be required for a project control measures. Fiscal Analysis as the lead Agency for this project t (CEQA), has determined that the is not a project subject to CEQA. involving new crosswalks or traffic The cost to install a sidewalk on the south side of Fairway Drive would be approximately $30,000 including design, permitting, and construction. Staffs recommendation is that the applicant be asked to pay for one half of this work, and that the Child Care Facilities Impact Mitigation Fee Fund be used to pay approximately $15,000 for the City's half of the work. Submitted By: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Department Head: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community D ment Review Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance \\sry fi12k3\groups\P1anning\Tony Bagato\Staff Repons\Large Fam,iy Day Care Permits\14-188 M House\City Council\CCSR_Large Family Day Care Continued docx CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner From: Mark S. Diercks, P.E., Transportation Engineer Date: January 14, 2015 Subject: Pedestrian Access to Proposed Large Family Daycare on Fairway Dr. As requested by the City Council at the January 8, 2015 meeting, Public Works staff has reviewed the pedestrian access to the proposed large family daycare at 74085 Fairway Drive. Subjects discussed herein include the legality of crossing Fairway Drive at a mid -block location and a discussion of providing pedestrian access to the daycare location. The Council raised the question if striping a mid -block crosswalk across Fairway Drive was legal. Public Works staff believes the action is. The section in the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) related to crosswalks read as follows: 10.72.010 Crosswalk marking. A. The city traffic engineer shall establish, designate and maintain crosswalks at intersections and other places by appropriate devices, marks or lines upon the surface of the roadway as follows: Crosswalks shall be established and maintained at all intersections within the central traffic district and at such intersections outside such district, and at other places within or outside the district where the city traffic engineer determines that there is particular hazard to pedestrians crossing the roadway subject to the limitation contained in subsection B of this section. B. Other than crosswalks at intersections, no crosswalks shall be established in any block which is less than four hundred feet in length and such crosswalk shall be located as nearly as practicable at midblock. C. The city traffic engineer may place signs at or adjacent to an intersection in respect to any crosswalk directing that pedestrians shall not cross in the crosswalk so indicated. (Ord. 36 § 9, 1974) Section 10.72.010 allows the Public Works Department to install mid -block crosswalks. Sections of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code pertaining to crosswalks are attached to this memo for reference. Fairway Drive Pedestrian Access January 14, 2015 Page 2 of 3 Several factors should be considered prior to installing a marked mid -block crosswalk including: Fairway Drive is designated as a Collector Street on the City of Palm Desert Traffic Circulation Network Map between Portola Avenue and Cook Street. The primary function of a collector street is to provide access from residential neighborhood streets (like Lantana Avenue and Black Rabbit Road), to secondary and arterial roadways (like Portola Avenue and Cook Street). Also, Fairway Drive is used by commuters as an alternate to driving on Highway 111, adding additional vehicular traffic on the roadway. • Mid -block pedestrian crossings are generally unexpected by drivers. If the mid -block crosswalk is installed, additional features to warn drivers of mid -block crossing pedestrians should be considered such as advance signing and pavement markings, rapid flashing beacons, and in -pavement lighted crosswalk markers. • The area does not have street lights and pedestrians crossing the street are hard to see during twilight and dark periods from late fall to early spring when children are leaving the facility. Sun glare and inclement weather conditions can also contribute to poor visibility between drivers and pedestrians. • The sidewalk along the north side on Fairway Drive is ADA compliant. As such, ADA access ramps will need to be constructed on both sides of the street in conjunction with the crosswalk installation. • On -street parking on the near -side approach to the crosswalk will need to be restricted to maximize the line of sight between crossing pedestrians and approaching traffic. • This would be the only marked mid -block crosswalk in Palm Desert. Installation of the crosswalk may spur other requests for new mid -block crossings. • In the last 10 years, vehicle -pedestrian crashes have accounted for 1.5% of all reported crashes in Palm Desert (93 vehicle -pedestrian crashes in 6,186 total crashes over 10 years). However, in the same 10 year period, vehicle -pedestrian crashes have accounted for 12.9% of severe injury crashes (16 crashes in 124 total crashes) and 22.2% of fatal crashes (4 crashes in 18 total crashes). Of the 93 vehicle -pedestrian crashes, 20.4% of the crashes occurred on two-lane, low -to -moderate speed roadways (19 crashes in 93 total crashes, 17 of which were injury crashes). • Mid -block crosswalks are usually considered at locations where there is high pedestrian volume/demand. The proposed mid -block crosswalk will only serve less than 40 pedestrians a day. • Previous studies have indicated that striped crosswalks may actually contribute to vehicle -pedestrian crashes by giving pedestrians a false sense of security. Fairway Drive Pedestrian Access January 14, 2015 Page 3 of 3 Should a mid -block crosswalk be installed on Fairway Drive at the proposed daycare facility, Public Works staff strongly recommends that additional warning treatments be installed in conjunction with the crosswalk. These improvements include: the installation of advance warning signs and markings; installation of warning signs at the crosswalk with solar powered, push button activated, rapid flashing beacons; and installation of solar powered in -pavement LED lighted crosswalk hardware. Installation of the complete mid -block crosswalk facility is estimated to cost approximately $35,000. Given the reasons previously stated, the Public Works staff does not support installation of a mid -block crosswalk. In our opinion, the best solution to provide safe access to the daycare facility is to cross Fairway Drive at Portola Avenue (an established all -way stop controlled intersection with existing marked crosswalks) and construct approximately 300 feet of sidewalk along the south side of Fairway Drive. Construction of the 6-foot wide sidewalk will require removal and relocation of some vegetation and reconfiguration of 4 driveway approaches. The estimated cost to construct the sidewalk improvements is $30,000. Excerpts from Palm Desert Municipal Code Related to Crosswalks and Pedestrians 10.04.020 Central traffic district. "Central traffic district" means all streets and portions of streets within the area described as follows: All that area bounded by Rancho Road and Deep Canyon Road, and the south side of El Paseo and the north side of a line extended along the right-of-way of Allesandro Drive to intersect with Deep Canyon and Ste. Rte. 74; also, the north side of Ste. Rte. 74 from El Paseo to Parkview Drive. (Ord. 36 § 1.2, 1974) 10.04.130 Police officer. "Police officer" means every officer of the police department of the city or any officer authorized to direct or regulate traffic or to make arrests for violations of traffic regulations. (Ord. 36 § 1.14, 1974) 10.16.020 Direction by unofficial persons. No person other than an officer of the police department or members of the police department or members of the fire department or a person authorized by the chief of police or a person authorized by law shall direct or attempt to direct traffic by voice, hand or other signal, except that persons may operate, when and as provided in this title, any mechanical pushbutton signal erected by order of the city traffic engineer. (Ord. 36 § 3.1, 1974) 10.72.020 When pedestrians must use crosswalk. No pedestrian shall cross a roadway other than by a crosswalk in the central traffic district or in any business district. (Ord. 36 § 9.1, 1974) 10.72.010 Crosswalk marking. A. The city traffic engineer shall establish, designate and maintain crosswalks at intersections and other places by appropriate devices, marks or lines upon the surface of the roadway as follows: Crosswalks shall be established and maintained at all intersections within the central traffic district and at such intersections outside such district, and at other places within or outside the district where the city traffic engineer determines that there is particular hazard to pedestrians crossing the roadway subject to the limitation contained in subsection B of this section. B. Other than crosswalks at intersections, no crosswalks shall be established in any block which is less than four hundred feet in length and such crosswalk shall be located as nearly as practicable at midblock. C. The city traffic engineer may place signs at or adjacent to an intersection in respect to any crosswalk directing that pedestrians shall not cross in the crosswalk so indicated. (Ord. 36 § 9, 1974) Excerpts from California Vehicle Related to Crosswalks and Pedestrians Crosswalks 275. "Crosswalk" is either: (a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street. (b) Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, there shall not be a crosswalk where local authorities have placed signs indicating no crossing. Official Traffic Control Signal 445. An 'official traffic control signal' is any device, whether manually, electrically or mechanically operated, by which traffic is alternately directed to stop and proceed and which is erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction. 21450. Whenever traffic is controlled by official traffic control signals showing different colored lights, color -lighted arrows, or color -lighted bicycle symbols, successively, one at a time, or in combination, only the colors green, yellow, and red shall be used, except for pedestrian control signals, and those lights shall indicate and apply to drivers of vehicles, operators of bicycles, and pedestrians as provided in this chapter. Unauthorized Traffic Devices 21465. No person shall place, maintain, or display upon, or in view of, any highway any unofficial sign, signal, device, or marking, or any sign, signal, device, or marking which purports to be or is an imitation of, or resembles, an official traffic control device or which attempts to direct the movement of traffic or which hides from view any official traffic control device. Amended Ch. 486, Stats. 1967. Effective November 8, 1967. Pedestrians Outside Crosswalks 21954. (a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the rightof-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard. (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway. Amended Ch. 1015, Stats. 1971. Operative May 3, 1972. 21955. Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk. 21956. (a) No pedestrian may walk upon any roadway outside of a business or residence district otherwise than close to his or her left-hand edge of the roadway. (b) A pedestrian may walk close to his or her right-hand edge of the roadway if a crosswalk or other means of safely crossing the roadway is not available or if existing traffic or other conditions would compromise the safety of a pedestrian attempting to cross the road. Local Regulation of Pedestrians 21961. This Chapter does not prevent local authorities from adopting ordinances prohibiting pedestrians from crossing roadways at other than crosswalks. RESOLUTION NO. 2015- 2015-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE USE PERMIT FOR A MAXIMUM OF 14 CHILDREN LOCATED AT 74-085 FAIRWAY DRIVE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS ATTACHED CASE NO: LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE USE PERMIT 14-188 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the day of , 2015, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the Samantha Clark, Applicant, for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City must determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, further environmental review is necessary. The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the lead Agency has determined that the Large Family Day Care Use Permit is not subject to CEQA. The application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 2014-41, in the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed project is a Class 1: Existing Facilities (15301) Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further review is necessary; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons, which are outlined in the staff report reasons to approve the said request: Based on the conditions of the permit, the Large Family Day Care home was found to be in compliance with the City's Zoning Ordinance and state law. 2. As conditioned, the Large Family Day Care home will not be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. As conditioned, the Large Family Day Care home will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 4. The Large Family Day Care home will not endanger the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMING, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings for approval of the City Council in this case. RESOLUTION NO. 2015- 06 2. That the City Council does hereby approve Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14- 188. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the day of 2015 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Susan Marie Weber, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA g \pianning\tony bagato\staff reportsuarge family day care permds\14-188 art house\cdy council\ccres large family day care - revised docx 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2015- 06 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO: LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE USE PERMIT 14-188 Department of Community Development: The development of the property shall conform substantially with the exhibit on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Operation of said project shall commence within one (1) year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. The days and hours of operation of the proposed Large Family Day Care home shall be Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 5. The day care staff shall ensure that the children obey all pedestrian rules, regulations, and laws, and shall walk with them to the Large Family Day Care home via the sidewalks on Fairway Drive and the marked crosswalk at Fairway Drive and Portola Avenue. The day care staff shall not cross the children mid -block on Fairway Drive, or stop traffic on any street as prohibited by Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 10.16.020, Direction by unofficial persons. 6. Applicant shall pay to the City one half of the design, permitting, and construction cost ("cost") of constructing a new, ADA-complaint sidewalk on the south side of Fairway Drive from Portola Avenue to the east property line of 74-085 Fairway Drive. Applicant shall pay to the City one half of Applicant's share of the cost before the work is performed, and the remaining one half of Applicant's share within 30 days of receipt of an invoice from the City upon completion of the work. The City will be responsible for design, permitting, and installation of the new sidewalk. 7. Applicant shall coordinate parent pick-up and drop-off of children such that no more than four vehicles arrive at or depart from the Large Family Day Care home within any 20-minute period. 8. The applicant shall demonstrate legal authority and control of the property before the business license is approved, and before the applicant can operate the day care as a Large Family Day Care home. 9. The day care shall comply with the noise standards of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 9.24, Noise Control. 10. The operator of the Large Family Day Care Use Permit shall comply with all the standards and requirements of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.64.020. Upon determination that the permit has not complied with all of the standards and requirements of Section 25.64.020, the Zoning Administrator may require the use g \planning\cony bagato\staff reportsklarge family day care permits\14-188 art house\city council\ccres_large family day care - revised docx 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2015- 06 permit to be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. A noticed public hearing to review the permit is mandatory when the City receives six (6) substantiated complaints alleging violations of Section 25.64.020. If the Planning Commission determines that the operator has failed in a material way to comply with all of the standards and requirements, then the Planning Commission may suspend or revoke the permit or may, in its discretion, impose additional reasonable standards and requirements consistent with State law, based on findings derived from testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing. g \planning\tony bagato\staff reportsUarge family day care permits\14-188 art house\city council\ccres_large family day care - revised docx 4 CITY OF PALM DESERT �fll. - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT M�1t��.lYAYii1r:���a9L �..•.. '. ..v..�6.�•-�._ftlIRL-�lda STAFF REPORT REQUEST: CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION RELATED TO A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE USE PERMIT FOR A MAXIMUM OF 14 CHILDREN LOCATED AT 74-085 FAIRWAY DRIVE. THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PER SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1, EXISTING FACILITIES) OF C QA G 0 SLINES SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Continued the matter to the meeting of January 22, 2015, with staff directed to APPLICANT: Samantha Clark research and be able to respond to the question of legality of a mid -block 74-085 Fairway Drive pedestrian crosswalk installation, with Palm Desert, CA 92260 associated indicators and signage. 5-0 (AYES: Harnik, Jonathan, Spiegel, Tanner, CASE NO: Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 & Weber; NOES: None) DATE: January 8, 2015 CONTENTS: 1) City Council Resolution No. 2015- 06 2) Legal Notice 3) Attorney Correspondences 4) Planning Commission (PC) Meeting Minutes, dated September 16, 2014 5) Correspondences for Planning Commission 5) PC Staff Report, dated September 16, 2014 6) PC Resolution No. 2636 7) Application to Appeal 8) Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.64.020 9) Department of Public Works Memo 10) Zoning Administrator (ZA) Notice of Decision, dated July - 25, 2014 11) ZA Hearing Minutes, dated July 21, 2014 12) Correspondences from Applicant's Representative and Neighbors 13) Site Plan & Floor Plan 14) Statement of Use Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2015- 06 , approving Large Family Day Care Permit 14-188, subject to: Resolution No. 2015-06 Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 2 of 10 January 8, 2015 • Overturning the Planning Commission's condition of approval related to the hours of operation, allowing the applicant to operate Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and either • Reaffirming the Planning Commission's condition of approval requiring the applicant to transport the 14 children via van -ferry to the day care home from Washington Charter School (WCS) or Hope Lutheran Church (HLC); or • Requiring that the applicant construct a new sidewalk from the day care site to Lantana Avenue, install a crosswalk and access ramp improvements at Lantana Avenue; and directing City staff to relocate the existing stop signs at Black Rabbit Road to Lantana Avenue. Planninq Commission Action On September 16, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss an appeal by Samantha Clark (applicant) of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny Large Family Day Care Permit 14-188 (permit) at 74-085 Fairway Drive. After the staff presentation and public hearing, the Planning Commission approved the permit, concurring with Condition No. 5 that required the children to be driven from WCS or Hope Lutheran Church (HLC) to the day care facility, and amending Condition No. 4 related to the hours of operation. During the public hearing, the Planning Commission focused on two concerns with staff and the applicant. The two concerns were the hours of operation for the day care, and the safety of the children crossing the street. Hours of Operation: The hours of operation in the proposed conditions were Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. based on the applicant's State license. After the staffs presentation, Vice Chair Ken Stendell asked if the proposed day care was only an after school facility. Staff responded that the applicant's program was for an after school program during the school year; however, the State license allows them to operate a day care at 8:00 a.m. (Planning Commission minutes, pages 3 and 4). Commissioner Sonia Campbell asked the applicant if the children would be at the day care from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. during the school year, and if the day care would include the summer. The applicant responded by saying the hours from 3:00 p.m. to 5 p.m. during the school year was correct, and that she did not have any plan to have a summer program (Planning Commission minutes, page 7). Based on the applicant's program and response, Commissioner Campbell proposed a condition that the applicant could only operate the afterschool program from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. while school was in session. NSRV-FIL2K3\groupslPlanrxnglTony Bagato%&aH Reports"rge Family Day Care Pernetsk14-188 Art Housek0ty CounaIICCSR_Large Fanvly Day Care.docx Resolution No. 2015-06 Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 3 of 10 January 8, 2015 Street Crossing: During the presentation, staff stated that the concerns related to the traffic on Fairway, and that the applicant's proposal to cross the children mid -block with a hand held stop sign was not safe. Staff recommended a condition that required the applicant to transport the children across the street in a vehicle. After the public hearing was closed, each commissioner voiced concerns about the traffic and safety of the children crossing the street midblock. Commissioner John Greenwood acknowledged that the applicant was taking every consideration possible to address the crossing; however, many unpredictable things could happen, and that it was a very difficult case to decide on. Commissioner Campbell stated that there is always a need for a child care facility, and that in the 29 years she has lived in the desert, Fairway Drive has become a very busy street. She stated that it is not the right location to have small children crossing the street. She questioned who would be responsible if a child is hit by a car, possibly if someone is texting or talking on a phone while driving. Chair Roger Dash stated that no matter how much is planned in preventing things from happening, accidents will occur. He believed that it is the Planning Commission's responsibility to think in terms of safety of the children crossing the street. He commented that if a driver is distracted and the teacher and kids are in the middle of the street, there is nothing that the teacher can do to stop the car. He also stated that another possible situation can occur when a senior citizen mistakes the accelerator for the breaks in a vehicle. Vice Chair Stendell agreed with all the Planning Commission's sentiments. He stated that he believed that the applicant's safety intent for the children was good and the Planning Commission trusts her intent. However, he believed that traffic was more of a concern than his trust in her intent. He said that traffic was his number one concern, but that he was also concerned about the setting and rising sun of Fairway Drive. He stated that he knows that there is sun glare in the early morning and late afternoon from his 30 years of driving east and west on Fairway Drive. He stated that the only way he would support the permit was with the amended hours of operation and the condition to drive the 14 children to the day care facility. Executive Summary Approval of staffs recommendation will approve Large Family Day Care Permit 14- 188 subject to: Overturning the Planning Commission's condition of approval related to the hours of operation, allowing the applicant to operate Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and \1SRV-F1L2K3\groupsPanning\Tony BagatolStall Reports\ arge Famly Day Care Pewits\14-188 M House\City CouncACCSR_Large Famly Day Care.docx Resolution No. 2015-06 Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 4 of 10 January 8, 2015 Reaffirming the Planning Commission's condition of approval requiring the applicant to transport the 14 children via van -ferry to the day care home from Washington Charter School (WCS) or Hope Lutheran Church (HLC); or • Requiring that the applicant construct a new sidewalk from the day care site to Lantana Avenue, install a crosswalk and access ramp improvements at Lantana Avenue; and directing City staff to relocate the existing stop signs at Black Rabbit Road to Lantana Avenue. Staff's recommendation is based on reconsideration of the Planning Commission's decision as it is related to the Child Day Care Facility Act, California Health and Safety Code and the issues raised by the applicant's attorney. Staff believes that that mid -block crossing of children on Fairway Drive is unsafe and is an area of regulation that is allowed by the State and City ordinance, but that the limitation on hours of operation is not within the City's purview. Background A. Property Description: The property is located at 74-085 Fairway Drive, which is mid -block between Portola Avenue and Black Rabbit Trail (highlighted below). APN: 630120006 House#: 0 PEPPERORASS STREET APN: 625182011 z House9'45900 j t W yI i a W e Q Q � J O h 2 O 0. APN: RW FAIRWAY DRIVE APN: RW FAIRWAY DRIVE House#:0 House$ 0 OLD PROSPECTOR TRAIL House0: 740251APN: 6252030021APN: 625203003I APN: 615203006 House# 74043 HouseP: 74055 House#: 74085 APN: 625203GOI House#: 74092 OLD PROSPECTOR TRAIL APN: 625204006 -APN: 625204001 House#: 74150 IHouseq'. 74180 OSRV-FIL2K3\groupstPlanning\Tony BagatolStaff Reports\Large Family Day Care Permits\14-188 Art House\City CounciRCCSR_Large Family Day Care.docx Resolution No. 2015-05 Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 5 of 10 January 8, 2015 B. General Plan Designation and Zoning: The property is currently designated Residential, Medium Density (R-M) in the General Plan and is zoned Residential Single Family, 10,000-square-foot minimum lots (R-1 10,000) on the City's zoning map. C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: Single Family (R-1) / Hope Lutheran Church Parking Lot South: Single Family (R-1) / Existing Single -Family Home East: Single Family (R-1) / Existing Single -Family Home West: Single Family (R-1) / Existing Single -Family Home D. State Law for Childcare: Sections 1597.30-1597.621 of the California Health and Safety Code prescribe standards for local govemment regulation of family day care homes for children. The Legislature made findings that there are insufficient numbers of licensed day care homes in California, and that there is a growing need for child day care facilities due to the increase in the number of working parents. Section 1597.40 of the Health and Safety Code states the Legislature's intent for regulating family day care homes: It is the intent of the Legislature that family day care homes for children should be situated in normal residential surroundings so as to give children the home environment which is conducive to healthy and safe development. It is the public policy of this state to provide children in a family day care home the same environment as provided in a traditional home setting. The State law defines Large Family Day Care homes as accommodating nine (9) to fourteen (14) children, and allows Large Family Day Care homes by right in residential districts, unless a jurisdiction chooses to require either an administrative permit or a special/conditional use permit. If a Large Family Day Care home is subject to a permit, local land use considerations are limited to traffic, parking, space and concentration, and noise. Chapter 25.64.020 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code provides the purpose, application process, and other requirements for Large Family Day Care Use Permits that are consistent with State law. The application for a Large Family Day Care Use Permit is reviewed at an administrative level by a staff member who is designated as the City's Zoning Administrator. As described in the ordinance, the Zoning Administrator reviews the application, and notifies owners of property within 300 feet about the permit before any decision is made. The noticing requirement informs the neighbors and the applicant that no hearing shall be held before a decision is made on the application, unless a hearing is requested by the applicant or the impacted property owners. 1lSRV FIL2K31groups\Plannmg\Tony BagatolStaH Reports\Large Family Day Care Permds\14-188 Art HouWQty CounallCCSR_Large Family Day Care.docx Resolution No. 2015-06 Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 6 of 10 January 8, 2015 The Zoning Administrator's decision to approve or deny a permit may be appealed to the Planning Commission for consideration. For a Large Family Day Care Use Permit, the Planning Commission's decision is final unless the permit is called up for review by the City Council. E. Zoning Administrator Hearing and Decision: On June 2, 2014, staff received an application for a Large Family Day Care Use Permit from the applicant for a home at 74-085 Fairway Drive. Staff reviewed the application and expressed concerns related to traffic, safety, and parking on Fairway Drive. Staff and the applicant met several times to discuss these issues before any decision was made on the permit application. As required by PDMC Section 25.64.020.D, a notice for the permit application was sent to owners of property within 300 feet of the proposed day care. Staff received five (5) written correspondences in opposition to the permit application, of which two (2) of the five (5) requested a public hearing. The written correspondences raised concerns about the traffic impacts and safety on a busy street, the potential noise impacts from 14 children playing outside, and the lack of a sidewalk along the south side of Fairway Drive. On July 21, 2014, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing, and received comments from the applicant and the public. At the hearing, three (3) people spoke in favor of the permit application and four (4) people spoke in opposition. The comments in favor of the permit focused on the need for an afterschool art program and afterschool day care for WCS. The applicant indicated that the children would be inside the home for the two (2) hours that they are there, so that she believes that noise would not be an issue. The comments in opposition were related to noise, traffic congestion, safety, and the possibility of relocating a stop sign and adding a crosswalk and sidewalk in the area. On July 25, 2014, the permit was denied based on concerns related to traffic safety with the mid -block crossing of children on Fairway Drive, and that there would be difficult maneuverability for on -site parking and a lack of off-street parking for parents or guardians picking up 14 children at one time. The Zoning Administrator's Notice of Decision that explains the reasons for denial is provided with this staff report. On August 11, 2014, the applicant filed a timely appeal (attached) of the denial, citing concerns that the City is not adhering to the limits imposed by the State, that they can safely cross the children on Fairway Drive, and that they will provide staggered pickup times to deal with parking concerns. The applicant's representative also verbally offered to provide a van shuttle service, which was not part of the project as originally proposed. \\SRV-1`I1_21<3\groups\Planning\Tony Bagalo\StaH Reporls' arge Family Day Care Permits\14-188 Art House\Gty CounallCCSR_Large Family Day Care docx Resolution No. 2015-06 Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 7 of 10 January 8, 2015 Discussion The applicant is working with WCS to provide an afterschool art program and day care home. The applicant proposes that during the school year, the elementary age children would be escorted from WCS to the adjacent playground at HLC. The children would play at the playground each day between 3:10 and 3:30 p.m. After the children are done playing, the teachers would escort the children across the street directly in front of the day care. The applicant states that one (1) teacher would walk into the middle of the street with a handheld stop sign to stop traffic. The second teacher would wait on the sidewalk with the children until the teachers believe it is safe to cross the street to the day care. The children would be at the home between 3:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. Depending on parking availability, the parents or guardians may park in the parking spaces provided in the driveway or on Fairway Drive. After reviewing the permit and discussing the issues with the applicant's representative, the permit was denied by the Zoning Administrator. The permit was denied due to safety concerns with mid -block crossings and the lack of parking in close proximity to the day care facility. After the permit was denied, the applicant filed an appeal to the Planning Commission. After the appeal was filled, the applicant's representative verbally offered to drive the children to the day care facility, and provided a staggered pick up time where there are no more than four (4) vehicles would arrive to the day care facility every 20 minutes. The Planning Commission reviewed, and approved the permit with staffs condition to drive the children to the day care facility. In addition, they modified the hours of operation based on the applicant's program and acceptance of the change at the meeting. On November 20, 2014, staff received a letter from an attorney representing the applicant. The letter states that it is his client's position that the two conditions (hours of operation, and van -ferry) exceed the authority of the Planning Commission in connection with the issuance of the permit. After reviewing the issues further with the City Attorney, staff concluded that the hours of operation are not an area that the City can regulate and staff is recommending that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's condition restricting the hours of operation. As for the van -ferry condition, PDMC Section 25.64.020(E)(2) states an applicant must provide a "traffic circulation plan designed to diminish traffic safety problems." In addition, it is staff's opinion that the regulation of pedestrian access to the day care facility across a busy street is a requirement concerning "traffic control", which is one of the permissible areas of regulations under the Child Day Care Facility Act, California Health and Safety Code 1596.46(a)(3) as well as PDMC Section 25.64.020(E)(2). Staff informed the applicant's attorney that the City's position has not changed related to the traffic safety concern. \1SRV-FIL2K3\groups\Planrnng\Tony Bagalo\SteH Reports\Large Farr ly Day Care Pemv15\14-188 M House\Gty Counol\CCSR_Large Family Day Care.dou Resolution No. 2015-06 Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 8 of 10 January 8, 2015 The traffic safety concerns are related to the fact that Fairway Drive is a very busy for a residential street, and that mid -block crossing is generally less safe than intersection crossing. According to the most recent traffic volume numbers that were recorded in February of 2013, the total number of vehicles traveling on Fairway Drive between 3:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. ranges between 255 and 323 vehicles per hour. At 3:30 p.m., the 323 vehicles calculate to one (1) vehicle every 12 seconds traveling on Fairway Drive. In addition to the traffic volume, the speed limit was recently raised from 25 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour based on a speed survey that is required by State law. Fairway Drive is a busy street due to the nearby school, church, Alcoholics Anonymous building, and the regular vehicular traffic in the residential neighborhood. The city's transportation engineer has determined that it would be unsafe for the children and vehicular traffic to have children cross a heavily trafficked street mid - block to the day care facility. Vehicular drivers are not expecting to stop when the children begin walking in front of them as they are crossing the street mid -block. Gayle Clark, the applicant's representative, suggested the van -ferry as a solution to remedy the traffic safety problems that led to the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny the large family day care permit. On December 11, 2014, staff received an email from the applicant's attorney stating that Ms. Clark was proposing an alternative to the van -ferry condition. The applicant is proposing to add another adult with two teachers when the children cross. They propose that there would be two (2) lines of children crossing simultaneously with three (3) adult supervisors. The proposal would reduce the size of the line of the children crossing and adds an adult supervisor. Staff reviewed this proposal, and does not support this alternative for the previously stated reasons. Fairway Drive is a busy street that averages one (1) car every 12 seconds in peak season, and mid - block crossings are generally less safe than an intersection crossing. In staffs opinion there is only one (1) other alternative to driving the children to the day care facility that has been discussed with the applicant. This alternative would require the installation of a new sidewalk from the day care facility to Lantana Avenue; installation of a crosswalk and access ramp improvements at Lantana Avenue; and relocating the two (2) existing stop signs at Black Rabbit Road to Lantana Avenue. The following image identifies the modifications required to address this alternative: %1SRV-FIL2K3%groups%PannngkTony Bagato'StaH Reports\ arge Farruly Day Care Perrrvts114-IN Art Housek0ty CouncACCSR_Large Famly Day Care.docx Resolution NO. 2015-06 Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 9 of 10 January 8, 2015 Staff estimates that the cost of these improvements could range between $20,000 and $30,000, and that the applicant pay for the cost of the improvements since the improvements would be installed to address the safety concerns for the day care facility. The following photo illustrates the area where the sidewalk would be installed: \\SRV-FIL2K3\groups0anning\Tony Bagato\Staff ReportsUmge Family Day Care Permits\14-188 Art House\City CounaIICCSR_Large Family Day Care.docx Resolution No. 2015-06 Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 10 of 10 January 8, 2015 This alternative was part of previous discussions with the applicant before the permit was denied by the Zoning Administrator. The applicant was concerned about the cost, and staff was concerned with the impact to the adjacent property owners. When staff informed the adjacent property owners of this idea, the property owners were not in favor of modifying their landscaping, driveways, and relocating mailboxes. Although this alternative impacts the neighbors, it is the only altemative that staff is recommending that will allow the children to cross the street safely instead of transporting them in a vehicle to the day care facility. Environmental Review The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the lead Agency for this project under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has determined that the proposed Large Family Day Care Use Permit is not a project subject to CEQA. Submitted By: Tony Bag ato, nnci al Planner Department Head: Lauri Aylaian, Director of CommunifVDevelopment Approval: M. Wohlmuth, City Manager %%SRV-Fl 2K31grwps0anning\Tony BagatolStaH ReporlsIarge Family Day Care Permitsl14-188 M HousekOly CounallCCSR_Large Famly Day Care.doca RESOLUTION NO. 2015- 06 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE USE PERMIT FOR A MAXIMUM OF 14 CHILDREN LOCATED AT 74-085 FAIRWAY DRIVE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION ATTACHED CASE NO: LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE USE PERMIT 14-188 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the day of , 2015, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the Samantha Clark, Applicant, for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City must determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, further environmental review is necessary. The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the lead Agency has determined that the Large Family Day Care Use Permit is not subject to CEQA. The application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 2014-41, in the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed project is a Class 1: Existing Facilities (15301) Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further review is necessary; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons, which are outlined in the staff report reasons to approve the said request: 1. Based on the conditions of the permit, the Large Family Day Care home was found to be in compliance with the City's Zoning Ordinance and state law. 2. As conditioned, the Large Family Day Care home will not be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. As conditioned, the Large Family Day Care home will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 4. The Large Family Day Care home will not endanger the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings for approval of the City Council in this case. RESOLUTION NO. 06 2. That the City Council does hereby approve Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14- 188. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the day of , 2015 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUSAN MARIE WEBER MAYOR ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA \\SRV-FIL2K3\groups\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Large Family Day Care Permits\14-188 Art House\City Council\CORE$ Large Family Day Care.docx 2 RESOLUTION NO. 06 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO: LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE USE PERMIT 14-188 Department of Community Development: The development of the property shall conform substantially with the exhibit on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Operation of said project shall commence within one (1) year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. The days and hours of operation of the proposed Large Family Day Care home shall be Monday through Friday, 8:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. 5. The applicant shall transport the 14 children via van -ferry to the day care home from Washington Charter School or Hope Lutheran Church. The day care staff shall not cross the children mid -block on Fairway Drive, or stop traffic on any street as prohibited by Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 10.16.020, Direction by unofficial persons. 6. The applicant may construct a new sidewalk from the day care site to Lantana Avenue, install a crosswalk and access ramp improvements at Lantana Avenue; and the City will relocate the existing stop signs at Black Rabbit Road to Lantana Avenue in lieu of the van -ferry transport. All improvement shall be in place before the applicant operates a Large Family Day Care. 7. The applicant shall demonstrate legal authority and control of the property before the business license is approved, and before the applicant can operate the day care as a Large Family Day Care home. 8. The day care shall comply with the noise standards of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 9.24, Noise Control. 9. The operator of the Large Family Day Care Use Permit shall comply with all the standards and requirements of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.64.020. Upon determination that the permit has not complied with all of the standards and requirements of Section 25.64.020, the Zoning Administrator may require the use permit to be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. A noticed public hearing to review the permit is mandatory when the City receives six (6) substantiated complaints alleging violations of Section 25.64.020. If the Planning Commission determines that the operator has failed in a material way to comply with all of the standards and requirements, then the Planning Commission may suspend or revoke the permit or may, in its discretion, impose additional reasonable standards and requirements consistent with State law, based on findings derived from testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing. \\SRV-FIL2K3\groups\Planning\Tony Bagato\Sta11 Reports\Large Family Day Care Permits\14-188 Art House\City Council\CCRES_Large Family Day Care.docx 3 CITY 01 P 0 1 M P I S I R I 73—;Io FRFr) WARI`G DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226o-2S78 TEL: 76o 346—o6ii FAY:76o 341-7098 m(o4?pa1—d—,, o,g CITY OF PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CASE NO. LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE 14-188 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council will hold a public hearing on January 8. 2015 to review the Planning Commission's decision on September 16, 2014, regarding the Large Family Day Care Permit for Samantha Clark. The property is located at 74-085 Fairway Drive, as indicated on the exhibit below. The permit is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities) of CEQA Guidelines. Y,,, rtw wwrr wM NetrO. 0 M.IIt.MN�M 1'YK •A.ONt700N ;E li •,Nf ■011 I.tw....iv0 ,ws�,.wwenl .,ua I �.rrz.tf»wwMr.,.u�„.ee� tYwM. !Ot M I ���OIM 1 On September 16, 2014, the Planning Commission approved the Large Family Day Care Permit with several conditions. One of the conditions requires the applicant to transport the children to the property by van -ferry to mitigate the "Traffic Control" concern of children crossing Fairway Drive midblock on a busy street. An alternative to transporting the children to the site will include the discussion of a potential sidewalk that could be constructed from the applicant's property to Lantana Avenue; installation of a crosswalk and access ramp improvements at Lantana Avenue; and relocating the existing stop signs at Black Rabbit Road to Lantana Avenue. The following image identifies the modifications required to address this alternative: PUBLIC HEARING: Said public hearing will be held before the City of Palm Desert City Council on Thursday. January 8.2015 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the Large Family Day Care Permit is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 346-0611 ext. 480 tbagato@cityofpalmdesert.org Bagato, Tony From: Greenwood, Mark Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 11:51 AM To: Bagato, Tony; 'Robert Hargreaves' Cc: Aylaian, Lauri; 'David Erwin'; Diercks, Mark Subject: RE: Clark: Large Day Care Use Permit 14-188 The proposal does not adequately address the safety concern. There is no indication that the adults have any crossing guard training and this would be the only location in the entire city where mid -block crossings occurred without a crosswalk. A mid -block crossing is not recommended as they are generally less safe than an intersection crossing. As Tony mentioned, a far superior approach would be to require the applicant to construct a sidewalk to Lantana; and relocate the stop controls from Black Rabbit Trail to Lantana. Of course this impacts the neighbors and may be undesirable to them. Mark Greenwood, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Palm Desert From: Bagato, Tony Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 11:28 AM To: 'Robert Hargreaves' Cc: Aylaian, Lauri; 'David Erwin'; Greenwood, Mark Subject: RE: Clark: Large Day Care Use Permit 14-188 :.. I will need to have Mark Greenwood review this as well, but I do not believe this addresses the concerns of crossing the children midblock. The only other solution we presented, and makes the most sense, is that the applicant install a sidewalk along the south side of Fairway drive from her home to Lantana to the east. Tony From: Robert Hargreaves[mailto:Robert.Hargreavesca)bbklaw.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 11:06 AM To: Bagato, Tony Cc: Aylaian, Lauri; David Erwin Subject: FW: Clark: Large Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Tony I met with Dan Olivier, the attorney for the day care center, yesterday and he presented the proposal outlined below. I asked that he put it in writing and promised to forward it to the city for consideration. I told Dan that I did not think that the proposal would address staff's concerns. He is seeking staff support for a recommendation to the city council, should it be called up. Apparently, his client has met with council members and they are willing to call it up if there is a potential resolution. Thoughts? F. mm Robert W. Hargreaves I Best Best & Krieger LLP 74-760 Highway 111, Suite 200 1 Indian Wells, CA 92210 1 Tel: (760) 568-2611 1 Fax: (760) 340-6698 From: Daniel Olivier [mailto:dolivier(@nmollp.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 10:57 AM To: Robert Hargreaves Cc: bdlcgayleCabaol.com Subject: Clark: Large Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Dear Bob: This will confirm my client's offer of a compromise and alternative proposal that will hopefully address the staffs traffic safety concerns. As indicated in our meeting, Nis. Clark will agree to have another person with her when they take the children across Fairway Drive from the church parking lot to the home day care site. "That is, she will form two small lines of children with three adults supervising the crossing of the street. "I'he two lines of children will cross simultaneously with the three adult supervisors. 'I'his proposal reduces the size of the line of children crossing the street and adds an adult supervisor. Even though this proposal adds additional burdens on my client, she is willing to do so in order to address the staffs traffic concerns. An alternative would be for the City to install a sidewalk on the south side of Fairway Drive between the intersection of I.antana Avenue and my client's home. This way the children could cross at the intersection and walk westerly to my client's day care center. .1lthough we didn't discuss it yesterday, my client also wants the condition imposing summer day care hour restrictions to be removed. If the city staff wishes to meet with my client to further discuss these proposals or other compromise proposals the city staff may have in mind, my client would be willing to do so. "Phis will also confirm that if the City Council so chooses, it has the ability to call up the issuance of the permit for reconsideration of the conditions imposed by the planning commission. Thank you for your time and effort in trying to address this matter. Dan. Daniel E. Olivier NETHERY/MUELLER/OLIVIER LLP 41-750 Rancho Las Palmas Drive Building H Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Phone: (760) 837-0333 Fax: (760) 837-0330 APlease consider the environment before printing this email. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION IS PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL LAW. This message is being sent by NETHERY/MUELLER/OLIVIER LLP, a law firm. It is intended exclusively for the individuals and entities to which it is addressed. This communication, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempted from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may 2 have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email, delete all copies of this email, and do not read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. TAX NOTICE: Please note that this law firm does not provide tax advice and, in accordance with 31 C.F.R. Section 10.35(b), please be informed that nothing in this email, or any attachment to this email, is intended or written by the author(s) to be used, and cannot be used, as a "covered opinion" within the meaning of that section, or for the purpose of i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code, or ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein as relates to Federal tax issues. This email and any tiles or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. rvine lei lk Los Angeles 00 BEST BEST & KRIEGER 3 Los Angeles (213)617-8100 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ontario (909) 989-8584 Post Office Box 13650, Palm Desert, CA 92255-3650 Riverside 74-760 Highway 111, Suite 200, Indian Wells, CA 92210 (951) 686 1450 Phone (760) 568-2611 1 Fax (760) 340-6698 1 www bbklaw com Robert W. Hargreaves (760)837-1604 robert hargreaves@bbklaw.com File No 72500.00011 December 2, 2014 Daniel E. Olivier, Esq. NETHERY/Mt?ELLER/OLIVIER 41-750 Rancho Las Palmas Drive Building H Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Re: Samantha Clark - Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 (74-085 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, California) Dear Mr. Olivier: Sacramento (916) 325-4000 San Diego (619) 525.1300 Walnut Creek (925) 977.3300 Washington DC (202) 785-0600 This letter is in response to your letter dated November 20, 2014 regarding the above - referenced matter. We appreciate your concern regarding the permitting of the Clark Large Family Day Care. It's my understating your concern is directed primarily at two issues: (1) the limitation of' hours of operation; and (2) the requirement that children be ferried from the church parking lot to the day care site ("van ferry" requirement). For background, I have attached copies of the initial zoning administrator denial, and the staff report to the Planning Commission, which provide a lengthy narrative of this case. 1 will not repeat the facts here, except for a few relevant particulars. From a procedural standpoint, there is little that can be done at this point to address your concerns. As you know, the permit was initially denied by the zoning administrator. Ms. Clark appealed the decision to the Planning Commission, which granted the permit, with the two challenged restrictions. It is my understanding that it was Ms. Clark's representative, Gayle Clark who suggested the van -ferry concept to staff and that Ms. Clark acquiesced in the hours limitation during the hearing before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission granted the permit on September 16, 2014. Under Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) section 25.64.020(F) that action is final unless the City Council calls the decision up for review. As there has been no council call-up, the planning commission decision stands as final. Neither the Planning Commission nor staff have any authority at this point to reconsider the planning commission action. Consequently, absent a reapplication, there does not appear to be any process for reconsidering the action. 72500 0001 l'9441 M c I lei lk BEST BEST & KRIEGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Daniel E. Olivier, Esq. December 2, 2014 Page 2 More importantly, for the reasons fully stated in the record of the matter, it is unlikely that staff would change its position with respect to the traffic safety issue. The city's traffic engineer determined that it would be unsafe for the children and vehicular traffic to have the children cross a heavily trafficked road mid -block to access the child care site. PDMC section 25.64.020(E)(2) provides that an applicant provide a "traffic circulation plan designed to diminish traffic safety problems." Gayle Clark suggested the van -ferry solution as a condition of approval as a remedy to the previously -identified traffic safety problems and denial by the Zoning Administrator. It was the only one of a number of alternative solutions considered that was deemed acceptable by staff and recommended to the Planning Commission. In the city's judgment, regulation of pedestrian access to the day care site across a busy city street is a requirement concerning "traffic control", one of the permissible areas of regulation under Health and Safety Code Section 1597.46(a)(3). Consequently, unless and until there is an alternative proposal to satisfactorily address the traffic safety issue, I do not see an amicable resolution of this matter. incerely, argrea of EST- & , IEGER LL 1 RWH:alr Encls. cc: Mayor and Members of the City Council John Wohlmuth, City Manager Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Tony Bagato, Principal Planner David J. Erwin, City Attorney 72500 00011 9443355 2 NMO..'* ]-) NETHERY / MUELLER / OLIVIER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Daniel E. Olivier, Esq. dolivierra nmollp.com November 20, 2014 SENT VIA STANDARD US MAIL Robert Hargreaves Assistant City Attorney 74760 Highway I I I Suite 200 Indian Wells, CA 92210 (760) 837-0333 Telephone (760) 837-0330 Facsimile Re: Samantha Clark — Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 (74-085 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, California) Dear Mr. Hargreaves: I am writing to you on behalf of Samantha Clark regarding the Palm Desert Planning Commission's imposition of two conditions in connection with its approval of Large Family Daycare Use Permit 14-188. It is my client's position that these two conditions exceed the authority of the Planning Commission in connection with the issuance of the large day care use permit, are unreasonable and were improperly imposed on my client. Set forth below is a more detailed explanation of my client's objections to each condition. The first condition relates to the hours of operation. The approved permit limits Ms. Clark's hours of operation to 3pm-5:30pm during the school year. In addition, Ms. Clark is prohibited from providing large family day care services when Washington Charter Elementary School is closed for summer break. The California Child Day Care Facilities Act, California Health and Safety Code § 1596.70 et seq. (the "Act") preempts local land use regulation of large family day care homes except for four specific land use categories. The Act only allows a city to prescribe reasonable standards, restrictions and requirements relating to spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control. See Health and Safety Code §1597.46(a)(3). Hours of operation are not an area delegated to municipal control or regulation. Accordingly, the City has violated the Act by imposing a condition that regulates the hours of operation of a large family child care home. Further, Ms. Clark consented to such limitation on hours imposed by the City only after she was told that she could not receive the permit unless she did so. The second condition imposed by the City relates to the movement of children from one side of Fairway Drive to the other where Ms. Clark's home is located. There are no sidewalks on the south side of Fairway Drive where Ms. Clark's home is situated so crossings can't be made at nearby intersections. Accordingly, Ms. Clark advised the City 41-750 Rancho Las Palmas Drive, Bldg H, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Tel: 760-83 7-0333 Fax: 760-83 7-0330 Robert Hargreaves ( -) Large Family Daycare Use Permit 14-188 November 20 2014 Page 2 that during the school year the children from Washington Charter School (WCS) would be picked up at WCS and brought to the playground at Hope Lutheran Church (which is next to WCS) and then escorted by adult staff members from the north side of Fairway Drive directly across Fairway Drive to the day care home. However, the Planning Commission has imposed a condition that prohibits Ms. Clark and another adult staff member from safely escorting the children from one side of Fairway Drive to the other. Instead the condition requires Ms. Clark to transport the children from one side of this residential, two-lane street to the other by vehicle. This condition is both unreasonable and improper. The Planning Commission's imposition of this condition, in accordance with planning staffs recommendation, appears to be based on a misinterpretation of the City's asserted right to impose reasonable requirements relating to "traffic control." It is clear in reading the City's staff report that the planning department was concerned that the staff at the day care center would be "regulating" traffic. The staff report states that using vehicular transportation would "mitigate the illegal stopping of traffic that is prohibited in the PDMC." However, Ms. Clark does not propose to "regulate" traffic in any manner. She does not propose to go to the middle of the street in front of the children with a stop sign and then have the children pass. Rather, the children would be escorted in a line across the street by two adults only when it was safe to do so. This in no way constitutes regulation of traffic or traffic control. Another reason given by City staff and the Planning Commission for imposing the condition of vehicular transportation was to mitigate the safety risk to the children and day care providers from vehicular traffic along Fairway Drive. However, regulation of the safety of the children and the providers, and how they perform their daycare services, is not within the jurisdiction of the City. Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.64.20 points out that the safety of day care services provided by family day care homes and those who operate them are governed exclusively at the state level by the Department of Social Services. Regulation of a day care provider's safety practices and procedures with respect to the children under the day care provider's charge, whether it is inside the day care home or outside the day care home as it is here, is not the responsibility of the City. Further, it is clear in reviewing the City's own ordinance and the intent of the Act (which encourages close proximity of day care homes to local schools for ease of access after school) that the regulation of "traffic control" would not limit or apply to child care providers escorting children from one side of the street to the other. The ordinance specifies that the traffic circulation plan submitted to the City should be designed to diminish traffic safety problems. Traffic circulation in this context relates to the flow and volume of vehicles to and from the day care home. That is, the ordinance is concerned with the generation, direction and level of vehicular traffic created by the day care home. The escorting of children on foot, across the street is not what the ordinance is aimed at regulating. In fact, anybody, including unaccompanied elementary school children, can legally cross Fairway Drive from the north side to the south side at the location of the day care home at any time. Thousands of school age children are walked to and from child care facilities every day throughout California. The 41-750 Rancho Las Palmas Drive, Bldg H, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Tel:760-837-0333 Fax:760-837-0330 Robert Hargreaves Large Family Daycare Use Pcrmit 14-188 November 20 2014 Page 3 issue of safe walking of children to Ms. Clark's day care home has been reviewed by the State Licensing Analyst as part of the plan of operation required for licensing of this day care home. Any allegation of unsafe movement of children to and from this home would be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State licensing agency. Further, the other traffic control issues specifically addressed in Palm Desert's ordinance --backing into an arterial street and staggered drop offs to reduce congestion-- are not at issue here. In addition, even if the City were able to regulate the movement of the children by Ms. Clark as a "traffic safety" issue, the regulation must be reasonable. Requiring a day care provider to purchase a large van for the purpose of transporting up to fourteen (14) children from one side of a two lane residential street to the other is not reasonable. This conditions imposes a significant economic hardship on the day care provider while raising other safety issues relating to backing in and out of the home onto Fairway Drive with such a large vehicle. Also, requiring a large van or small bus to meet this condition could dramatically limit available parking at the home because of the size of such a large vehicle. Because Ms. Clark cannot afford a suitably large vehicle for this very limited purpose of moving children across the street, she would have to make multiple vehicular trips with an automobile or small van to satisfy the condition, which raises additional traffic safety and congestion issues. It is important to note that the various parties involved, including the parents, the providers, and even the principal of Washington Charter School, believe that Ms. Clark's plan to escort the children from one side of Fairway Drive to her house is safe and appropriate. Also, the City's staff report suggests that Ms. Clark was agreeable to providing van shuttle services. This is not accurate she does not consent to this condition. Finally, the City's ordinance regulating large day care homes allows the City to grant use permits, not conditional use permits. The Act specifies that the City must grant the permit if the day care home complies with local ordinances prescribing reasonable standards, restrictions and requirements concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control. Satisfying the standards and requirements of local ordinances does not mean the City has the authority to impose additional conditions on the issuance of the use permit. The City staff confirmed at the Planning Commission Hearing that this day care home was compliant with the requirements of all applicable City ordinances. The bottom line is these two condition are unreasonable and beyond the authority of the City. Ms. Clark's operational plans for her day care home comply with all requirements of state law and the local ordinance. The City has no ability to impose the two conditions described above and thus Ms. Clark demands that they be eliminated forthwith. 41-750 Rancho Las Palmas Drive, Bldg H, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Tel: 760-83 7-0333 Fax:760-837-0330 Robert Hargreaves Large Family Daycare Use Permit 14-188 November 20 2014 Page 4 If you would like to discuss the contents of this letter, please contact me. Sincerely, NETRER1'/MLELLER/OLIVIER LLP UC'. DANIEL E. OLIVIER DEO:cs Client Planning Director, Mayor and City Council Members 41-750 Rancho Las Palmas Drive, Bldg H, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Tel:760-837-0333 Fax:760-837-0330 Dear City Council Members, RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S PALM DESERT. CA OFFICE `` yy 1 am a new family Childcare provider in the city of Palm Desert, licensed b�i��fifa�e toPM 12 operate a large family Child Care, which permits me to care for a maximum of 14 children, with another adult present. My house is located at 74085 Fairway Dr, directly across the street from the Hope Lutheran Church. Fairway is a two-lane residential zoned street, with a speed limit of 30 mph. My home is two houses west of the Lantana/Fairway intersection. Currently, I am operating as a small family childcare provider, caring for 8 children that attend Washington Charter School (WCS). Each day after dismissal, I walk to their school and meet the children. I walk them on Lantana Street to the yard at Hope Lutheran Church, which is adjacent to WCS. We currently cross directly in front of my house instead of at the intersection at Lantana and Fairway, because there is no sidewalk on my side of the street. Where we are crossing is legal. I applied for my use permit in June, with the city of Palm Desert as required for a large family childcare. The city must issue a home use permit once the applicant is licensed by the state and meets the following four conditions: 1) has adequate parking; a minimum of three spaces, 2) Operation will not cause congestion of traffic, 3) Space; the home is further than 300 feet from another family childcare and 4) The noise level must not exceed the city ordinance of all residences. Per state law, additional conditions can gry be added that apply to these four ordinances, and must be reasonable. In July, the city denied my request for the permit to operate. They said I did not have adequate parking, my driveway was too narrow, and they felt Fairway was too busy to cross the street and they did not want the liability. I paid $600 and appealed their decision, knowing I was compliant with all ordinances. On Sept 16th, at the hearing with the commissioners, the staff confirmed that I was compliant with all the ordinances, and recommended my permit but with the condition that I drive children across the street to my home. The commissioners voted in favor of granting the use permit, but added two unreasonable conditions. 1) 1 must transfer the children in a vehicle to my home; never walking them across the street. 2). 1 am prohibited from operating in the summer, and my hours of operation are limited to 3:00- 5:30 p.m. The first condition requires that I purchase a vehicle big enough to drive the children directly across the street to my home. I cannot afford to purchase a vehicle for fourteen children. I live on a two-lane residential street where it is legal to cross mid block. Children walk home every day with no supervision. Some go home to empty homes as their parents are working. I am trying to provide a much needed service to the community. The children in my care are supervised from the time they get out of school, walking with me to my home. Legally the elementary age children can walk home alone from school. Unfortunately, many children do this, and are unsupervised. I fail to understand a reason why I would be prohibited to crossing children on Fairway Dr, as children can legally walk across the street to where I live unsupervised. The second condition limits my hours to 3:00-5:30, no care during the months when childcare is needed, there is less traffic and parents would be bringing their children to my home. Currently, I am operating as a small childcare provider. Each day I pick up the children at Washington Charter School (WCS) and we walk to the playground next door to the school at Hope Lutheran Church. I wait there with the children until the school traffic has settled before crossing the street to my home. We wear yellow fluorescent vests and hold a rope so no one walks away. I always make sure there are no cars before we cross the street. School lets out at 3:05, and we walk across the street around 3:30, except on Wednesdays as WCS has minimal days and we walk over at 2:00. The after school traffic is greatly reduced twenty minutes after school is dismissed. I lead my group across the street with my helper who walks in the back of the line. I want to operate as a large family Childcare provider so I can care for six more children. This will allow me to hire another person to work with me, providing an even safer environment for children. Parents feel it is safe, and trust me. Licensing feels it is safe, and has licensed me. The principal from WCS came and watched us cross, and feels it is safe. Cars can easily see us as we are all wearing safety vests, and I'm holding a large commercial stop sign held up as we cross the 24-foot, two-lane street. I have been open for over two months, providing a much needed after school program for 8 children. I am not disturbing anyone in the neighborhood. I am not obstructing traffic when I cross the children. When the parents arrive to pick up their children they are not causing any congestion of traffic. I have several families that are on my wait list that need care now. I want to operate as a large family childcare. To do so, I need the additional conditions removed so I can cross six additional children and operate year round. Six additional children will not change anything, except it will allow me to bring on another teacher making my program even safer and providing a service to additional families who need childcare. It's legal for everyone to walk across the street. Restricting me from crossing the children on this street or operating the hours I applied for is not ok. I invite you to watch us cross the children, and to come inside and see my family childcare. Each day I pick up the children at 3:30, and at 2:00 on Wednesdays. I currently am not providing care on Mondays. Please contact me and I would be happy to meet with you, and answer any questions you may have. (760) 408-8088. Childcare is needed in this area, and I would like to provide additional care and operate as a Large Family Child Care. I ask that City Council please call this up and remove the two added conditions. Respectfully, Samantha Clark Family Childcare Provider/The Art House BDLCSamantha@gmail.com Below is the chapter for Large Family Childcare: 25.64.020 Large Family Day Care Use Permits (Palm Desert) Purpose. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 1597.46, the City of Palm Desert prescribes reasonable land use standards, restrictions and requirements concerning space and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control relating to large family day care homes. A permit allows for the operation of a large family daycare home in conformance with such standards, restrictions, and requirements. The purpose of the permit is not to license, certify, or otherwise regulate the quality and safety of day care services provided by family day care homes and those that operate them, which is governed exclusively at the state level by the department of Social Services. (DPSS). As a licensed childcare provider I am expected to make proper decisions regarding the safety of the children in my care. The childcare analyst from the state is aware that I walk children across the street. I always have another adult with me. We cross 30 minutes after WCS is over, when the traffic has subsided. I have no intent to ever cross - late afternoons when the sun is going down, or to violate any codes such as stopping and controlling traffic. Crossing in front of my home, mid -block is legal. This was clarified by staff at the hearing on Sept. 16, and is also in the report in July. Further, staff confirmed that my family childcare home was compliant with all ordinances required for a large family daycare use permit. Adequate parking, traffic control, spacing and noise are the gply requirements a city can enforce for a daycare permit, and any conditions added have to apply to these ordinances. At the hearing the commissioners approved my permit, but added the following conditions that do not apply to the ordinances that the city oversees for a use permit for a large family childcare: Restriction of hours from 3-5:30 during the school year. The applicant shall not provide day care services when Washington Charter Elementary School is closed for summer break. I applied for a large family childcare permit to operate January - December, 8:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. Families need childcare year round, all day. The applicant shall drive 14 children to the day care home from WCS or Hope Lutheran Church. The day cane staff shall not cross the children mid -block on Fairway Drive, or stop traffic on any street s prohibited by Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 10.16.020. It is legal to cross on this street mid -block. We walk across the street when there is no traffic approaching, not stopping or controlling traffic before we walk into the street. I am not in violation of code section 10.16.020. "Washington Charter School .Allan lehmann, Principal 45-768 Porto(a Avenue * Pafm Desert, CA 9226o * (760) 862-4350 Dear Palm Desert City Council Members, The need for after school care at Washington Charter School continues to grow. The size of the school has gone from 704 students to 850+ in the past seven years. Since Bermuda Dunes Learning Center is at capacity at their Hope Lutheran location they have explored other options to meet the ever growing need for after school care for WCS families. Gayle Clark the executive director of 80LC shared with me her daughter Samantha's desire to open a large daycare program that can serve up to fourteen students. As the Principal of Washington Charter School I want excellent childcare for my students while providing options for families. In the past some families that expressed an interest in attending WCS made the decision to attend another school because we currently only offer a half day kindergarten program and when they looked for after school care at BDLC the program was at capacity. Samantha Clark is a caring and dedicated professional. One can see when she picks up her students how excited they are to see her. The safety and welfare of the students Is Samantha's number one priority. At the conclusion of the school day she walks her students out our back gate and along the sidewalk that fronts Lantana Street. Samantha, her assistant and the eight students wait until 3:30 pm before crossing Fairway. I had an opportunity one day to observe her crossing the students. The children hold a rope and cross as a group with one adult at the front of the line and another at the back of the line. Samantha waited until traffic had completely cleared before stepping Into the street. The entire crossing process took 15 seconds. Brightly colored vests are worn as a visual safety measure, in the event that a car approaches during the crossing process. She did not stop or obstruct any traffic. At WCS we have a number of students who walk to and from school in addition to parents that come to school to pick up their child at the conclusion of the school day. The volume of traffic fifteen minutes prior to the start of school and fifteen minutes after school dismisses at 3:05 pm is significantly higher. By 3:20 pm it appears that the number of vehicles on Fairway is back to a regular level. Samantha, using an abundance of caution even waits another ten minutes before crossing her students to the Art House. I am very impressed with what I observed. Allowing her to walk six additional children will help families in need of childcare. Many children are walking home everyday from schools unsupervised. We 1Nashington Charter School -ACCan Lehmann, PrincltaC 45-768 PortoCa Avenue * Pa(m Desert, Cal 9226o * (76o) 862435o have families in need of childcare now, and a provider able to help.ln closing it is my hope that the decision of the planning commissioners can be reviewed by the City Council and a resolution that meets the needs of all parties can be attained. I appreciate your willingness to read my letter. If you have additional questions please feel free to give me a call. MINUTES I PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of August 19, 2014. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented. Upon a motion by Commissioner Campbell, second by Commissioner Greenwood, and a 4-0-1 vote of the Planning Commission (AYES: Campbell, Dash, Greenwood, and Stendell; NOES: None; ABSENT: DeLuna), the Consent Calendar was approved as presented. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None Vill. NEW BUSINESS None IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of an appeal of a decision by the Zoning Administrator denying a Large Family Day Care Use Permit for a maximum of 14 children located at 74-085 Fairway Drive. The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities) of CEQA Guidelines. Case No. Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 (Samantha Clark, 74-085 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260, Applicant). Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, stated that several correspondences came in today, which were not included in the packets. He asked the Planning Commission if they needed a moment to read them. Mr. Bagato continued to report that the request is for a Large Day Care Use Permit, which was denied by the Zoning Administrator (City staff person). He indicated that a small day care (eight children or less) is allowed by right, and a large day care (nine to 14 children) is also allowed by right, unless a jurisdiction chooses to require a permit. However, the review of a large day care permit is limited to traffic control, parking, space and concentration, and noise. Mr. Bagato displayed a picture of the site and its location. He stated that the applicant is working with Washington Charter School (WCS) to provide an afterschool art program and day care in her home. The applicant proposes that after school the children will play and have snacks at the Hope Lutheran Church playground until 3:30 p.m. to let school traffic dissipate so that the children could cross the street safely. Mr. Bagato explained the process on how the children would be escorted across the street by the applicant. He listed staffs concerns: traffic and speed limit, traffic control, parking, pedestrian safety, and neighborhood impact. He indicated that a traffic 2 G 1PianningWonica ORedly\Pianning Commissjon\2014\Mnutesl9-16-14 min docx MINUTES 4 1 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 study was done, and 255 to 323 vehicles travel per hour on Fairway Drive during the day care operating hours. In addition, he noted that the speed limit on Fairway Drive was recently raised from 25 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour based on a survey required by State law. Mr. Bagato stated that staff also has a concern with traffic control for crossing. He noted that crossing would occur at midblock and there is no signal, crosswalk, or stop sign. Installing a crosswalk at the subject location was discussed; however, staff still had concerns since it is midblock and not a controlled area. He mentioned that per the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) Section 10.16.020, stopping traffic with a handheld stop sign or blocking traffic without a handheld stop sign is illegal in Palm Desert unless you are a trained professional through emergency services or a certified crossing guard. Mr. Bagato indicated that there is a concern with parking. The home has a narrow lot, which will make it difficult for cars to maneuver. He noted that there is only one parking space available on the street. Mr. Bagato showed a video recorded by the City's Transportation Engineer displaying how the applicant is currently crossing the children and noted his concerns. He mentioned that during his initial review he sent out a notice to nearby property owners and he received five letters in opposition, with two persons requesting a hearing. The hearing was held on July 21, 2014. At the hearing comments were made that there is a need for childcare; however, there were also neighbors concerned about traffic and noise. After the Zoning Administrator reviewed all the evidence, he issued the notice of denial on July 25 based on the traffic concerns and lack of maneuverability for on -site parking. He stated that the applicant filed an appeal of the denial to go to the Planning Commission. He noted that the Planning Commission's decision is final unless the permit is called up for review by the City Council. Mr. Bagato said that after the appeal was filed, staff met with the applicant's representative. The representative verbally proposed to drive the children across the street in a van, and provided a written statement that they will provide staggered pickup times to mitigate parking concerns. He explained that after reviewing State laws and the proposed conditions the applicant presented, staff believed that the appeal could be approved based on the two main conditions that were written in the resolution: 1) applicant shall drive the children to the property; and 2) the children shall be picked up at staggered times starting at 4:30 p.m. with no more than four cars every twenty minutes. He said the other option is the applicant could drive the children back to the church. Mr. Bagato mentioned that the applicant now states that it is not acceptable to drive the children across the street in a van, and the applicant continues to support the plan to cross the children midblock. He also mentioned that a letter was written by a consultant on the applicant's behalf to which the Public Works Department wrote a memorandum in response. He said that another option to support the permit is if the applicant installs a sidewalk from her property towards Portola Avenue or Lantana Avenue. He offered to answer any questions. Vice Chair Ken Stendell asked if the proposed day care is only an after school facility. 3 G \PianningWonina ORediy\Rannmg Commissiont2014\M.nutest9-16-14 min oocz MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 Mr. Bagato responded that it would only be an afterschool day care during the school year; however, they have State approval to start at 8:00 a.m. during the summer months. He was told that the program would only be 3:30 to 5:00 p.m. Vice Chair Stendell inquired if there could conceivably be morning care during the summer. He said that they would have to address the issue of different hours, if it is conceivable. He asked how feasible is it to install a sidewalk from one of the major intersections to the subject property. He also asked if it would be cost prohibitive to install the sidewalk. Mr. Bagato replied that staff estimated the cost for a sidewalk would be $20,000 to $30,000 depending on modifications for ADA, and it would also alter some of the driveways at existing homes. He stated that at this time, staff is recommending that the applicant, not the City would be responsible for the cost. Vice Chair Stendell stated that he is for day care, preschool, and afterschool care. His concern is that the driveway has vegetation out to the curb, with some blind spot conditions that would make it difficult for an individual or group bus arrangement to drive across the street. He commented that in the last couple of decades, Fairway Drive has been a major shortcut towards the east, and the City has tried throttling it by installing stop signs and controlling the speed. He stated that the pictures do not address all his concerns. He asked if the children crossing the street are considered to be jaywalking, and if it is prohibited per the municipal code. Mr. Bagato responded that it is not jaywalking. Per the municipal code, standing in the street with a stop sign to stop traffic is prohibited. He stressed that safety is a concern, and staff will support the day care if the children are driven across the street. Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant is licensed, and if she is now open. Mr. Bagato replied that she has a State license for a small day care. Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant has a City license. Is a City license required? Mr. Bagato stated that he believes that the State requires that the applicant get a City license. He mentioned that the applicant cannot get a City business license for the large day care until it is approved by the City. Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant needs a City license for the small day care. Mr. Bagato replied yes. 4 G TtanningWonica OReilyPlanning Commission\2014vNinutest9-16-14 min docx MINUTES (3 I PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 Commissioner Campbell inquired what the ages of the children are. Mr. Bagato responded that Washington Charter is a middle school, and the applicant can provide the ages of the children. Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant would have children between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during the summer. What are the ages of the children during the summer? Mr. Bagato said that if the applicant is licensed by the State, the ages could be young children up to middle school age children. Commissioner Campbell inquired if that includes one-year old children. Mr. Bagato replied that if licensed by the State the applicant could have young children, but it may require additional teachers for infants. Commissioner Campbell clarified that the applicant could have children at any age. Mr. Bagato replied that is correct. Commissioner Campbell asked if property owners would lose a piece of their property if a sidewalk is installed, which she believes that would not make them happy. Mr. Bagato replied that is correct. Vice Chair Stendell commented that the property has a swimming pool. He asked if the pool would be used or would it be locked to prevent an accident. Mr. Bagato responded that the pool will not be used by the children at the day care. The pool is fenced and it has been addressed. He noted that the applicant has received approval by the Fire Department. Commissioner Campbell asked if the children will be allowed to be outside. Mr. Bagato replied that State law allows for children to be outside, and it is not a condition that the City could implement. Commissioner Campbell noted that there is a patio in the back. Mr. Bagato said that is correct, and provided a brief description of the house. Commissioner John Greenwood inquired if the afterschool art program is specific to WCS. Are there kids that do not attend WCS in the program? If the permit is 5 G \PlannmgkWnlca ORedllytPlavnng CommissionQ014\MlnuteS\9-16-14 min ooCx MINUTES I () PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 approved for 14 kids, would they all come from WCS? Would they arrive at the same time? Mr. Bagato answered that it is an afterschool art program for kids that attend WCS, and the 14 kids would be coming from WCS. He stated that the applicant's intent is that the kids come from WCS; however, the City cannot regulate where the children come from. Chair Dash declared the public hearing open and asked for any public testimony IN FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MS. SAMANTHA CLARK, 74-085 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260, stated that she hopes the Planning Commission reconsiders the decision to deny a large family day care in her home. She corrected Mr. Bagato's statement, and said that they do not need the City's approval to operate a small family day care. She also said that the children in her day care are in elementary school; kindergarten to fifth grade. Ms. Clark explained that she provides afterschool care from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. She first picks up the children at WCS and takes them to Hope Lutheran Church, then she and another staff person prepare the children to safely cross the street. However, she was recently informed that it is illegal to stop traffic or use a stop sign without permission from a law official so they now cross with a yellow handmade sign. She continued to explain that the art program goes until 5:00 p.m., at which that time she takes the children back across the street to Hope Lutheran Church (Bermuda Dunes Learning Center site). Ms. Clark stated that the majority of the children do not get picked up at The Art House. The Bermuda Dunes Learning Center is open until 5:45, and her program ends at 5:00 p.m. She noted that the staff report is incorrect and apologized if there was confusion on her part. She clarified that they will only cross two times with most of the children being picked up at the Hope Lutheran Church. She noted that children that are picked up between the hours of 4:30 and 5:00 p.m. and there should be sufficient parking with minimal or no traffic disruption. She said most parents would pick up their children between 4:30 and 5:00 p.m. or after 5:00 p.m. at the church. She stated that the safety of the children is important to her, as well as complying with the laws of the City of Palm Desert. She referred to Palm Desert Municipal Code 25.64.020 and commented that she sees many parents as volunteers as cross guards that use stop signs and stop traffic. She asked if she could hire a crossing guard or become a certified crossing guard to mitigate the traffic safety concern. She feels that the safest way of crossing the children is the way they have been since it provides the children with the least amount of time on the street and is the shortest distance to her home. Ms. Clark stated that buying a van to cross the children is costly and seems a bit unreasonable for the short distance. She hopes that an agreement could be reached so that she could expand the program in her home without the use of a van. She thanked the Planning Commission for their time. 6 G TianningNonica ORCiIy\Planning CommissionQ01MMmutesl9-16-14 min oocx MINUTES C PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 Vice Chair Stendell asked if the current operating hours are from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m., and does she plan to extend the hours in the future. MS. CLARK responded that it is only an afterschool program during the school year. Vice Chair Stendell noted that the Public Works Director states that people holding up a sign are usually targets to get hit by a vehicle. He expressed that he would not like to be part of a governing body that would put children in jeopardy for this day care. He said that he agrees with the recommendation to drive them across the street in a vehicle. Vice Chair Stendell asked the applicant how amiable is she to the recommendation to use a vehicle to cross the children in order for the Planning Commission to approve the large family day care permit. MS. CLARK responded that she is not sure if she could afford a van, but she would look into it since she wants to expand. She stated that she hopes to reach some other type of agreement. Commissioner Campbell commented that the applicant stated that the afterschool program is from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. She asked the applicant why she needs the hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. MS. CLARK responded that with a State license she is able to have up to 14 children, and operate from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Campbell clarified that the applicant would not have children between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The children will be at the day care from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. MS. CLARK replied that is correct. Commissioner Campbell reaffirmed that the children will only be at the day care from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. MS. CLARK replied that is correct, and added that it would only be during the school year. Commissioner Campbell asked if that includes the summer. MS. CLARK responded that they do not have any plans to have a summer program. Commissioner Campbell proposed that a condition is added that the applicant could only operate the afterschool program from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. while school is in session. 7 G 1PRanningkMoroca OReflUylPlannmg Commissiom2014\AAnutes\9-16-14 min doca MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 MS. CLARK responded that she agrees if that is the only way she could operate. Commissioner Campbell clarified that the applicant agreed to operate the afterschool program from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.; September through June and no summer program. MS. CLARK replied that is correct. Commissioner Campbell said again that the applicant would not have children at the day care from June through September. MS. CLARK responded that she does not have plans, but she has considered it a possibility. Commissioner Campbell explained to the applicant that if the Planning Commission approves the permit with the conditions, she will not be able to have a day care during the summer. MS. CLARK replied that she understands. Commissioner Greenwood asked the applicant if she picks up the kids at WCS at 3:00 p.m. when school is out. MS. CLARK responded that the bell rings at 3:00 p.m. Commissioner Greenwood asked the applicant if she goes to Hope Lutheran Church for some time to let the traffic subside. MS. CLARK replied yes. She said that they get the children ready with vests. Commissioner Greenwood asked at what time they get to her home. MS. CLARK said they get to her home about 3:30 or 3:40 p.m. Commissioner Greenwood asked if the art program lasts approximately 45 minutes to an hour, and then does she start getting the kids ready to cross the street back to the church. Is she escorting the kids back to the church or are parents picking up children at the day care? MS. CLARK responded that the parents have the option to pick up the kids. However since it is a short program, most of the kids stay till the end. Commissioner Greenwood commented that it seems the applicant has support from the church. He asked the applicant if she has discussed with the church if there are any opportunities to have the art program on their site. 8 G �Plannmg\Monica ORerllykPlanrnng Commission\2014tMmules\9-16-14 min docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 MS. CLARK replied no. She said that she has talked to WCS, but she does not believe the church has space. MS. DEBORAH CLARK-CREWS, Executive Director of Riverside County Child Care Consortium, Moreno Valley, California 92557, communicated that she has been in the field for 37 years. She said that she has known Mrs. Gayle Clark and her family and the programs they run for over 20 years. She noted that she is not related to the family. She conveyed afterschool programs have a stellar reputation in Riverside County and Palm Desert. She stated that the State has licensed The Art House, and she briefly explained the process of obtaining a license. She mentioned that the applicant and their family have other sites that have been open for over 20 years, and the State believes that the applicant will provide a quality and safe program for the children. Ms. Clark -Crews reiterated that the applicant does not need City approval for a small day care. She said that after watching the video, she has never seen anyone go to the extreme as the applicant has to get the children across the street in a safe manner. She stressed that there is a phenomenal need in the County and Palm Desert for child care, and if there is a program to support the need then they should find a way to provide the quality care for children that is needed. MR. STEVEN HECHT, Willow Street, Palm Desert, California 92260, commented that he has two children. One of his kids attends WCS and goes to the Bermuda Dunes Learning Center in the afternoon. He mentioned that he and his wife chose Palm Desert to raise their family based on housing affordability, excellent public schools, and they felt the area was safe and secure for their children. He stated that his focus as their father has been to provide an environment that promotes a healthy, safe, and secure upbringing. Mr. Hecht also stated that he has witnessed and reviewed the procedures that the Bermuda Dunes Learning Center has implemented to safely move the children for the art program across the street. He concluded that the procedures in place are safe and appropriate, and asked that the Planning Commission concur. MR. REGGIE CLARK, Taylor Avenue, Palm Desert, California 92260, stated that he has worked over 25 years with preschoolers, elementary school and middle school children. He said that they have taken the time and the effort to provide the safe transportation of the kids directly across from the church to The Art House. He mentioned that he talked to two policemen who work in the area, and they said that the City Council would probably recommend coming off of Lantana Avenue, an undocumented crosswalk, then cutting down the south side of Fairway Drive. The policeman also said that it is the least safe route. Mr. Clark stated that the safest route would be as proposed to dress kids in neon vests, and have two adults monitor as they cross the street. He mentioned that he talked to several people that hold stop signs, and they said that they had no training, no fire clearance, and no police clearance. However, the Ms. Clark is being required to have clearance. He stated that they do not need a stop sign, 9 G tPianningWonica ORediy\Pianning Commissiom201MMinutesl9.16 14 min Oocx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 and that they were just trying to make a large presence to capture drivers' attention. MR. ALLAN LEHMAN, Principal of WCS, Palace Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260, said that he has been at the school for 17 years, and they currently have 870 students. He noted that 170 students are ages four and five. He stated that child care has always been an issue at WCS. There are two organizations that provide child care (Bermuda Dunes Learning Center and The Homework Club) after the church preschool closed. Mr. Lehman indicated that the number of students at WCS has continued to grow so the need for quality child care has got even greater. He said that he embraced The Art House because it is another option for families. He commented that ultimately he would like to see a sidewalk in the area to cross the children. He commented that a van also has inherent risks. Mr. Lehman stated that they sometimes approach day care providers based on need for additional day care during the day. Vice Chair Stendell asked Mr. Lehman if enrollment at WCS is a condition upon child care. Mr. Lehman replied no. MR. JORGE JIMENEZ, Calico Glen Drive, Bermuda Dunes, California 92203, commented that his two kids have been going to the Bermuda Dunes Learning Center for the last two years. His oldest child attends WCS. He said that the only reason he is not part of the art program is because they do not have space for additional kids. He expressed that he as parent trusts the applicant and Bermuda Dunes Learning Center with his children. He last commented that he drives on Fairway Drive, and never sees a traffic problem and feels it is a low traffic street. MS. EMILY REKUC, Calle Tecate, La Quinta, California 92253, said that her daughter attends WCS, participates in the morning and afterschool program at Bermuda Dunes Learning Center, and attends The Art House program. She communicated that the applicant warned her that the program would be across the street, and shared with her how they plan on crossing the street. She stated that she and her husband are comfortable with the process. Last she said the she trusts Bermuda Dunes Learning Center with her daughter. MS. ALY FOSTER OLSON, 30t' Avenue, Cathedral City, California 92234, stated that she works at Bermuda Dunes Learning Center and The Art House. She informed the Planning Commission that she assists in crossing the children. She indicated that the State has approved them for 14 children, and that the State trusts them to cross the children safely across the street. She expressed that they will be doing everything in their power to make sure the kids are safe, and they would never let something happen to the children. Ms. Olson stated that the six spaces might not sound like much, but six spaces will help families that need day care. She voiced that the State and the parents trust them with their children, 10 G 1Planning\Wnica ORedly\Planning Commission\2014\Mnu1es\9-16-14 min tl0cx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 and hopes that the Planning Commission listens to the parents and reconsider their decision. MS. LISA LARSON, First Five Riverside, Riverside, California 92507, stated that she is given the impression that the Planning Commission is aware of the deficit that they face with child care in the western county. She encouraged the Planning Commission to please make sure that they do everything possible to make this work. DR. JAMES CONTI, Willow Street, Palm Desert, California 92260, stated that he is a physician at Eisenhower Medical Center and lives in south Palm Desert. He said that his children recently started to attend WCS, and his children attended Bermuda Dunes Learning Center when they lived in La Quinta. He stated that he trusts them with his children and they are very responsible. He commented that he feels child care is deficient in Palm Desert. He asked that the Planning Commission figure out a solution. He also asked if someone could look into additional signage or an illuminated crosswalk. He last stated that he is in favor of additional child care. MS. JEAN ESPINO, Joshua Road, Palm Desert, California 92260, commented that she is a program director at the Bermuda Dunes Learning Center located in Bermuda Dunes, and has been there for 20 years. She stated that they have been walking children across the street without incident for 20 years. She also stated that Ms. Clark has worked at their site, and has been fully trained on safety measures. She indicated that the State has approved the program and the street crossing. She noted that a child could legally be dismissed from school, and walk home, walk to a friend's house, or walk to afterschool care independently without supervision. The children could walk to the day care facility then it would be the City's responsibility to make sure there is a safe walking zone. After briefly voicing her opinions on street safety and the need for child care, Ms. Espino stated that if the Planning Commission feels it is not safe for the children to cross the street, then help them make it safe. MS. BETH RUBARTH, Callaway Court, Palm Desert, California 92260, communicated that her child has been with Bermuda Dunes Learning Center since he was nine months old. She declared that she has complete faith and trusts the Bermuda Dunes Learning Center with her child. She said that she hopes the Planning Commission listens to what the parents are saying. The parents should be able to make decisions and be able to trust that the applicant will take care of their children. MRS. GAYLE CLARK, Taylor Avenue, Palm Desert, California 92260, stated that she is the founder and executive director of the Bermuda Dunes Learning Center that opened in 1993, and listed her experience in the field. Approximately three years ago the Hope Lutheran Church and WCS requested that she consider opening a child care program at the church. They currently serve 60 children and 11 G.tPlanningNonica ORe+llytPianning Commi55i0m2014Mnutes\9-16-14 min oocx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 have children on a waitlist. She said that she and Ms. Samantha Clark saw the house across the street from the church go on the market for sale, and they both thought it would be a great place to have an art program. Mrs. Clark and her husband decided to take a chance and make an investment to provide an art afterschool program for the community. She stated that prior to purchasing the house she called and talked to the Planning Department and the Fire Marshall. She said that she provided the address and location, and they were all very helpful. Mrs. Clark showed another video of the children crossing the street. She commented that she received a letter from the City's Transportation Department stating that they have concerns with the sunrise and sunset. She noted that the children would never be crossing the street in the morning since she is not providing morning care. During the winter months, the parents would pick up the children at the home or they would park at the church and cross the street to pick up their kids; it is their prerogative. She communicated that they have the knowledge on how to ensure the safe crossing of children, or they would not take that liability to put any child in danger. MR. GREG FAIN, Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260, stated that he has lived on Fairway Drive for 13 years and he has seen it all. He noted that Ms. Clark moved into the house in June, and she has not seen traffic in November through May when second home homeowners return to the desert. He said that they use Fairway Drive to go to El Paseo or other places. He indicated that he periodically calls the Police Department to report people speeding and people running the Black Rabbit stop sign on a frequent basis. It is scary to have someone crossing children in the middle of the street when people in today's world are on their cell phones texting or they ignore the 30 miles per hour speed limit. He noted that the video is showing very little traffic, which is not a true indication for at least six months of the year. He voiced that it is a dangerous situation and someone is going to get hurt. MR. BRIAN MC GOUGH, Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260, stated that he has lived on Fairway Drive for seven years. He said that there is a lot of traffic where at times he can't get out of his own driveway. He noted that he is not against day care; however, it is the wrong location. He feels it is ridiculous to ask the City to pay for a sidewalk from their tax dollars for 14 children. If there's a need for a sidewalk, the applicant should pay for it. He said that it is not a good location to have children cross the street. He voiced that he has a concern with his property value going down. No one will want to buy his home if they know there is a large day care next door. He also voiced his concerns with the hours and the noise. In closing, he feels that is it not safe, it is a waste of time and a waste of money. MRS. DZENITA MC GOUGH, Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260, communicated that she is concerned with traffic and visibility is not good. She feels that is it not the right location for a day care. The neighbors were not taken 12 G Pannmg\Monica ORe411y\Piannmg CommissiOm2014\Mmutes\9-16-14 min doca MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 into consideration. She feels 14 children is a lot especially since they have a home business and noise would interrupt their business. MR. JOHN TURNER, Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260, commented that his brother is an educator and is not against family day care. He voiced that it is a bad location for a day care, and expressed his concern with traffic safety. MS. SAMANTHA CLARK stated that a family child care is to be treated as residential home because it remains a residence where she and her son live. She indicated that a provider must reside in the home, no special driveway is required, only three parking spaces are required, a family child care must be at least 300 feet from another child care, and child care may not cause traffic issues such as cars backed -up waiting to get in. Ms. Clark stated that she only wants to expand her program. She thanked the Planning Commission for their time, and hoped that they consider overturning the denial of the family day care. With no further testimony offered, Chair Dash declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenwood commented that this case is a tough one for him. He is a father of two boys who are in day care programs. He understands the need for quality day care, and he acknowledges that the applicant is taking every consideration possible. However, he is concerned with traffic on Fairway Drive. He stated that there are so many unpredictable things that could happen, and commented that it is a very difficult case to decide on. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Greenwood. She stated that there is always a need for a child care facility. She mentioned that she has lived in the desert for 29 years, and she has seen Fairway Drive become a very busy street. She noted that stop signs were added and police are always out there ticketing people. Commissioner Campbell communicated that it is not the right location to have small children crossing the street. What if there is someone texting or talking on the phone and hits a child, who is responsible? Would Ms. Clark be responsible? Would the City of Palm Desert be responsible? She feels that day care is needed; however, it is not the right location. Chair Dash said that no matter how much is planned in preventing things from happening there are going to be accidents that occur. He said that it becomes the responsibility of the Planning Commission to think in terms of safety of the children crossing the street. He commented that if a driver is distracted and the teacher and kids are in the middle of the street, there is nothing that the teacher can do to stop the car. He noted that there is another situation that occurs more often, in which a senior mistakes the accelerator for the break. Again, there is nothing a teacher could do to stop the car. He expressed that he would hate and would not want to in his life to say 1 wish I had not done that." 13 G TlanningMonica OREOpPianning Commission\20141Minutesl9-16-14 mmAocn ' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 Vice Chair Stendell agreed with all of the Planning Commissioner's sentiments. He thoroughly believes that the applicant's intent is good and the Planning Commission's ability to trust the applicant's intent that being the first and foremost safety of the children. He believes that, except when you put trust versus traffic. He said that aside from traffic, his number one concern, they also have to factor in the setting and rising sun on Fairway Drive. He noted that he has been a driver on Fairway for over 30 years to know that the sun glares in the early morning and in the late afternoon when the sun is setting, then there is the issue of darkness. Vice Chair Stendell communicated that the risk they all take could be overwhelming. Individuals may not look at Ms. Samantha Clark as the individual that opened a day care; however, they would remember that the Planning Commission of 2014 approved the permit, and six children and a teacher were injured. He stated that in some way the City is going to be accountable because the Planning Commission approved the permit. He noted that the conditions of approval that have been put forth in the resolution for approval stipulate hours of operation. He would condition that the hours of operation are from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m., afterschool day care only, and only during the school year. He pointed out that the most important condition that was touched upon briefly during the hearing is Condition No. 5 that states, "The applicant shall drive the 14 children to the day care home from Washington Charter School or Hope Lutheran Church..." He made clear that anything that is approved or denied has to address Condition No. 5, which states that the applicant will transport the children in a vehicle. He stated that the only way he would support the permit is with the amendment to the hours of operation and Condition No. 5. He commended the applicant for wanting to do a good deed. He said that proper due diligence could have determined whether or not a permit would have been approved. In closing, he stated that he would move to amend Condition No. 4 to state the hours of operation to be between 3:00 and 5:30 p.m. afterschool during the school year, and Condition No. 5 that the applicant shall drive the 14 children to the day care from WCS or Hope Lutheran Church. Commissioner Campbell clarified if the school year would be September through June. Vice Chair Stendell responded that is correct. Chair Dash asked Ms. Aylaian how she would want the Planning Commission to handle the motion. Ms. Aylaian responded that there is a motion, which is to amend the hours of operation from 3:00 to 5:30 only during school year (September -June), and that the children are driven from WCS or Hope Lutheran Church to the facility. She stated all they need is someone to second the motion. Or, The Planning Commission could move to direct staff to return with a resolution of denial. 14 G \Plannini;Nonica ORelllylPlanning Commission\2014\Mnutesl9-16-14 min docx MINUTES 11 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 Vice Chair Stendell moved, by Minute Motion, to approve a large family day care, and amend Condition No. 4 to state the hours of operation from 3:00 to 5:30 p.m. during the school year (September -June), and children must be driven from WCS or Hope Lutheran Church to the facility per Condition No. 5. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and carried by a 4-0-1 vote (AYES: Campbell, Dash, Greenwood, and Stendell; NOES: None; ABSENT: DeLuna). Vice Chair Stendell moved, by Minute Motion, to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2636, approving Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188, subject to conditions as amended. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and carried by a 4-0-1 vote (AYES: Campbell, Dash, Greenwood, and Stendell; NOES: None; ABSENT: DeLuna). Vice Chair Stendell asked the applicant if she understood that the Planning Commission approved the large family day care by amending the hours of operation to be afterschool (3:00-5:30 p.m.), and the applicant shall drive the 14 children to the day care facility. The children will be picked up at staggered times by the parents, or they will be driven back to the church. He made clear that the children will not cross the street. The Planning Commission asked that the applicant talk to City staff, if she has any questions or needs clarification. X. MISCELLANEOUS None XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None XI1. COMMENTS None 15 G \PlanningWonica ORedly\Planning C0mm45i0nQ014\Minutes\9-16-14 min oocx 4(31 To: From: Date: Subject: CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Mark Greenwood, P.E., Director of Public Work September 16, 2014 Bermuda Dunes Learning Center I have reviewed the undated letter from Mr. Gary Andary, Child Care Facilities Consultant, regarding the Bermuda Dunes Learning Center and said pedestrian access to the facility. I am dismayed at Mr. Andary's lack of investigation of the site prior to pronouncing the facility safe. He relies on purported inspection and review by the state licensing analyst and community care licensing as evidence of safety. Having personally visited the site, and being quite familiar with traffic conditions in the area, I have serious concerns for the safety of children crossing Fairway Drive to and from the child care facility. The operators of the facility have been observed and documented to be controlling traffic in an effort to provide access. Controlling traffic by untrained and unauthorized individuals is both illegal and unsafe. Statistics show that even a well - trained crossing guard is the person most likely to be hit in a crosswalk. Merely holding a stop sign above your head provides no expectation that the crossing can be safely accomplished. This particular location suffers from the east/west orientation of Fairway Drive, which results in severe glare in the early morning and late afternoon hours. The mid -block location of the crossing and this well-known glare could easily result in a disastrous consequence. It should also be noted that at certain times of the year it will be dark as the child care session is ending, and there are no street lights in this area. Allowing children to cross in an unlit, mid -block location cannot be expected to be safe. It is the recommendation of the Public Works Department that, if a child care facility is to be approved at this location, a method other than mid -block pedestrian crossing be required of the facility operators. Two possibilities have been identified to mitigate this concern: the first requires the facility operator to transport the children by vehicle, and the second is to require the facility operator to construct sidewalk on the south side of Fairway Drive from their site to the nearest appropriate crosswalk location. MG/bl Bagato, Tony 4 From: Ashley Samson [ashleysamson2012@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:47 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: Peaceful South Palm Desert Good Afternoon, I got a notice about the appeal of the Daycare on Fairway Dr, I wanted to go to the appeal meeting tonight but I will be unable due to health issues. I strongly oppose the daycare on Fairway dr, this is simply not the right place for this kind of business. This is a mostly retired area of Palm Desert, it's quiet and peaceful. To bring a daycare in a neighborhood like this is ridiculous and inconsiderate. Our homes are high in value and we want to keep it that way. We just came out of a slumped economy and prices are on the rise, now to bring a daycare will only lessen our home values. Why should we suffer because someone did not do proper research before purchasing in this area? We saved our money bought our dream homes to retire in and enjoy peace and quiet, not to live next to 14 screaming children.On top of that they are requesting a city to add a sidewalk because of their desired business in an inappropriate area and mess with people front yards, not only do they want to intrude on our peace, they want to change our landscape. This is so upsetting my blood pressure is rising as I'm typing. Please deny their appeal and let us go back to enjoying our rightfully earned retirement. Ashley S. Full time Fairway Dr resident. Bagato, Tony 1 (11 From: Dzenita McGough [bdmgifts@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:31 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: opposing Daycare on Fairway Dr Good Afternoon , We are writing this e-mail as concerned residents of a peaceful South Palm Desert neighborhood. Recently 74085 Fairway drive was sold to a woman and her daughter. The daughter Samantha stated that it will be just her and her baby living there. We thought how nice, a mother and a child moving in never thought about it again. Then we got a letter in the mail from the city stating that there will be a daycare opening next door for 14 children. This was a shock to us. We did some research online and found out that when a day care opens up in a residential area it decreases the home value by about 10% because of the noise and additional traffic. This is not ok, on top of that we were also informed that there will be a side walk added in our front yard and a crosswalk as a result of the daycare opening, decreasing the value of our homes even more. Who will be responsible for the decreased value of our homes? The houses are finally on the upswing this is very upsetting.Also how are there children in the house when they have a band practice every night till 10pm that can be heard throughout the whole neighborhood? We oppose the proposed 14 children daycare at 74085 fairway dr. we want to keep our home value up and unnecessary traffic and noise out. If we knew this was going to happen we would have never bought in this mostly adult neighborhood. Speed limit on Fairway drive is 30mph, having a crosswalk would not be safe for kids. Once again we strongly oppose the daycare attempting to appeal the already denied process. If i wanted to live next to a daycare I would have bough a house next to one. This is a peaceful adult neighborhood and it needs to stay that way. south Palm Desert is a very desired area to live in, having a daycare here will ruin the neighborhood. 14 children is way to many for a residential retired peaceful area, the 8 that they have now are loud enough and it already creates more traffic on an already busy street, Gail also stated that after it gets approved there is nothing anyone can do to stop them from having the kids outside, even though they are telling the council that they will never have the kids outside because of the loud noise they will make.. Please deny their appeal and save the neighborhood. A very upset next door Neighbor. Bagato, Ton © 1 From: Consultant [consultant@dslextreme.com] Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 7:55 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [SPAM] - Re: 74-085 Fairway Drive - Large Family Day Care Thank you, Tony. I understand that safety is your main concern here. Have a nice weekend. Gary Andary Sent from my iPod On Sep 12, 2014, at 7:08 PM, <tbagato @cityofpalmdesert.org> wrote: Gary, Thank you for your letter, however, there are some key facts that are not being covered in your letter and I am not sure Gayle Clark shared with you. First, her proposal that the teachers will stop traffic is a violation of the Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 10.16.020., which states: "No person other than an officer of the police department or members of the police department or members c the fire department or a person authorized by the chief of police or a person authorized by law shall direct or attempt to direct traffic by voice, hand or other signal, except that persons may operate, when and as provide this title, any mechanical pushbutton signal erected by order of the city traffic engineer. (Ord. 36 § 3.1, 1974 Second, the most recent traffic study indicates that there is one car traveling on Fairway Drive every 12 seconds. This is a very busy residential street. Chapter 25.64.020 states that if all concerns are addressed it must be approved. Crossing the children in her traffic plan does not address our concerns. I have stated that the children have to be driven to the day care home based on Gayle Clark stating she would drive them to address my denial. Now that the appeal has been processed, she is not happy with her own solution for the illegal traffic plan. I do not believe my conditions are arbitrary due to the fact her traffic plan is prohibited by our ordinance and Fairway Drive has a higher number of vehicles traveling on it than most collector streets in Palm Desert. These conditions are solely based on the location of the home and is within our discretion of Chapter 25.16.020. If you have any questions, please contact me on Monday. Tony Bagato Sent from Whone Gary Andary `. -) Child Care Facilities Consultant 4674 Olive Street Montclair, CA 91763 Samantha Clark/Gayle Clark Clark Family Child Care Home 74085 Fairway Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Licensee/Applicants, I am providing this letter regarding limitations proposed by the City to limit or restrict the street crossing process for school -age children between the neighboring elementary school and your Large Family Child Care Home. My evaluation is being provided free of any charge or compensation, because of my concern for fair, reasonable, and legal application of the limits imposed on cities with regard to regulation of Large Family Child Care Homes. I have worked with child care facilities in the area of Health and Safety for 39 years; 30 years as a Child Care Advocate/Ombudsman, Analyst, and a Manager for the California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division. In addition, I was a consultant for First 5 Riverside from 2004 - 2011, working to support the development of child care facilities throughout Riverside County. I worked with cities throughout Riverside County to develop Child Care Economic Impact Reports and Child Care Planning Guides that described critical child care needs as well as local ordinance provisions for child care faclilities. Let by the efforts of Jean Benson in Palm Desert, and Aurora Wilson of CVAG, cities in the Coachella Valley have provided wonderful support for the development of child care facilities to support the needs of children and families. And of all the cities in the Valley, Palm Desert has led the way in this area. Through the years, I have worked extensively with the issue of local ordinance compliance with Section 1597.45 of the Health and Safety Code, and was pleased when Palm Desert enacted an ordinance that reflects the letter and spirit of the law. I have reviewed Section 25.64.020 of the city's Municipal Code, and as you correctly assert, there is no ordinance provision or limitation regarding children walking to and from the facility. I have worked extensively with Public Counsel's Child Care Law Project (Los Angeles), as well as the Child Care Law Center (San Francisco), and believe that your city's attempt to limit or control the area of children walking to or from the facility via a permit limitation is not permitted by statute. Moreover, I believe that the imposition of this kind of limitation is potentially actionable, if you wish to advance the issue legally. r 2 Thousands of school -age children are walked to and from child care facilities every day throughout California, and you have presented an extraordinary safe and reasonable plan to do this for your Family Child Care Home, far beyond what most of these homes do. The issue of safe walking of these children was reviewed by the State Licensing Analyst as part of the plan of operation for your recently licensed home. And any allegation of unsafe movement of children to or from the facility would be investigated by Community Care Licensing under its exclusive licensing regulatory enforcement authority. Feel free to contact me regarding further concerns regarding this issue, and and please share this letter with City officials. I sincerely hope the matter can be easily resolved. In 39 years of working with thousands of child care facilities, I have never encountered this kind of issue with respect to local regulation, based solely on the subjective personal opinions of local officials, and arbitrarily applied to only one facility. Sincerely, Gary Andary Child Care Facilities Consultant (909)896-0669 Email: consultant@dslextreme.com CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A DECISION BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DENYING A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE USE PERMIT FOR A MAXIMUM OF 14 CHILDREN LOCATED AT 74-085 FAIRWAY DRIVE. THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PER SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1, EXISTING FACILITIES) OF CEQA GUIDELINES SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner APPLICANT: Samantha Clark 74-085 Fairway Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO: Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 DATE: September 16, 2014 CONTENTS: Planning Commission Resolution No. 2636 Legal Notice Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.64.020 Department of Public Works Memo Zoning Administrator's Notice of Decision, dated July 25, 2014 Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes, dated July 21, 2014 Correspondences from Applicant's Representative, and Neighbors Site Plan & Floor Plan Statement of Use Application to Appeal Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2636, approving Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188, subject to conditions. Executive Summary On June 2, 2014, Samantha Clark (applicant) filed an application for a Large Family Day Care Use Permit for a maximum of 14 children located in a single-family home at 74-085 Fairway Drive. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) Section Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 2 of 11 September 16, 2014 25.64020 (attached), Large Family Day Care Use Permits, the application was reviewed by the Zoning Administrator (staff). After reviewing the day care location, staff expressed concerns about the traffic safety on Fairway Drive, and the limited street parking in close proximity of the day care. As required by PDMC Section 25.64020.D. Notice to Property Owners, a notice of the application was sent to the owners of property within 300 feet of the day care home. Staff received two (2) correspondences requesting a public hearing with the Zoning Administrator before a decision was made on the permit application. On July 21, 2014, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing and received comments in favor and opposition to the permit. The comments in favor of the permit mainly focused on the need for an art program and afterschool day care for Washington Charter School. The comments in opposition to the permit were related to noise, traffic congestion, safety, and the possibility of relocating a stop sign and adding a crosswalk and sidewalk in the area. On July 25, 2014, the permit was denied based on concerns related to traffic safety with the midblock crossing of children on Fairway Drive, and due to difficult maneuverability for on -site parking and a lack of off-street parking for parents or guardians picking up 14 children at one time. On August 11, 2014, the applicant filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny the permit. Staff has reviewed the reasons for denial further, and believes the concerns can be mitigated by imposition of several additional conditions of approval. Approval of staffs recommendation will overturn the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a Large Family Day Care Use Permit located at 74-085 Fairway Drive. Backaround A. Property Description: The property is located at 74-085 Fairway Drive, which is midblock between Portola Avenue and Black Rabbit Trail (highlighted below). \Ssry fil2k31groups\PlannmglTony Bagato\Staff ReportsIarge Family Day Care Permits\74-188WCSR_Large Fanwly Day Care.00c Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 3 of 11 September 16, 2014 MaR+�! 1M00 N1N MIIIMMY MNF - _ ._ . _. "N: RM - MOM" OIIIV! "e V. 0 NowF 0 611.8 0" PNNR 7RAl - .- Olt PRONROMlR fRA/l- APM 070120M Haw! 0 : O]S]0]0]t HarOf. 70073 AM i2310]00] APN: O]5107007 AW O25203004 Haw.: 70W HaRr0: 74055 H-V.. 70005 AM: 07670 Heuw0: 70M] APN: O]5701000 : 07370000 Houg0: 141 SO Han01: 10100 B. General Plan Designation and Zoning: The property is currently designated Residential, Medium Density (R-M) in the General Plan and is zoned Residential Single Family, 10,000 square foot minimum lots (R-1 10,000) on the City's zoning map. C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: Single Family (R-1) / Hope Lutheran Church Parking Lot South: Single Family (R-1) / Existing Single -Family Home East: Single Family (R-1) / Existing Single -Family Home West: Single Family (R-1) / Existing Single -Family Home D. State Law for Childcare: Sections 1597.30-1597.621 of the California Health and Safety Code prescribe standards for local government regulation of family day care homes for children. The Legislature made findings that there are insufficient numbers of licensed day care homes in California, and that there is a growing need for child day care facilities due to the increase in the number of working parents. Section 1597.40 of the Health and Safety Code states the Legislature's intent for regulating family day care homes: It is the intent of the Legislature that family day care homes for children should be situated in normal residential surroundings so as to give children the home environment which is conducive to healthy and safe development. It is the public \\srv.fil2k3\groups\Plannmg\Tony Bagalo\StaH ReportslLarge Fanuly Day Care Permits\14-1881PCSR_Large Family Day Care doc Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 4 of 11 September 16, 2014 policy of this state to provide children in a family day care home the same environment as provided in a traditional home setting. The State law defines Large Family Day Care homes as accommodating nine (9) to fourteen (14) children, and allows Large Family Day Care homes by right in residential districts, unless a jurisdiction chooses to require either an administrative permit or a special/conditional use permit. If a Large Family Day Care home is subject to a permit, local land use considerations are limited to traffic, parking, space and concentration, and noise. Chapter 25.64.020 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code provides the purpose, application process, and other requirements for Large Family Day Care Use Permits that are consistent with State law. The application for a Large Family Day Care Use Permit is reviewed at an administrative level by a staff member who is designated as the City's Zoning Administrator. As described in the ordinance, the Zoning Administrator reviews the application, and notifies the owners of property within 300 feet about the permit before any decision is made. The noticing requirement informs the neighbors and the applicant that no hearing shall be held before a decision is made on the application, unless a hearing is requested by the applicant or the impacted property owners. The Zoning Administrator's decision to approve or deny a permit may be appealed to the Planning Commission for consideration. For a Large Family Day Care Use Permit, the Planning Commission's decision is final unless the permit is called up for review by the City Council. E. Zoning Administrator Hearing and Decision: On June 2, 2014, staff received an application for a Large Family Day Care Use Permit from the applicant for a home at 74-085 Fairway Drive. Staff reviewed the application and expressed concerns related to traffic, safety, and parking on Fairway Drive. Staff and the applicant met several times to discuss these issues before any decision was made on the permit application. As required by PDMC Section 25.64.020.D, a notice for the permit application was sent to owners of property within 300 feet of the proposed day care. Staff received five (5) written correspondences in opposition to the permit application, of which two (2) of the five (5) requested a public hearing. The written correspondences raised concerns about the traffic impacts and safety on a busy street, the potential noise impacts from 14 children playing outside, and the lack of a sidewalk along the south side of Fairway Drive. On July 21, 2014, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing, and received comments from the applicant and the public. At the hearing, three (3) people spoke in favor of the permit application and four (4) people spoke in %vsrv-f 12k31groupsWanrong%Tony Bagalol&afl Reporlstarge FanMy Day Care Permrts\14-1881PCSR_Large Famly Day Care doc Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 5 of 11 September 16, 2014 opposition. The comments in favor of the permit focused on the need for an afterschool art program and afterschool day care for Washington Charter School. The applicant indicated that the children would be inside the home for the two (2) hours that they are there, so that she believes that noise would not be an issue. The comments in opposition were related to noise, traffic congestion, safety, and the possibility of relocating a stop sign and adding a crosswalk and sidewalk in the area. On July 25, 2014, the permit was denied based on concerns related to traffic safety with the midblock crossing of children on Fairway Drive, and that there would be difficult maneuverability for on -site parking and a lack of off-street parking for parents or guardians picking up 14 children at one time. The Zoning Administrator's Notice of Decision that explains the reasons for denial is provided with this staff report. On August 11, 2014, the applicant filed a timely appeal (attached) of the denial, citing concerns that the City is not adhering to the limits imposed by the State, that they can safely cross the children on Fairway Drive, and that they will provide staggered pickup times to deal with parking concerns. The applicant's representative also verbally offered to provide a van shuttle service, which was not part of the project as originally proposed. Project Description The applicant is requesting approval of an appeal to overturn the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a Large Family Day Care Use Permit for a maximum of 14 children and two (2) teachers at 74-085 Fairway Drive. The day care is currently operating as a Small Family Child Care home, which is defined as being for eight (8) children or less, and is allowed by right in residential zones based on State law. The hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The applicant is working with Washington Charter School to provide an afterschool art program and day care home. The applicant proposes that during the school year, the elementary age children would be escorted from Washington Charter School to the adjacent playground at Hope Lutheran Church. The children would play at the playground each day between 3:10 and 3:30 p.m. After the children are done playing, the teachers would escort the children across the street directly in front of the day care. The applicant states that one (1) teacher would walk into the middle of the street with a handheld stop sign to stop traffic. The second teacher would wait on the sidewalk with the children until the teachers believe it is safe to cross the street to the day care. The children would be at the home between 3:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. Depending on parking availability, the parents or guardians may park in the parking spaces provided in the driveway or on Fairway Drive. \%srv-fil2k31gr0ups0annmg%Tony BagalolStaft ReportslLarge Family Day Care Permits%14-1881PCSR_large Family Day Care.doc 3 (4 Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 6 of 11 September 16, 2014 Analysis Section 25.64.010 of the Zoning Ordinance delineates the procedure and standards for processing a Large Family Day Care Use Permit. The Section states that an application shall be approved if all of the following standards are met: Space and Concentration: Properties shall be located no closer than three hundred feet in all directions from another Large Family Day Care home. There are no other Large Family Day Care homes within a 300 foot radius of the project site. Traffic Control: The traffic circulation plan shall be designed to diminish traffic safety problems. Staff believes that there is a traffic safety issue related to the children crossing midblock at an uncontrolled location on a busy street. According to the most recent traffic volume numbers, the total number of vehicles traveling on Fairway Drive between 3:30 and 5:30 p.m. ranges between 255 and 323 vehicles per hour. At 3:30 p.m., the 323 vehicles calculate to one (1) vehicle every 12 seconds traveling on Fairway Drive. In addition to the traffic volume, the speed limit was recently raised from 25 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour based on a speed survey that is required by State law. Fairway Drive is a busy street due to the nearby school, church, Alcoholics Anonymous building, and the regular vehicular traffic in the residential neighborhood. In addition to Fairway Drive being a busy street, the applicant's traffic plan violates PDMC Section 10.16.020, Direction by unofficial persons. The code states: No person other than an officer of the police department or members of the police department or members of the fire department or a person authorized by the chief of police or a person authorized by law shall direct or attempt to direct traffic by voice, hand or other signal, except that persons may operate, when and as provided in this title, any mechanical pushbutton signal erected by order of the city traffic engineer." According to the PDMC, stopping traffic with a handheld stop sign or blocking traffic without a handheld stop sign is illegal in Palm Desert. In addition, the Department of Public Works staff states the applicant's proposed plan to walk the children across Fairway Drive is not safe and is an unacceptable traffic mitigation plan for the following reasons: • The street crossing would occur midblock where vehicles are not prepared to stop. • There is no controlled intersection with a marked crosswalk for pedestrian crossing. \Wv-t-il2k3\groups0anning\Tony Bagato%StaH ReporlsU arge Family Day Care Permits\14-188\PCSR_Large Family Day Care doc Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 7 of 11 September 16, 2014 The plan provides a non-ADA (American with Disabilities Act) compliant pedestrian crossing in the street. In previous discussions with the applicant's representative verbally offered to provide a van shuttle service instead of crossing the children. Staff has informed the applicant that if the children are driven to the day care home, then staff can support the appeal to overturn the denial. The applicant has now informed staff that she does not want to drive the children to the day care home. However, staff believes that driving the children to the day care home is the only way to support the permit. Driving the children to the day care home will address the following concerns: It will mitigate the illegal stopping of traffic that is prohibited in the PDMC; and • It will mitigate the safety risk of the children and teachers being hit by vehicles that are not prepared to stop midblock; and It will eliminate the need to stop traffic midblock which is otherwise a negative impact to the neighborhood that is already impacted by the school traffic, church traffic, Alcoholics Anonymous (at Hope Lutheran Church) traffic, and the cut through traffic of vehicles traveling east to Deep Canyon Drive or Cook Street. Staff has added a condition of approval that will require the children be driven to the day care home. Parking: All homes used for large family day care facilities shall provide at least three (3) automobile parking spaces, no more than one of which shall be provided in a garage or carport. Parking may be on street if contiguous to property. These may include spaces already provided to fulfill residential parking requirements. The site plan submitted with the application indicates that the property has four (4) parking spaces, three (3) on the driveway and one (1) in a carport. In addition to the on - site parking, there is one (1) parking space on the street directly in front of the day care home. Photos of the front of the property are provided below: %%sry f 12k3tgroups%PlannmgJony Bagato%&aH ReportsUarge Fanvly Day Care Permits\74-188vPCSR_Large Fanuly Day Care doc r-) 3 Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 8 of 11 September 16, 2014 In reviewing the property, staff believes that the on -site parking will not adequately accommodate four (4) vehicles at the same time. In addition, the maneuverability for four (4) vehicles trying to enter and exit the driveway at the same time will be difficult because the property is a narrow lot. Due to the narrow lot and the difficulty maneuvering, parents or guardians are likely to park on Fairway Drive. The one (1) parking space in front of the day care home does provide an extra parking space that provides direct access to the day care home. t\9rv-61201groupslPlanning\Tony BagatolStaff Reports"rge Famly Day Care Permits%14-188WP R Large Farrwly Day Care doc 3 4 Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 9 of 11 September 16, 2014 To address the parking concern, staff is recommending that the applicant implement a staggered pick up time where there are no more than four (4) vehicles at the day care home every 20 minutes, or the applicant may drive all the children to the Hope Lutheran Church parking lot at 5:30 p.m. so that each parent or guardian can park in the parking lot to pick up the 14 children. Noise Control: Operation of the day care facility shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 9.24 of this code. Additional conditions may be placed on use permits to reduce noise impacts if ongoing problems exist. The main concern from the adjacent property owners is the potential noise issues from the day care. The neighbors believe that the day care with 14 children will create more noise and will be a nuisance to them. The day care must comply with noise regulations specified in Chapter 9.24 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Violations under Chapter 9.24 may lead to charging the property owner with an infraction, and continued violations may lead to a misdemeanor charge. In addition, Section 25.64.020.H, states if the City receives six (6) substantiated complaints alleging violation of the Large Family Day Care Use Permit chapter, a public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission to review the permit. The permit may be suspended or revoked if the applicant does not comply with all the standards of PDMC Section 25.64.020. Staff believes that Chapter 9.24 is a very effective ordinance in dealing with noise disturbances and nuisances. Staff is confident that enforcing Chapter 9.24 at this day care facility will adequately address the noise concerns of neighbors.. Signage: No signs or other exterior markings identifying a large family day care operation shall be allowed on the applicant's home. The applicant is not requesting any signage, and no signs are at the current day care. Residency: The applicant must be a primary resident of the home that is proposed as a large family day care home. The applicant is the primary resident of the home for the day care. Contact Person: The current name(s) and telephone number(s) of the applicant, and all other operators if different from the applicant, of the family day care home shall be on file with the Department of Community Development at all times. The applicant is the operator of the day care home. The applicant's name and telephone number are on the permit application. The application is, and will remain, on file with the Department of Community Development. \lsrv-fil2k3%gro4jps'PlanninglTony BagatoZla1I ReportsU arge Famly Day Care F'erm ts114-188VrSR_Large Farrwly Day Care.doc Staff Report Large Family Day Care Page 10 of 11 September 16, 2014 Use Permit 14-188 State Licensing: All appropriate licensing from the State Department of Social Services shall be obtained prior to commencing operation of any large family day care home in the City. The applicant states that she is licensed by the State to operate the day care home. Building and Fire Code Compliance: No application shall be approved unless and until the City's building inspector and fire marshal, or their designees, have first inspected the premises and approved that the home does comply with the foregoing building and fire code provisions. The Fire Marshal is responsible for inspecting the day care for compliance with the health and safety code required by State law. The Fire Marshal has conducted their inspection, and the applicant's home has received clearance to operate as a day care home. Smoking restricted: Consistent with Section 1596.795 of the Health and Safety Code, smoking of tobacco and other substances — whether in pipe, cigar, or cigarette form — shall not be allowed in the applicant's home during its hours of operation as a large family day care home with respect to those areas of the home where children are present. The applicant does not intend to allow smoking of any kind in the day care home or anywhere else on the project site. Single -Family Zoning: No use permit shall be issued unless the dwelling unit proposed to be used as a large family day care home is located on a lot zoned or used for single- family dwellings. The subject property is zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential) and contains a single- family dwelling. Proof of Control: No use permit shall be issued unless the applicant can demonstrate legal authority and control over real property proposed to be used as a large family day care home. Staff has not received any documentation that demonstrates the applicant has legal authority and control over the property being used as a day care. A condition of approval will require the applicant to demonstrate legal authority and control over the property before a business license is approved, and before the applicant can use the home as a Large Family Day Care as defined by State law. Rsrv-6120%groupsOanronglTony Begatot,4laH Reporls%Large Famly Day Care Permits114-1881PCSR_Large Famly Day Care doc Staff Report Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 Page 11 of 11 September 16, 2014 Environmental Review The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has determined that the proposed Large Family Day Care Use Permit is not a project subject to CEQA. Submitted By: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Department Head: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community velopment t\5rv-612k31groups\Plannmg\Tony BagatolStaN Reporls"rge Farr„Iy Day Care Permrtst14-1881PCSR_Large Famly Day Care doc (J PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2636 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN APPEAL OF A DECISION BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO DENY A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE USE PERMIT FOR A MAXIMUM OF 14 CHILDREN LOCATED AT 74-085 FAIRWAY DRIVE CASE NO: LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE USE PERMIT 14-188 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16t' day of September 2014, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the Samantha Clark, Applicant, for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City must determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, further environmental review is necessary. The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the lead Agency has determined that the Large Family Day Care Use Permit is not subject to CEQA. The application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 2014-41, in the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed project is a Class 1: Existing Facilities (15301) Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further review is necessary; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons, which are outlined in the staff report reasons to approve the said request: 1. Based on the conditions of the permit, the Large Family Day Care home was found to be in compliance with the City's Zoning Ordinance and state law. 2. As conditioned, the Large Family Day Care home will not be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. As conditioned, the Large Family Day Care home will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 4. The Large Family Day Care home will not endanger the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare. PLANNING COMMISSIA RESOLUTION NO.2636 ('> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings for approval of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 16th day of September 2014, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ROGER DASH, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: LAURI AYLAIAN, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION \\srv-fi12k3\groups\Plannmg\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Large Family Day Care Permits\14-188\PCRES_Large Family Day Care docx 2 PLANNING COMMISSI01 RESOLUTION NO.2636 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO: LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE USE PERMIT 14-188 Department of Community Development: The development of the property shall conform substantially with the exhibit on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Operation of said project shall commence within one (1) year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. The days and hours of operation of the proposed Large Family Day Care home shall be Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 5. The applicant shall drive the 14 children to the day care home from Washington Charter School or Hope Lutheran Church. The day care staff shall not cross the children midblock on Fairway Drive, or stop traffic on any street as prohibited by Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 10.16.020, Direction by unofficial persons. 6. The applicant shall demonstrate legal authority and control of the property before the business license is approved, and before the applicant can operate the day care as a Large Family Day Care home. 7. The day care shall comply with the noise standards of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 9.24, Noise Control. 8. The operator of the Large Family Day Care Use Permit shall comply with all the standards and requirements of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.64.020. Upon determination that the permit has not complied with all of the standards and requirements of Section 25.64.020, the Zoning Administrator may require the use permit to be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. A noticed public hearing to review the permit is mandatory when the City receives six (6) substantiated complaints alleging violations of Section 25.64.020. If the Planning Commission determines that the operator has failed in a material way to comply with all of the standards and requirements, then the Planning Commission may suspend or revoke the permit or may, in its discretion, impose additional reasonable standards and requirements consistent with State law, based on findings derived from testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing. ttsrv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Tony Bagato\StaH Reports1arge Family Day Care Permits114-1881PCRES_Large Family Day Care docx 3 111 0[ Pn[M 0ES 111 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2S78 TEL:76o 346—o6ii FAX:76o 341-7098 inroOpilm-deserr. org CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CASE NO. LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE 14-188 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on September 16, 2014, the Palm Desert Planning Commission will consider an appeal by Samantha Clark of the Zoning Administrator's Notice of Decision to deny a Large Family Day Care home for a maximum of 14 children located at 74-085 Fairway Drive. The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities) of CEQA Guidelines. A►M .)fl.]all El NMn+A1 MiM AM RW .YAAY Mna . I i■a� MI.MM.S"O TRAM • .l..t♦•W.A. n1.M A.N .f01 ]0p0) — Mob A.11 tl)].)CW AIN slusms: AM . \)))C)W. MMW ]M.1 IM�w. r.Hf Wi„w. 1.0.6 AM tl)).7 7].M) AW'.])]O.ON r+M .7)70M01 Mw,... ].1)0 rNu... ].,N / � , I I PUBLIC HEARING: Said public hearing will be held before the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission on Tuesday. September 16, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the Large Family Day Care application is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 346-0611 tbagato@cityofpalmdesert.org PUBLISH: DESERT SUN LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary September 6, 2014 Palm Desert Planning Commission f -) 1,I[' 11 Ic 1(ll'_1-1 73-510 FREE) WARIN(i DRIVE PALL DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9zz60—z578 TEL: 760 346—o6c i info', cityofpalmdewrt org PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION September 17, 2014 Ms. Samantha Clark 74-085 Fairway Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Subject: Consideration of a Large Family Day Care Use Permit for a Maximum of 14 Children at 74-085 Fairway Drive The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert considered your request and took the following action at its regular meeting of September 16, 2014: The Planning Commission granted approval of Case No. Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188 by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2636, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried by a 4-0-1 vote with Commissioner DeLuna ABSENT. The Planning Commission's decision is final unless the permit is called up for review by the City Council. Lauri Aylaian, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission cc: File ✓ Building & Safety Department Public Works Department Fire Marshal PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2636 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN APPEAL OF A DECISION BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO DENY A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE USE PERMIT FOR A MAXIMUM OF 14 CHILDREN LOCATED AT 74-085 FAIRWAY DRIVE CASE NO: LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE USE PERMIT 14-188 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16'h day of September 2014, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the Samantha Clark, Applicant, for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City must determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, further environmental review is necessary. The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the lead Agency has determined that the Large Family Day Care Use Permit is not subject to CEQA. The application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 2014-41, in the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed project is a Class 1: Existing Facilities (15301) Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further review is necessary; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons, which are outlined in the staff report reasons to approve the said request: 1. Based on the conditions of the permit, the Large Family Day Care home was found to be in compliance with the City's Zoning Ordinance and state law. 2. As conditioned, the Large Family Day Care home will not be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. As conditioned, the Large Family Day Care home will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 4. The Large Family Day Care home will not endanger the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare. PLANNING COMMISSIJIRESOLUTION NO.2636 ' - r NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings for approval of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 16th day of September 2014, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, DASH, GREENWOOD, and STENDELL NOES: NONE ABSENT: DE LUNA ABSTAIN: NONE RO R DASH, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: LAURI AYLAIAN, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION G 'Planning, Monica ORerliy,Pianning Cpmm,4sion`20141Resorunons�Res No 2636 No 14.188 Large Day Care - 74085 Fairway Of tlocx PLANNING COMMISSlt ESOLUTION NO.2636 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO: LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE USE PERMIT 14-188 Department of Community Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with the exhibit on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Operation of said project shall commence within one (1) year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. The days and hours of operation of the proposed Large Family Day Care home shall be Monday through Friday, 3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. during the school year months of September through June. The applicant shall not provide day care services when Washington Charter School is closed for summer break. 5. The applicant shall drive the 14 children to the day care home from Washington Charter School or Hope Lutheran Church. The day care staff shall not cross the children midblock on Fairway Drive, or stop traffic on any street as prohibited by Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 10.16.020, Direction by unofficial persons. 6. The applicant shall demonstrate legal authority and control of the property before the business license is approved, and before the applicant can operate the day care as a Large Family Day Care home. 7. The day care shall comply with the noise standards of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 9.24, Noise Control. 8. The operator of the Large Family Day Care Use Permit shall comply with all the standards and requirements of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.64.020. Upon determination that the permit has not complied with all of the standards and requirements of Section 25.64.020, the Zoning Administrator may require the use permit to be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. A noticed public hearing to review the permit is mandatory when the City receives six (6) substantiated complaints alleging violations of Section 25.64.020. If the Planning Commission determines that the operator has failed in a material way to comply with all of the standards and requirements, then the Planning Commission may suspend or revoke the permit or may, in its discretion, impose additional reasonable standards and requirements consistent with State law, based on findings derived from testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing. G P1ann,ng•Monica ORerny Piann,ng Comm-sS.on`2014 Resoh,nonsRes No 2636 No 14-188 Large Day Care - 74085 Farway Or doc t K, CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE z o•-)1'11e 71VY)1/)15fi( _z of Determining Body) r Case No. `� 8 g Date of Decision: 2 6-. To Name of Appellant 5ay>rl�n'rka Phone 16Q.10A -9000 Address 74 '01�5 ��t >� n�►ire City, State, Zip -pai vyl f gZ2to E-mail 61W LG Description of dnnlicafinn nr Mnffor (`nncirtarArl Reason for Appeal (attach additional sheets if necessary): FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Date Appeal Filed: �� t �Un , �D� -� Fee Received: -�' h00�o Treasurer's Receipt No. Received by: Date of Consideration by City Council or City Official: Action Taken: Date: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk H 1WPdatMWPD0CS1F0RMS1app1 to appeal-yun 2011 wpd Rev 6/16/11 (4 TRAFFIC CIRCLATION PLAN Parkin Ordinance NO.1259, Parking: All homes used for large family day care facilities shall provide at least three automobile parking spaces no more than one of which may be provided In a garage or carport. Parking may be on -street if contiguous to property. These may include spaces already provided to fulfill residential parking requirements. There are five parking places: one is in front of the property, and four in the driveway including the carport. The existing driveway is wider than a residential driveway. (Photos attached). The church directly across from the property is allowing the use of their parking lot for additional parking if ever needed. (The letter from Hope Lutheran Church attached). Circulation and Drop-off Areas: Ordinance NO 1259. Traffic Control: A traffic circulation plan shall be designed to diminish traffic safety problems. Residences located on ma or arterial streets (as shown on the General Plan circulation map) must provide a drop-off/pick-up area designed to prevent vehicles from backing onto the arterial roadway. The applicant may be required to submit a plan of staggered drop-off and pick up time ranges to reduce congestion In neighborhood already Identified as having traffic congestion problems. Parents will pull in front of the house, and a teacher will escort the child in and out of the car. Parents can also park in the driveway or in front of the house. Staff will use the parking lot at the church, allowing all parking spaces on site for parents only. Additional parking is available at the church parking lot if ever needed. Fair way Dr is a residential street not identified as having traffic congestion problems. City traffic monitoring report shows one car every 11 seconds at the busiest times. There is adequate parking so a staggered pick up schedule is not required. However, a staggered pick up time is in place. In addition, a drop off/pick up spot is in place at the church if needed. Staggered Pick up times in 20 min Increments: Three cars at 4:30 Three cars at 4:50 Four cars at 5:10 Four cars at 5:30 Crossing Children on Fairway Dr: Teachers will cross thirty minutes after the neighborhood school lets out when school traffic is gone. Children will wear florescent colored safety vest. Two teachers, will supervise the children at all times when they cross. They will not cross until there are no cars, one teacher will hold a large two-sided commercial stop sign. It takes approximately 15 seconds to cross children from the north side to the south side of the two-lane street. Bagato, Tony From: Gayle [bdlcgayle@aol.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 8:37 AM To: Wohlmuth, John Cc: Bagato, Tony; Aylaian, Lauri; mdiercks@cityofpalmdsert.org Subject: Appeal for large Family Chid -care on Fairway Dr John, Thank you for meeting with me last week. I think the family childcare will be a safe, and wonderful art program, benefiting the need for childcare of families at WCS. It was not clear at the end of the meeting if the full $600 would have to be paid with our appeal, and I have not heard back from anyone and today is the deadline. If there is a specific form for an appeal, can you please send it to me electronically so I can submit it today within the appropriate time. If this email is sufficient to allow us to begin the appeal process without going past the fifteen day time period, then please accept this as our appeal. I can submit anything further at a later time, and welcome any suggestions you may have. I want to be sure the city is adhering to the limits imposed by the Health and Safety Code, and the home is being treated just like any other home, and that the standards imposed are fair and objective. We have offered several options to meet the concerns of the city. It seems with every idea, we are still being blocked from offering a needed service for children. In addition, safety on our end is very thought out, and it is unlikely that anything will ever occur when we cross the children on this residential street after school traffic is over, and later if we can cross them back at 5:00. Crossing from the driveway of the house on the south side to the sidewalk at the north side is a short distance, and will not disrupt traffic. Obviously we will check that there are no vehicles before we cross, and wait if there is before we proceed to cross the children. It would take approximately only 15 seconds to walk the children across the two-lane street. We would not obstruct traffic. That is what the traffic safety ordinance for family childcare is referring to; traffic. I do not think there was reason for the denial per city ordinance and state law regarding family childcares based on crossing the children on a residential street. The state of CA encourages the operation of family child care homes in residential settings and the city is restricting Samantha's use of her home as a family child care by imposing restrictions which do not make sense for residential homes and which aren't reasonable. For example, all homes in the area have similar driveways or smaller. The parking in the driveway , and including the one in front of the property allows for five cars, thus exceeding the minimum parking requirements imposed by the ordinance for large family childcare. Community Care Licensing and the fire department inspected the home and program for safety and gave Samantha a clearance for a large family childcare, caring for a maximum of 14 children. Children in a family childcare are suppose to follow the same restrictions as residents residing in the area. Residents in the area are permitted to walk their dogs, ride bikes, and walk to the school and park. Crossing the street in front of the houses on Fairway Drive is not prohibited. There is nothing in the ordinance that prevents a family childcare from walking children across a street. Currently, at our PD site at Hope Lutheran, if we wanted to, we could take the children for walks with the parent's permission. The Home work club walks children to and from the public park behind WCS. State childcare Licensing allows family childcare providers to take children for walks. The state regulations allows us to take children for walks, and of course requires that we are always in our teacher/chilcaios. There is no ordinance that prohib ; s from walking children in the neighborhood, or across a street. Permission from the city to walk the children is not required. The neighbors concerns are about possible noise and traffic. There is adequate parking, and we can follow a staggered pick up schedule if necessary. Crossing the children at 3:30 will not cause any "traffic" issues. Crossing the children back at 5:00, and allowing parents to pick up at the parking lot will actually help any possible traffic concerns. The children will be well supervised at all times. If crossing the children is still an issue for the city, the teachers can transport the children in a vehicle from the church to the house. The location is ideal, as it is directly across from the site at HL, allowing a place for children to safely play outdoors in a secure fenced -in location. This further pleases the neighbors as they are concerned about possible noise from our yard. Fairway Drive is a residential street where people walk their dogs, bike ride, children cross before and after WCS lets out. We have a safe procedure on how we cross the children. We have done this for years at our Bermuda Dunes location where we walk the children across Yucca Lane to our main site. We cross children daily in Bermuda Dunes when school is dismissed at 2:00 p.m., which is the busiest time of the day on Yucca. This street is busy with traffic at 2:00, as Chicory is at 3:00 when WCS gets out. We have a very safe policy in place, and have never had any problems. One teacher holds up the commercial stop sign, and acts as the cross guard while the other walks the children across the two-lane street. There is no crosswalk on Yucca Lane where we cross the children. We will follow the same procedure in Palm Desert, except we will cross after school traffic is over. I truly believe walking children across the street, with our procedure in place would be very safe, and reduce any traffic concerns. A former municipal risk manager that we consulted with does not think there is any liability to the city of Palm Desert regarding the children crossing Fairway, a residential street. Has there been any previous issues with pedestrians having difficulty crossing on Fairway Drive, or any accidents that have occurred there? As I mentioned, we can provide the city with a hold harmless and indemnification contract approved by both the city attorney, risk manager and CAJPIA, the city's insurance. A "hold harmless agreement" would help shield the city from risk for the issues of traffic and parking. As discussed, the Home Work Club, crosses over 30 children on Chicory street each day when WCS is in session. Chicory where the children are dismissed from WCS is busier at 3:00 than Fairway is at this time, and we plan to cross 30 min after school lets out when the school traffic is over. Things we have suggested and submitted to planning dept: letter from church authorizing use of the parking lot clarified ratio 1:7 not 1:14 (planning and transportation thought at first it was 1:14) staggered pick up times (every 20 min) Detailed plan to safely cross children. suggested crosswalk at Lantana and Fairway post "reduce speed when children are present" sign, Safety vests worn by children and staff Both teachers park in the parking lot, leaving all spaces for parents Pick up drop off in front of the house A holds harmless and indemnification contract move stop sign from Black Rabbit Road to Lantana install crosswalk at Fairway and Lantana, Bid for sidewalk installation 2 teachers will provide better supervision, making the program safer Our hope is to open next month as a large family childcare when school resumes. If you have any further suggestions, please let me know as this is a much needed service for the children attending WCS. We have a great reputation of providing a safe and quality program for children in the community, and we truly feel it will be safer to have two adults present with up to 14 children, than one adult with 8. We are open to any further suggestions you may have. Can you please let me know what I need to do today. If there is something further that needs to be submitted we will do that. If an appeal is needed for us to be allowed to proceed as a large family chid care, than please accept this as our appeal. Thank you again for meeting with me, and for your suggestions. Respectfully, Gayle Clark Executive Director Bermuda Dunes Learning Center Accredited by NAEYC (760) 861-2587 cell Dear City Commissioners: The Art House, is a family childcare that provides an after school art program for children located at 74085 Fairway Drive, and collaborates with the Palm Desert Learning Center at Hope Lutheran Church. The application for the city permit for a large family childcare was denied by the city planning department.. The family childcare is currently serving only 8 children as a "small' family daycare instead of 14 as a "large" family daycare .It opened on Sept 2, 2014. The reasons for the denial were; inadequate parking, driveway not wide enough for car to entertexit at the same time, crossing children on a residential street. After we were denied the permit for a large family childcare, we appealed the decision. A week afterwards we received a call from Tony in Planning. He explained that he was not familiar with the requirements for a large family childcare, and has now reviewed the laws and regulations, and agrees the home meets all the requirements for a large family daycare; it needs to be treated as a residence not a business. He said he will recommend the Large Family Childcare at the Sept hearing, but only if we transport the children over in a vehicle. We feel we should be allowed to continue to walk the children across the street as we are currently doing. The requirements imposed have to be specifically written in the Large Family Day Care Ordinance to be legally valid, according to pre-emptive state law. It seems we are being denied based on a subjective opinion, rather than an actual defined ordinance standard. As residents are allowed to cross the street and other after school programs are allowed to cross and walk children in the street, it seems we too should be allowed to walk the small group of children across the street. Parents are comfortable with children crossing under our supervision, and at the time we cross, all school traffic has subsided. Fairway is a two-lane residential street, and there is nothing that prohibits people from crossing Fairway Drive, or from a family childcare provider from crossing children if parents have consented. This street has residents riding bikes and walking. I do not believe there are any incidents of pedestrians hit by a vehicle on this street. The use permit shall be granted if the large family day care home complies with local ordinances, if any, prescribing reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements concerning the following factors: spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control relating to those homes, and complies with subdivision (e) and any regulations adopted by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to that subdivision. The family childcare is compliant with ALL of these ordinances. The restriction not to cross children on Fairway Dr. is not one of the factors. The parents are choosing to enroll their children knowing that we will cross them. They sign a permission slip. They feel it is safe. They are very happy that they have a safe place for their children. The state licensed the house as a large family day care in July; the analyst understood that the children will cross Fairway Dr with our supervised care. The Homework Club, another after school program serving the children at WCS crosses children at a busy time and then proceeds to walk the children to their location along the curb in the street, as there is no sidewalk. Chicory is the street where they cross. Chicory is much busier at 3:00 than Fairway is at 3:30. The Homework Club childcare center ratios; 1:14, where a 'large" family childcare is 2:14. Procedure For Crossina the Children to the Art House: after school traffic is over: We are currently crossing the children with two adults; one is the crossing guard. The children wear florescent vests when walking over. The children hold onto a rope with handles when they walk over. One teacher is the crossing guard; she walks into the street and holds up an 18xl8 commercial stop sign. The requirements imposed have to be specifically written in the Large Family Day Care Ordinance to be legally valid, according to pre-emptive state law. It seems we are being denied based on subjective opinion here, rather than an actual defined ordinance standard. Children that are not picked up before 5:00 are walked back across the street to the Learning Center. The traffic at 5:00 is even less than at 3:30/3:45. Using the parking lot as a central pickup after 5:00 helps traffic and any concerns neighbors may have, and is what the parents prefer. The family daycare is currently doing this with the eight children, and it is working out VERY well. The church is very supportive, and is allowing us to use their parking lot. (Attached is a letter from the church). The family childcare is compliant with all the city and state ordinances. There is a safe procedure in place when walking the children to and from the childcare home, as well as caring for children inside the home. We ask the city to allow us take six additional children (14 max) with two teachers, and allow us to continue to walk the children as the parents want, and as the state permits, and as other childcare programs are permitted to. Th You, 6e4fic Gayle d1ark Executive Director Bermuda Dunes Learning Center NAEYC accredited Samantha Clark 75;�,M Dl*g- Art House/Family childcare provider r� I E jdi Carl R. Witt, Jr. / Senior Pastor ,rasa .. �_ .»a-a-�'r��rv,r^:r...�rrs•:i:.:,,-� ,..- Beth Brashear / Pastor 45900 Portola Avenue (at Fairway) LUTHE N CHURCH Palm Desert. California 92260 (760) 346-1273 / FAX (760) 346-2078 www.hope-lutheran.com June 26, 2014 City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Civic Center 73-510 Fred Waring Road Palm Desert, CA 92260 To Whom It May Concern: We are aware of the home daycare located at 74085 Fairway, directly across the street from Hope Lutheran Church. We understand that parents of children attending this daycare may park in Hope Lutheran's parking lot to drop off or pick up their children. We are supportive of this daycare as it will pride additional childcare needed in the community. /` , I . Witt, Jr. Senior Pastor Hope Lutheran Church �' ';,�� AlID J h } b WA On. ................. a f —,was 1:� ll� 11. u ':,.a. 0:11 to 4 F Al C 9/11/2014 ) Palm Desert Municipal Code (Palm Desert, California) ' tli:, / .',, t III1:.. C.-,J ' 4 l.fl] Pr2viotjs N 2Xt lr ;il ;'rhlt � to i I i.n Title 25 ZONING Chapter 25.64 DECISIONS BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 25.64.020 Large Family Day CareUse Permits A. Purpose. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 1597.46, the City of Palm Desert prescribes reasonable land use standards, restrictions and requirements concerning space and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control relating to large family day care homes. A permit allows for the operation of a large family day care home in conformance with such standards, restrictions, and requirements. Its purpose is not to license, certify, or otherwise regulate the quality and safety of day care services provided by family day care homes and those who operate them, which are governed exclusively at the state level by the Department of Social Services. B. Application process. Applications for use permits to operate a large family day care home shall be made to the ZA or his or her designee, who shall specify the form of said applications consistent with this section. At a minimum, application forms shall indicate all of the following: 1. Number of children to be cared for by the applicant, including the applicant's own children less than 10 years of age. 2. Number of employees. 3. State license number. 4. Proof that the applicant is in lawful possession and control of the real property proposed to be used as a large family day care home. 5. In addition to submission of a completed application form and application fee as provided by this chapter, the applicant shall submit the following documentation: One copy of the assessor's parcel map. ii. One copy of a site plan (8.5 by 11 inches) showing: location and dimension of existing residence and other structures, including permanent outdoor play structures and equipment, and fencing; distance to property line; parking areas and number of spaces both on -site and off -site; access to and exits from the home; floor(s) on which day care is to be provided; traffic circulation; and location of fire extinguishers and smoke detectors. iii. An accurate traffic circulation plan showing parking, circulation, and drop-off areas. C. Application fee. There is established an application fee for the review and processing of applications for use permits pursuant to this chapter in an amount to be set by resolution of the Council. Said fee shall not exceed the City's cost of administering the review and permit process. D. Notice to property owners. Not less than 10 days prior to the date on which the decision will be made on the application, the ZA or his or her designee shall give notice of the proposed use by mail or delivery to all owners shown on the last equalized assessment roll as owning real property within a 300-foot radius of the exterior boundaries of the proposed large family day care home. A copy of the notice shall also be sent to the applicant. The notice shall inform its recipient that no hearing shall be held before a decision on the application unless requested by the recipient. E. Decision by the Zoning Administrator. After proper notice has been given to affected property owners, the ZA or his or her designee shall render a decision on the application. Unless requested by the applicant or other affected person, no hearing shall be held on the application before a decision is made. The application shall be approved if all of the following standards and requirements are met: 1. Space and Concentration. Properties proposed for use as large family day care homes shall be located no closer than 300 feet in all directions from another large family day care home, subject to an application for an http://www.gcode.us/codestpalmdesert/ 1/3 9/11/2014 Palm Desert Municipal Code (Palm Desert, California) exception to said 300-foot distanihich may, after a public hearing and ne to the adjacent property owners in accordance with this chapter, cause the reduction to no more than 100 feet from another large family day care home. The foregoing spacing and concentration requirements shall not apply to large family day care homes which are already operating in the City on the date this chapter takes effect. 2. Traffic Control. The traffic circulation plan shall be designed to diminish traffic safety problems. Residences located on major arterial streets (as shown on the General Plan circulation map) must provide a drop- off/pickup area designed to prevent vehicles from backing onto the arterial roadway. The applicant may be required to submit a plan of staggered drop-off and pickup time ranges to reduce congestion in neighborhoods already identified as having traffic congestion problems. 3. Parking. All homes used for large family day care facilities shall provide at least three automobile parking spaces, no more than one of which may be provided in a garage or carport. Parking may be on -street if contiguous to property. These may include spaces already provided to fulfill residential parking requirements. 4. Noise Control. Operation of the facility shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 9.24 of this code. Additional conditions may be placed on use permits to reduce noise impact if ongoing problems exist. 5. Signage. No signs or other exterior markings identifying a large family day care operation shall be allowed on the applicant's home. 6. Residency. The applicant must be a primary resident of the home that is proposed as a large family day care home. 7. Contact Person. The current name(s) and telephone number(s) of the applicant, and all other operators if different from the applicant, of the family day care home shall be on file with the department of community development at all times. 8. State Licensing. All appropriate licensing from the state Department of Social Services shall be obtained prior to commencing operation of any large family day care home in the City. 9. Building and Fire Code Compliance. Consistent with Section 1597.46 of the Health and Safety Code, the proposed large family day care home must comply with all building and fire code provisions applicable to single- family residences, and with such additional standards as the State Fire Marshal from time to time adopts pursuant to Section 1597.46(d) of the Health and Safety Code to promote the fire and life safety of children in family day care homes. (See Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.) No application shall be approved unless and until the City's building inspector and fire marshal, or their designees, have first inspected the premises and approved that the home does comply with the foregoing building and fire code provisions. However, a copy of the applicable state licensing evaluation report covering these issues may be found by the City staff to be sufficient. 10. Smoking Restricted. Consistent with Section 1596.795 of the Health and Safety Code, smoking of tobacco and other substances —whether in pipe, cigar, or cigarette form —shall not be allowed in the applicant's home during its hours of operation as a large family day care home with respect to those areas of the home where children are present. 11. Single -Family Zoning. No use permit shall be issued unless the dwelling unit proposed to be used as a large family day care home is located on a lot zoned or used for single-family dwellings under this chapter. 12. Proof of Control. No use permit shall be issued unless the applicant can demonstrate legal authority and control over the real property proposed to be used as a large family day care home. F. Appeal of decision. The applicant or other affected person may appeal the decision to grant or deny an application for a use permit pursuant to this chapter to the Commission. The Commission's decision shall be final unless the matter is called up for review by the Council. The appellant shall pay the City's costs, if any, of processing and conducting the appeal. The amount of such costs shall be estimated in advance by the ZA or his or her designee and the appellant shall deposit said amount with the City before the City will process the request for an appeal. If at the end of the appeal the City's actual costs were less than the estimate, then the City shall refund the unused portion of the deposit to the appellant. In the event that the City's costs exceeded the amount of the deposit, then the appellant shall pay the amount of the difference to the City. http://www.gcode.us/codes/palmdesert/ 2/3 9/11/2014 Palm Desert Municipal Code (Palm Desert. California) G. Expiration of permit. IL.Vrge family day care home possessing(le permit ceases to operate for a period greater than 365 consecutive days or its state license expires, whichever occurs first, and then its use permit shall be considered null and void. Permits are nontransferable. H. Review of permit --Suspension or revocation. 1. Upon determination that the holder of a large family day care home use permit has not complied with all of the standards and requirements of this chapter, the ZA may require the use permit to be reviewed by the Commission at a public hearing. A noticed public hearing to review the use permit is mandatory when the City receives six substantiated complaints alleging violations of this chapter. 2. If the Commission determines that the holder has failed in a material way to comply with all of the stan- dards and requirements of this chapter, then the Commission may suspend or revoke the permit or may, in its discretion, impose additional reasonable standards and requirements consistent with state law, based on findings derived from testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing. (Ord. 1259 § 1, 2013) http://www.gcode.us/codes/palmdesertl 3/3 CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner From: Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Date: June 30, 2014 Subject: Misc 14-188 Large Family Daycare Permit Public Works has completed the review for the proposed daycare center located at 74085 Fairway Drive. The Public Works Department recommends denial of the Daycare facility. There are several reasons Public Works recommends denial of the facility including inadequate on -site parking and vehicle maneuverability; inadequate on -street parking in front of the proposed Daycare; impact to on -street parking near the Daycare; and the inadequate pedestrian facilities (no sidewalk) from the Daycare location to a controlled intersection for safe crossing of Fairway Drive. The applicant's proposed plan to walk children across Fairway Drive several times a day at a mid -block, unmarked, inaccessible (non-ADA compliant), uncontrolled location by having an untrained individual stepping out into free flow traffic and trying to stop unaware drivers is both unsafe and unacceptable. There is also a potential for additional mid -block pedestrian crossings of Fairway Drive in front of the Daycare due to parents parking on the north side of the street of in the church's driveway. 73-510 FREU WARIN(i DRIvF. PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226o-2578 TEL: 760 346-o6i i info u cayofpalmdesert org ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE OF DECISION DATE: July 25, 2014 APPLICANT: Samantha Clark, 74-085 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 74-085 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO: Large Family Day Care 14-188 Notice is hereby given that the Zoning Administrator (ZA) considered an application for a Large Family Day Care Use Permit, filed by Samantha Clark ("Applicant"). The Applicant requests a Large Family Day Care Use Permit ("Permit") to operate a daycare facility with a maximum of 14 children and two teachers between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The property is located at 74-085 Fairway Drive ("Project Site"), and is zoned R-1 Single-family. The Project Site is midblock between Portola Avenue and Black Rabbit Trail. The Permit application is more specifically described as follows: The Applicant has indicated that she is working with Washington Charter School (WCS) to provide an after -school art program and childcare. During the school year, the elementary age children will be escorted from WCS to the playground at Hope Lutheran Church adjacent to WCS. The children will play on the playground each day between 3:10 and 3:30 p.m. After the children are done playing, the teachers would escort the children across the street directly in front of the Project Site. The Applicant states that one teacher would walk into the middle of the street with a handheld stop sign to stop traffic. The second teacher would wait on the sidewalk with the children until the teachers believe it is safe to cross the street to the Project Site. The Applicant states that the children would be inside the home and would not play outside in the backyard of the Project Site. Parents would arrive at the daycare facility to pick up their children before 5:30 p.m. Depending on parking availability, the parents may park in the parking spaces provided on -site on Fairway Drive or at the church property across the street. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.64.020, Large Family Day Care Use Permit, notice of the Permit application was sent to adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the Project Site. Staff received five written correspondences in opposition to the Permit application, and two of the five correspondences requested a hearing be held before a decision was made by the ZA. The written correspondences raised concerns about the traffic impacts and safety on a busy street, the potential noise 1 Large Family Day Care Us Permit 14-188 Page 2 of 3 July 25, 2014 impacts from 14 children playing outside, and the lack of a sidewalk along the south side of Fairway Drive where the Project Site is located. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.60.060, Public Hearings and Public Notice, a 10-day Public Hearing notice was mailed on July 10, 2014, notifying adjacent property owners of a Public Hearing on July 21, 2014. Staff conducted the Public Hearing, and received comments from the Applicant as well as three people in favor and four people in opposition to the Permit application. The comments in favor of the Permit mainly focused on the need for an afterschool art program and afterschool daycare for WCS. The Applicant indicated that the children would be inside the home for the two hours that they are there, and that she believes that noise would not be an issue. The comments in opposition of the Permit were related to noise, traffic congestion, safety, and the possibility of relocating a stop sign and adding a crosswalk and sidewalk in the area. The Zoning Administrator, under provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.64.020.E, Decision by the ZA, has denied the Permit application based on the following reason(s): Traffic and Safety Concerns: In reviewing the Permit application, staff expressed concerns with the traffic and safety on Fairway Drive. According to the most recent traffic study, the total number of vehicles traveling on Fairway Drive between 3:30 and 5:30 p.m. ranges between 323 vehicles per hour to 255 vehicles per hour. At 3:30 p.m., the 323 vehicles calculate to one vehicle every 10 to 12 seconds traveling on Fairway Drive. In addition to the traffic volume, the speed limit was recently raised from 25 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour based on the traffic survey required by State law. Fairway Drive is a busy street due to the nearby school, church, Alcoholics Anonymous building and regular vehicular traffic in the residential neighborhood. The site plan submitted with the application indicates that the Project Site has four parking spaces, three on the driveway and one in a carport. In reviewing the Project Site, staff believes that on -site parking will not adequately accommodate four parking spaces, and that the maneuverability will be difficult because the property is approximately 70 feet wide. Due to the narrow lot and the difficult maneuverability, staff believes that parents picking up the children are likely to park on the Fairway Drive or in the church parking lot across the street. Parking on Fairway Drive to pick up children is not acceptable in front of the Project Site since there is a red curb and no sidewalk for pedestrians to walk into the Project Site. The Department of Public Works provided a memorandum recommending denial of the Permit application due to inadequate on -site parking and vehicle maneuverability, inadequate street parking, and the lack of sidewalk in front of the Project Site. In addition, the memorandum states that the Applicant's proposed plan to walk the I I I Y 0f P 0 1 M DESERT `� ryM100�Ul.lilprWl 1 � Large Family Day Care Usermit 14-188 Page 3 of 3 July 25, 2014 children across Fairway Drive is not safe and is an unacceptable traffic mitigation plan for the following reasons: • The street crossing would occur midblock where vehicles are not prepared to stop; • No controlled intersection with a marked crosswalk for pedestrian crossing; • Non-ADA (American with Disabilities Act) compliant pedestrian crossing in the street. In response to the City's concerns, the Applicant is requesting that the City relocate an existing stop sign at Black Rabbit Trail to Lantana Avenue, and that a new crosswalk be installed across Fairway Drive at Lantana Avenue, and a new sidewalk be installed in the public right-of-way in front of the three homes. Staff is not in favor of these proposed modifications to accommodate the Permit application. The adjacent neighbors have raised similar concerns that staff has with the Permit application. These concerns are valid, and staff believes that the Project Site is not suitable for a large family day care based on the concerns stated above. BASED ON THE FINDINGS ABOVE, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR hereby denies the Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-1888, as described. In accordance with Section 25.60.060.C. of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, notice of the decision shall be provided to the applicant, interested parties, and property owners within 300 feet of the property. Any interested person may appeal certain actions of accordance with Section 25.60.080. Appeals. All appeals identifying the determination or action being appealed ani or grounds of the appeal. Appeals shall be filed within 1 date of determination or action. The 15-day appeal peric Auaust 11, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. the Zoning Administrator in shall be submitted in writing, specifically stating the basis i calendar days following the d for this decision concludes Any concerns, comments, or appeals may be filed at: City of Palm Desert — Community Development/Planning Department, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday (closed major holidays). You may contact me directly at tbagato(&cityofpalmdesert.org or (760) 346-0611, Extension 480. TONY BAGATO, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CIIy Of PRIM WHI too) wol a wmED"I `ITY OF P 0 Ill IIL ES1 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346—o6ii rAx:760 341-7098 m(o4FpaIm-dcscr,.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL HEARING NOTICE CASE NO. LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE 14-188 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on July 21, 2014 the Palm Desert Zoning Administrator will consider a hold a hearing for a Large Family Day Care home for a maximum of 14 children located at 74-085. The proposed hours of operation are 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM, Monday through Friday. The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities) of CEQA Guidelines. AIM W17MA7 —A. A AVM: *"N"11 M.... IIMO F1 AIM. A1Y NMMIAt MtM _.. -AIM IIIY —r— MM1wN MM - Itgr1 � 11wW 0 I K� IM�fIM AAR - VM. 429203401AIM' M37A3M7 AIM. /7W7MI AIM NIMI IltMrwl. iMl] MrAMrA: II1A1 �-. 74M MM,MI- )IMS AIA7MM IU)M7 A777MMA Us 70M01. PUBLIC HEARING: Said public hearing will be held before the City of Palm Desert Zoning Administrator on Monday, July 21, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. in the Community Services Conference Room at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Zoning Administrator at, or prior to, the public hearing. July 10, 2014 Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Zoning Administrator Hearing CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2014 — 2:00 P.M. COMMUNITY SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, called the Public Hearing to order at 2:00 p.m. II. PUBLIC HEARING A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION for a large family day care in home for a maximum of 14 children located at 74-085 Fairway Drive. Case No. 14-188 (Samantha Clark, 74-085 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260, Applicant). Mr. Bagato, Principal Planner, reported that the request is for a large family day care located at 74-085 Fairway Drive. He noted that under state law there are different levels for a day care permit. He said that there is a small day care permit, which is eight kids or less and allowed by right in California. There is a large day care permit, which is between eight and 14 kids that requires a City permit. Mr. Bagato explained that per the City's ordinance, staff has to look for noise, traffic, and safety issues. With the aid of Google Earth, Mr. Bagato pointed to the site location. He indicated that there is limited parking on the street; however, the driveway can accommodate multiple vehicles. He noted that there is no sidewalk. The applicant is proposing to have up to 14 kids, mainly during the school year from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m. The kids will play at the church for a half hour after school then the teachers will assist the kids to cross the street. He communicated that his concern is traffic. The applicant has responded to the concern by requesting that the City move a stop sign from Black Rabbit Road to Lantana Avenue, add a crosswalk, and a sidewalk to the subject property. He noted that the crosswalk and sidewalk will have to go to the City Council for approval. Mr. Bagato declared the public hearing open and asked for any public testimony IN FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING — CASE NO. 14-188 JULY 21, 2014 MS. SAMANTHA CLARK, 74-085 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260, stated that she is trying to start a program called The Art House because art programs have gone away in elementary schools. Ms. Clark mentioned that she sees kids jaywalking, and feels that kids will benefit from having the crosswalk added at Lantana Avenue. She indicated that the kids will be inside so noise is not an issue. She stated that they are able to have eight children; however, she would like to potentially have six more. The following individuals spoke in FAVOR of the large family day care. MS. ELIZABETH RUBART, 72-710 Homestead Road, Palm Desert, California 92260, stated that her child goes to Bermuda Dunes Learning Center at Hope Lutheran Church, and she has never had a safety issue. She said that she lives in the area and sees kids everywhere; a crosswalk will help. MS. GAYLE CLARK, 8 Taylor Avenue, Palm Desert, California 92260, stated that she is the Executive Director of the Bermuda Dunes Learning Center and runs the center located at the Hope Lutheran Church. She noted that they have a waitlist, and that Washington Charter is the only elementary school in the school district that does not provide onsite care. Ms. Clark also stated that they will be running an art program inside the home so noise will not be a factor. She mentioned that the home is u-shaped with a pool in the back and a five-foot gate. The neighbors behind them and to the side will not be able to hear them. As far as property value, she said they are not allowed to put commercial signs on the property, and they would not want to do anything that will depreciate the value of properties. Ms. Clark indicated that they will keep the kids at Hope Lutheran Church to let traffic subside so they can walk the children safely across the street. She noted that the driveway holds four cars, and there is one parking space in front of the house. In addition, the church has offered to let them use their parking. She feels traffic will not be an issue because parents do not all arrive at the same time. She mentioned that the age level of the kids will be ages five to 10, and there will be staff to help the kids cross the street. MS. ELLY FOSTER, 68-275 301h Avenue, Cathedral City, California 92234, stated that she works at the day care at Hope Lutheran Elementary School, and she will be helping Ms. Samantha Clark get the program started. She said that it will be a cool program for the kids, and noted that the arts are not being emphasized in schools anymore with budget cuts. It is a great opportunity to bring in an art program and extra child care into the community. She commented that her priority is the safety of the kids, and she is going to help to make sure the kids cross the street safely. Ms. Foster stated that the crosswalk and sidewalk will help all the kids at Washington Charter cross the street safely. She noted that the principal at the school is in favor. The following individuals spoke in OPPOSITION of the large family day care. 2 G 1PlanningWonica ORe111yiPASOPublic Nearing CUP 14-188 7-21 14 docx MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING — CASE NO. 14-188 JULY 21, 2014 MR. STEVE WELTY, 74-100 Old Prospector Trail, Palm Desert, California 92260, stated that his property backs up to the subject property. He noted that he sent a letter to the City outlining his concerns. He communicated that there is heavy traffic when school is out, and Fairway Drive is very busy. He asked City staff if the crosswalk is not approved, is the City condoning jaywalking across the street. Mr. Bagato responded that legally it is not jaywalking. He commented that it is summer and he is unable to review the area. MR. WELTY stated that his concern is with the noise coming from the kids. He said that in the letter he received from Ms. Clark, she stated the kids will not have access to the pool or side yards. If the City approves the proposed day care, he stated that he would like a condition so that there will never be kids in the backyard. He mentioned that traffic congestion is bad between 3:00 and 4:30 p.m. MR. GREG FAIN, 74-115 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260, stated that his home is ground zero for the changes that are being proposed for the crosswalk and sidewalk. He voiced that the changes will affect his property value, and some of his property will be taken away. He said that most of the kids come off of Black Rabbit Road. If the stop sign and crosswalk are moved to the corner, the kids will still have to walk on the street to get to the crosswalk to get to Washington Charter School. He said if there is going to be a crosswalk, it should be put where the current stop sign is located; however, the sidewalk will need to be extended. Mr. Fain stated that he also has a concern with privacy. He mentioned that he is not opposed to a day care center or children in the yards, but he feels he should not make drastic changes in his lifestyle or to his home to let someone operate a for -profit business. He noted that soon the church will start doing some construction, Fairway Drive is very busy, and the City recently increased the speed limit. He feels that it is a dangerous situation putting in a crosswalk and sidewalk on the corner. MS. MARILYN WRIGHT, 74-075 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260, stated that she lives west of the proposed day care. She mentioned that she is a retired teacher of 40 years, and she is also an artist. She said that she moved to the area from Oakland because it was quiet, for the peace, and the lack of traffic. She voiced that she does not want her property value to go down due to a day care going in next to her. She stated that she knows the noise children can make. It does not matter if there is one, two, eight, or 14 kids; it is too many children. In addition, she said there will be stop and go traffic in front of her house. She commented that she had a heart attack because of stress involved with children and got out in time. She voiced that she does not want the day care next door. 3 G \PlanningWon,ca GReillyWisc\Public Hearing CUP 14 188 7 21-14 docx MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING — CASE NO. 14-188 JULY 21, 2014 MR. BRIAN MC GOUGH, 74-095 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260, stated that he is concerned with the noise level. He said that he understands that she is allowed to have eight children, but he feels that 14 children is too much. He said that he works from home and talks to customers all day. He has a concern that he will not be able to talk to his customers if kids are too loud. He stated that he is also concerned with his property value going down. He mentioned that there is a huge tree next door to him that is about to fall over, and it is leaning on an electrical pole. He feels that it should be addressed if children are going to be next door; it is unsafe. Mr. McGough stated that there is a gap between his house and Ms. Clark's house, and kids are able to wonder into his house. If there is going to be a day care, he said that a fence needs to be installed. With no further testimony offered, Mr. Bagato declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Bagato communicated that he will go over the comments and findings, and make a decision. He said that he will notify those who attended the meeting by the end of the week. He noted that his decision is appealable to the Planning Commission. MR. MC GOUGH interjected that he had one more thing to add. Mr. Bagato reopened the public hearing for additional testimony. MR. MC GOUGH stated that there is a screened area in the backyard, and he would like it to be considered as outdoors. He noted that his office is next to the screened area. MS. CLARK responded that they will not be using the screened area. They will only be using the main center part of the house. With no further testimony offered, Mr. Bagato declared the public hearing closed and adjourned the meeting. III. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned.at 2:29 p.m. MONICA O'REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY 4 G 1PlanninglMonica ORedly\Misc'Public Hearing CUP 14-188 7-21-14 Cocx Bagato, Tony ) 41 From: Penny Shabro [pjshabro@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 4:25 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: Large Family Day Care at 74-085 Fairway Dear Mr. Bagato, My husband and I will be out of town on the date of the public hearing next week. We previously submitted a letter objecting to this project and would like to have a short statement read at the hearing, if possible. The statement is this: If we or any of our neighbors sell our homes in the future, we will be required to disclose the existence of a large daycare center in the sales transaction. Disclosures are only required when there is a negative issue. It is never for a positive one. Therefore, our property values will be negatively effected. We appreciate the opportunity to express our concerns. Best regards, Penny and John Shabro 74110 Old Prospector Trail (949) 292-0755 1 Bagato, Tony From: Hermann, David Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 8:39 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: FW: Contact Us Submission Hi Tony, Apparently Ms. Wright sent two messages regarding the proposed daycare center. Below is her other one. David David Hermann Public Information Officer City of Palm Desert 760-776-6411 -----Original Message ----- From: info@ci.aalm-desert.ca.us [ma ilto:info @ci.oalm-desert.ca.usl Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 8:06 PM To: InformationMail Subject: Contact Us Submission Submission information Submitter DB ID : 2709 Submitter's language : Default language IP address: 98.150.112.178 Time to take the survey : 14 min. , 57 sec. Submission recorded on : 7/7/2014 8:05:39 PM Survey answers ----------------------------------------- Your Contact Information First name: * Marilyn Last name: * Wright E-mail Address: * marilynwrightinc@gmail.com Address line 1 74075 Fairway Dr Address line 2 Not answered City Palm Desert State CA Zip code: * 92260 Phone number 5105994833 IAma: Palm Desert Business Owner [] Palm Desert Resident (x] i Comments: Having been away from my Palm Desert address I just received the horrifying news of a possible "Large Family Day Care" center operating next door to me. The case # Large Family Day Care 14-188 needs to have a public hearing. Thus I am submitting this today, July 7, 2014 @ 7:56 p.m. This info needs to get to the Zoning Administrator NOW M 1 Having bought in Palm Desert eleven years ago because of the quiet here and having taught for 37 years I NO longer want that kind of noise in my life. It is very stressful to me and I have suffered a heart attack and must not be subjected to the noise I know 14 children will make I am also an artist and writer and I must have quiet and calm for my work. Also the traffic of 14 different families dropping and picking up their children is a major problem of traffic congestion as well as the noise of their cars coming and goingl This kind of LARGE DAY CARE operation also lowers property values and makes it VERY difficult for someone to sell. Who wants to live next door to a Large Family Day Care Center?? I raise several important and key issues: health, traffic and property values. Please make sure this gets to the "Zoning Administrator". I would also appreciate a call. Thank you for your consideration and attention to this matter. Respectfully, Marilyn A. Wright 510 599 4833 Bagato, Tony From: Hermann, David Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 8:37 AM To: Bagato, Tony Cc: Aylaian, Lauri Subject: FW: Contact Us Submission - Proposed Daycare Facility Good morning Tony, We received the message below last night from a resident who lives next door to a proposed family daycare center. The message is addressed to you and I am forwarding it for your information. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. David David Hermann Public Information Officer City of Palm Desert 760-776-6411 -----Original Message ----- From: info@ci.palm-desert.ca.us [mailto:info@ci.palm-desert.ca.us] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 9:21 PM To: InformationMail Subject: Contact Us Submission Submission information Submitter DB ID: 2710 Submitter's language : Default language IP address: 98.150.112.178 Time to take the survey : 8 min. , 26 sec. Submission recorded on : 7/7/2014 9:20:43 PM Survey answers Your Contact Information First name: * Marilyn Last name: * Wright E-mail Address: * marilynwrightinc@gmail.com Address line 1 74075 Fairway Dr Address line 2 Not answered City Palm Desert State CA Zip code: * 92260 Phone number 5105994833 1 IAma: Palm Desert Business Owner [J Palm Desert Resident [xJ Comments: To: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner RE: Case No. Large Family Day Care 14-188 Having been away on family business I was just alerted to this possible operation of a Large Family Day Care Center right next door to me. I am writing to you to request a public hearing on this case. I object for many reasons and some very obvious: who wants to live next door to a Large Day Care Center? A house next door to this would be hard to sell. Having suffered a heart attack because of stress issues I do not want to hear 14 children all day long. I taught for 37 years. I know the noise 14 children can makell!! Our home values will depreciate due to such an operation. Traffic congestion picking up and dropping off 14 darlings will be abominable) Respectfully, Marilyn A. Wright To: Tony Bagato From: Thomas Weinberg, Victoria Weinberg, Greg Fain, John Turner Re: Large Family Day Care Date: July, 16, 2014 CNN of Palm D~ JUL 47 2014 Conwmurry We are the owners of the property located at 74115 Fairway Drive. Our property is two doors East of the proposed Day Care Center. We have been owners of this property for over fourteen years. We are opposed to the Day Care Center because of the following: 1. The center will lower our property value. Potential buyers must be made aware of the center. We fill that we could see a 10% drop in current market value. What is wrong with having her center in the church facility which she currently occupies? 2. Fairway Drive is already busy and anymore traffic is just too much. We are currently dealing with from 500 to 1000 people a day at the AA center located in the Lutheran Church fellowship hall. Also traffic from Washington Charter School. Also all of the service workers heading up Portola to those neighborhoods use Fairway Drive. 3. Our understanding is that the owner is proposing a.crosswalk and sidewalk to bring her students from the church. This would directly impact our property with a crosswalk and sidewalk. This would take away some of the privacy we now have. It would also impact the curb appeal negatively. 4. Having lived on Fairway all these years I have seen far too many people speed thru the stop sign at Lantana. Is there going to be more signage? If so where is it going? Directly in front of our house? 5. With the proposed Lutheran Church expansion and the potential of the fellowship relocation to the corner of Black Rabbit and Fairway we do not feel that it is a good mix and the construction would create a danger. W ME LAND I COMMERCIAL I INVESTMENTS Lic. # 00387455 7/2/ 14 To: City of Palm Desert Attn: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner RE: Case 14-188 Large Family Day Care From: Steve Welty 74-100 Old Prospector Trail Gary Young 74-080 Old Prospector Trail Dear Mr. Bagato, CW d palm DO"d COMMUMV Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and your call back to me the other day which was helpful. Please note that this letter is a request to hold a public hearing regarding the proposed operation of a Large Family Day Care Center at 74085 Fairway Dr, Palm Desert. Our concerns are numerous regarding this proposed facility for operation; Both mine and my neighbor Gary Young's property borders the property in question on Fairway Drive; my address is 74-100 Old Prospector Trail and Gary's is 74-080 Old Prospector Trail. The properties on Old Prospector Trail are populated by many retired individuals who enjoy their quiet domain and the ability to enjoy their backyards, us included. • The antics of having up to 14 children playing in a back yard that is approximately half the size of the properties it adjoins on Old Prospector Trail seems to me to be very disruptive to adjoining neighbors enjoying outside activities in their rear yards. • When you also consider the aspect that you indicated it has a pool and the pool will have to be fenced, that also severely reduces the amount of property that would be available for children to play. • It was also indicated that the applicant will mitigate an issue by walking the kids to the church/school playground across the street. An issue, there are no sidewalks on her side of Fairway Dr; the kids will have to walk on the street towards Portola or they would have to cross against the traffic on Fairway Dr in order to get to the playground. It appears to be a significant safety concern. 74100 Old Prospector Trail • Palm Desert, CA 92260 Office: (760) 773-5538 • Fax: (760) 568-4785 • Email: sieve@scwelty.com W W, 1 7/2/14 LAND I COMMERCIAL I INVESTMENTS Lic. # 00387455 I'm certain a business such as the one proposed can be located in a more commercial business friendly area and not impose on the neighbors undue influence of noise while they are trying to enjoy their backyards without excessive noise coming from a commercial/day care operation. In conclusion we are not aware of any other facilities of this nature in South Palm Desert and setting a precedent such as this in the middle of neighborhoods that are established for residential enjoyment would set a bad precedence. We strongly oppose this application for a Large Family Day Care case # 14-188 and ask that you deny the same. We appreciate your attention to this matter; if you have any questions feel free to give me a call. Thank you. Steve Welty 74-100 Old Prospector Trail Palm Desert, CA 92260 r J Gary oung 74-080 Old Prospector Trail Palm Desert, CA 92260 74100 Old Prospector Trail - Palm Desert, CA 92260 Office: (760) 773-5538 - Fax: (760) 568-4785 - Email: steve@scwelty.com �CIiY OF f 'ilM OESIi 73—Sio FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 76o 346—o6ii FAx:76o 341-7098 inro@palm•deurt.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE 14-188 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on July 8, 2014 the Palm Desert Zoning Administrator will consider a request by Samantha Clark to operate a Large Family Day Care home for 14 children located at 74-085. The proposed hours of operation are 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM, Monday through Friday. The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities) of CEQA Guidelines. AM eeetam A 44. eaetaeew .—O AM' terra 1 I I I I ".-.►& reae+1Iti... No public hearing will be held on this application unless a request to hold a public hearing is submitted in writing to the Zoning Administrator by Monday. July 7. 2014 Please submit any written request for a public hearing on this case to: City of Palm Desert Tony Bagato, Principal Planner 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California Written comments concerning all items covered by this legal notice shall be accepted up to July 7. 2014. Information concerning the proposed Large Family Day Care is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in written correspondence delivered to the Zoning Administrator or at a public hearing, if one is requested in writing. Transportation Management for Daycare at 74085 Fairway Dr, Palm Desert At Bermuda Dunes Learning Center we currently walk children to and from Monroe Elementary school daily during the school year, which is across the street from our main site. Procedure: one teacher holds a two-sided 18x18 stop sign and stands in the middle of the street prior to the crossing. The family daycare provider who is currently a teacher on our staff, and the other teacher that will be with her, plans to follow the same procedure when crossing the children along Fairway Drive to the daycare in Palm Desert. The family daycare can have up to 14 children at one time, with two teachers. The ratio for family daycare is 1:8, and 2 teachers when there are over 8 children present. During the school year, Sept through mid June the hours of operation are 3:OOpm. -5:30 pm. The elementary age children will be escorted by the staff from Washington Charter Elementary onto the playground at Hope Lutheran Church each day at approximately 3:10, where they can play on the playground until approximately 3:30. There is a gate onto the playground area along Lantana Rd. The two teachers will then walk the children along the sidewalk on the north side of Fairway Dr until they are directly across the street from the daycare house. One teacher will walk into the middle of the street and hold up a two-sided stop sign, 18'x18". The second teacher will stay on the sidewalk with the children. Once the teacher in the middle of the street signals, the other teacher will escort the children across the street, onto the daycare driveway. Parents will either park in the driveway to pick up their children, or park along Fairway Drive. They will also have access across the street at the church parking lot along Fairway Drive if needed. The church currently allows the parents from Washington Charter Elementary school and the BDLC@PD childcare to use their parking lot. They are very supportive of helping children in the community, and will allow parents to park there if needed. In the summers, we could schedule parents to drop off and pick up at different times; no more than 3 children ever twenty minutes. For the most part, the family daycare at this location will not create much traffic than is currently there. Regardless, we will ensure the utmost safety when walking children to and from the daycare, as described above. If you have any questions, or suggestions please let me know. I am also happy to meet with you, anyone on your staff. (760) 861-2587 Thank You, Gayle Clark Executive Director Bermuda Dunes Learning Center NAEYC accredited O - _ Carl R. Witt, Jr. / Senior Pastor �P"���� Beth Brashear /Pastor 45900 Portola Avenue (at Fairway) Palm Desert. California 92260 LUTHE AN CHURCH (760) 346.1273 / FAX (760) 346.2078 www hope-lulheran com ie 26, 2014 City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Civic Center 73 -5 10 Fred Waring Road Palm Desert, CA 92260 To Whom It May Concern: We are aware of the home daycare located at 74085 Fairway, directly across the street from Hope Lutheran Church. We understand that parents of children attending this daycare may park in Hope Lutheran's parking lot to drop off or pick up their children. We are supportive of this daycare as it will pro ide additional childcare needed in the community. Sincere , f!f� 1 . Witt, Jr. Senior Pastor Hope Lutheran Church Ba ato Ton From: Gayle [bdlcgayle@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 11:47 PM To: Bagato, Tony Cc: Samantha Clark Subject: Traffic Control and Parking for Large Family Day Cares in PD Attachments: Screen Shot 2014-06-25 at 6.08.00 PM.png Hi Tony, Below are the city of Palm Deserts codes regarding requirements for traffic control and parking for large family day cares. During the traditional school year, the after school program at the family daycare hours are from 3:00-5:30 pm. At 3:05 pm. after the children have been dismissed from Washington Charter the two teachers will take the children to Hope Lutheran's outside play area. Afterwards, the two teachers and children will walk along the sidewalk on the north side of Fairway Dr. Once directly across from the driveway of the family day care, the teacher's will cross the street with the children to the daycare. One will teacher stand in the street with the 18"x18" two-sided crossing guard stop sign, while the other one crosses the children. There are four parking spaces in the driveway, and another in front of the house. The house exceeds the number of required parking spaces. In addition, the church will allow us to park there if needed. I am expecting a letter from Pastor Carl this week stating this. I can arrange for parents to stagger their pick up times. However, I do not think more than two families would ever arrive at exactly the same time for pick up, and there is enough parking if four parents arrive at the same time. I do understand your concern that parents may choose to park at the church as it is so close to the property, and easier to pull in and out of. Is Fairway Drive considered a major arterial roadway? If it is, we can designate the childcare across the street at Hope Lutheran as our drop off site. At 5:00 pm we could walk the children over to the childcare at Hope Lutheran's site, and parents could pick up their children there. I personally think that children and parents can cross the street safely. However, if this is a concern with the city, we can do a drop off across the street, walking all the children over at the same time. One staff member would hold a large 18"x18" two-sided crossing guard stop sign while another teacher crosses the street with the 12-14 children. Parents could pick up the children at the daycare at the church, parking in the church parking lot. I am hoping this letter helps answer any concerns regarding the traffic control and parking for the the large family daycare that hopefully opens this fall. If there still is concern, I would be happy to have a hearing asap so we know how to proceed. Thank you for your time, and consideration in allowing the house at 74085 to be licensed as a large family childcare, serving 12-14 children with two teachers. Thank You, Gayle Clark (760) 861-2587 > 18 1 Bagato, Tony From: Gayle [bdlcgayle@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 5:33 PM To: Bagato, Tony Cc: Aly Olson; <bdlcjean@dc.rr.com>; Samantha Clark Subject: Traffic Management Plan with Children at Family Daycare Hi Tony, Thank you for taking the time today to explain some of your concerns with transportation. I hope I was able to explain some of the plans today to ensure the family daycare would not create any safety issues for children or the neighbors. As we discussed, at Bermuda Dunes Learning Center we currently walk children to and from Monroe Elementary school daily during the school year, which is across the street from our main site. I was going to send a photo showing how we cross the children on Yucca Lane; one teacher holds a two-sided 18x18 stop sign and stands in the middle of the street prior to the crossing. However, I realized after we hung up today, that school is out for the summer so I can not take or send you a photo at this time. The family daycare provider and the other teacher that will be with her, plans to follow the same procedure when crossing the 12-14 children along Fairway Drive to the daycare in Palm Desert. Both are experienced teachers from our site. The family daycare can have up to 14 children at one time, with two teachers. The ratio for family daycare is 1:8, and 2 teachers when there are over 8 children present. During the school year, Sept through mid June the hours of operation are from 3:15-5:30. The elementary age children will be escorted from Washington Charter Elementary onto the playground at Hope Lutheran Church each day at approximately 3:10, where they will play on the playground until approximately 3:30. The two teachers will then walk the children along the sidewalk on the north side of Fairway Dr until they are directly across the street from the daycare house. One teacher will walk into the middle of the street and hold up a two-sided stop sign, 18"x18". The second teacher will stay on the sidewalk with the children. Once the teacher in the middle of the street signals, the other teacher will escort the children across the street, onto the daycare driveway. Parents will either park in the driveway to pick up their children, or park along Fairway Drive. They will also have access across the street at the church parking lot along Fairway Drive if needed. The church currently allows the parents from Washington Charter Elementary school and the BDLC@PD childcare to use their parking lot. They are very supportive of helping children in the community, and will allow parents to park there if needed. In the summers, we will provide childcare throughout the day. We will schedule parents to drop off and pick up at different times; no more than 3 children ever twenty minutes. This will allow parents to park at the daycare, and not have to cross the street. We will ensure the utmost safety when walking children to and from the daycare, as well as providing adequate parking for the families that need childcare. If you have any questions, or suggestions please let me know. I am also happy to meet with you, and/or anyone on your staff. Thank You again for your time, 11SiG Prepared by NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES FACILITY SKETCH (Yard) - Family Child Care Home The yard sketch should show all buildings in the yard including the home (with no detail), garage and storage building Include walks, driveways. play area, fences. gates. Please identify areas which will be "off limits' to children Snow and potential hazardous areas Such as pools, garbage storage, animal pens. etc Show the overall yard size. Try to keeo thN sizes close to scale. Use the space below. lotted adC. V t._ FACILITY SKETCH (Floor Plan) - Family Child Care Home Applicants are required to provide a sketch of the floor plan of the home or facility and outside yard The floor sketch must label rornnos such as the kitchen• bath. living room, etc Please identify areas which will be off limits to children Door and window exits from the rooms must be shown in case of an emergency (see Emergency Disaster Plan) Show room sizes (e g 8 5 x 12) Keep close to scale I;se the space below See back for yard sketch Thy /Ir-� t��IScv ,7l�U � S I�'VIIGt�, r �< S ME Statement of Use: The person residing at 74085 Fairway Drive plans to open a family daycare, with a maximum of 14 children at any one time. The driveway to the house is directly across from the Bermuda Dunes Learning Center @Palm Desert, located at the Hope Lutheran Church. The person running the family day care will collaborate with this childcare /afterschool program to help provide additional childcare for the children attending Washington Charter School. Parking: Parents can easily park in the parking lot at the church along Fairway Drive, or in the driveway at the house. Hours: The childcare licensed hours will be from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., M-F. Primarily, childcare will be available after Washington Charter lets out, between 3:00-5:00 p.m., and on Wednesdays from 12:45 — 5:00 p.m. Outside Play and Noise: The children will use the outside playground at Hope Lutheran Church, which is directly across the street from the house. The house is U shaped, surrounding a small back patio. Although children may occasionally be on the back patio, the neighbors will not hear the children. June 3, 2014 Dear Neighbors, My name is Samantha Clark and I am residing at 74085 Fairway Drive. My plan is to open a licensed family day care in the Fall of 2014. The maximum number of children served at my home will be 14. The driveway to the home is directly across from the childcare at Hope Lutheran church, Bermuda Dunes Learning Center @ Palm Desert. I am collaborating with this childcare/after-school program to help provide additional childcare for the children attending Washington Charter School (WCS). Parking: Parents can easily park in the parking lot at the church, or use the driveway at the home. Hours: The home will be licensed from 8:OOAM - 5:30PM, Monday through Friday. However, we will primarily provide childcare upon student dismissal from WCS. Our weekly childcare schedule for the 2014-2015 school year will be 3:00-5:OOPM on Mondays, Tuesday, Thursdays, and Fridays. We will provide care on Wednesdays from 12:45-5:OOPM due to WCS early dismissal. Outside Play and Noise: The children will use the outside playground at Hope Lutheran, which is directly across the street. The house is U-shaped, surrounding a small back patio. Although children may occasionally be on the back patio, the neighbors will not hear the children. This after school program will help to provide additional quality childcare to the children attending Washington Charter School. Sincerely, Samantha Clark SamanthaBDLC@gmail.com � ilC ,,�22 141�? wK t.K.`.41U'G'.:.• �: •: ,J: :l.Y: ` My of Palm DwOrt �. �(V _L �� JAN 0 5 2015 ro HM OR 'Z Cl� �, communky Devebpment o c� :.�. --� "....� v. cn N Ri rvi _ �� ►�-�-�l v P. (- rS^b Q 12 V i Lic, t� c� V(�1 +v�-'v m y J I z f z- c c u ccyz �,a5s - _ 7ac� du,-e- 4c,CdSs \b� Lpv�� C,- r- .:._-�-�- cam.,-LQ.r'_c- j 1 _ cc> � y J<e, 4 3 4---�o._--� r ny- II i RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PALM DESERT. CA 2015 JAN -6 PM 2: 31 lk BEST BEST & KRIEGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Memorandum To: Palm Desert City Council File 72500.00001.00314 No.: From: City Attorney's Office Date: January 2, 2015 Re: Potential City liability for approval of Clark Day Care without adequate traffic conditions Background Samantha Clark applied to the City for a Large Family Day Care Use Permit to operate a day care at Ms. Clark's residence, located at 74-085 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert (Clark Day Care). Clark Day Care will provide after -school care for children attending Washington Charter School. After the children leave Washington Charter School, the children walk to the adjacent Hope Lutheran Church. The Clark Day Care is located mid -block on the south side of Fairway Drive, across the street from Hope Lutheran Church. On appeal from the City Zoning Administrator's denial, the City Planning Commission approved Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188, for Clark Day Care, subject to conditions. Ms. Clark objects to two (2) of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, including a condition requiring Clark to van -terry children leaving Hope Lutheran School, located across the street on the north side 78 544. (M)O(14 M 890 16. 1 BEST BEST & KRIEGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW of Fairway Drive, to Clark Day Care, on the south side of Fairway Drive. ("van - ferry condition") Ms. Clark requests that the van -ferry condition be removed and that she be permitted to cross the children over Fairway Drive mid -block without a crosswalk or other traffic controls. Question Presented Does the van -ferry condition reduce the City's exposure to liability in the event a child is injured crossing Fairway Drive while travelling from Washington Charter School or Hope Lutheran School to the Clark Day Care? Discussion The City is among the potential defendants in an action arising from injury sustained by a child crossing Fairway Drive while travelling from Hope Lutheran School to the Clark Day Care. City liability could be based on an alleged dangerous condition of public property, or on an alleged failure to discharge a mandatory duty. Dangerous condition of public property Government Code Section 830 imposes liability on a public entity for dangerous conditions of its own property. But property belonging to a public -2- 78544.1 )(M\9489016.1 12/30/14 6:56 PM BEST BEST & KRIEGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW entity may also be considered dangerous if a condition on the adjacent property exposes persons using the public property to a substantial risk of injury. (Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Auth. (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 139, 144; Jordan v. City of Long Beach (1971) 17 Cal. App. 3d 878, 882-883.) In Bonanno, a transit authority approved a bus stop where bus patrons had to cross a busy thoroughfare with an uncontrolled intersection. The court upheld a jury verdict against the transit authority after a patron was struck by car based on the jury's determination that the location of the bus stop constituted a dangerous condition of public property. In Joyce v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist. (2003) 110 Cal. App. 4th 292, 298-300, a school district was liable to a student struck by car in dangerous crosswalk, based on district's placement of entrance gate adjacent to crosswalk. In Cole v. Town of Los Gatos (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 749,779-780, the plaintiff sued the City of Los Gatos after she was hit by an intoxicated driver while standing near the back of her car parked next to a city park and a city road. She alleged the city was liable for her injury because the area where she had parked was a dangerous condition. The trial court granted the city's motion for summary judgment and the appellate court reversed. The court held that even though the city did not have prior notice of any accidents in the area, a trier of fact could find -3- 7R 544.1 X N 1114 \94 X9016. I 12/30/14 6:56 I'M BEST BEST & KMEGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW actual or constructive notice sufficient to satisfy Section 835 because the city had received complaints about drivers on the roadway where the plaintiff was hit and was aware that people parked their cars in the area. A jury could find Fairway Drive dangerous to children leaving Hope Lutheran School because the children face a substantial risk of injury crossing the street to attend Clark Day Care. The van -ferry condition reduces the City's exposure to liability based on a jury's determination that Fairway Drive is a dangerous condition. Failure to Discharge Mandatory Duty Government Code Section 815.6 provides that, where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the public entity is liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty, unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty. In Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist. (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 925, plaintiff Frederick Hoff, a nonstudent, was injured across the street from a public high school when he was struck by a car driven by Jason Lozano, a student exiting the -4- 7 K 544. (11 N )(14194 89016.1 1 Ji(1/14 6:56 PM BEST BEST & KMEGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW school parking lot at Vacaville High School. Lozano, a licensed driver, lost control of his car as he drove out of the campus overflow parking lot onto West Monte Vista Avenue and struck Hoff, who was on the sidewalk across the street from the school, causing serious injuries. There was no adult supervisor monitoring the flow of traffic from the lot. The Court of Appeal held that the school district could be held liable for such injury, based on the duty of teachers and other certified employees of a school district to supervise students in their care. The school district only escaped liability when the California Supreme Court granted its petition for review and reversed. (Id. at p. 941) In an action against the City, a plaintiff could allege that California Health & Safety Code § 1597.46 (a)(2) requires the City to grant a permit to a large family day care home that complies with local ordinances prescribing reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements concerning, among other factors, traffic control. A plaintiff could also allege that pursuant to Section 1597.46, Palm Desert Palm Desert Municipal Code § 25.64.020 (E) (2) requires the City to approve a day care permit with a traffic circulation plan designed to diminish traffic safety problems. Plaintiff could assert that the City's approval of the Clark Day Care -5- 78544.(HN )()4\9489016.1 12/30/14 6:56 PM BEST BEST & KMEGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW without the van -ferry condition subjects the City to liability under Government Code Section 815.6. An alternative is suggested in the staff report of the construction of a sidewalk and relocation of stop sign and construction of crosswalk as potentially viable but carries an increased level of risk of liability because we have no traffic studies or warrants to substantiate this relocation. Conclusion The van -merry condition reduces the City's exposure to liability based on injury to a child crossing Fairway Drive while travelling from Hope Lutheran School to the Clark Day Care. More than the alternatives of sidewalk and relocation of stop signs. M 7 8 544.I N H N 14\9489016.1 12/30/ 14 6:56 I'M HECcIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PALM DESERT, Cd, 2015 JAN -6 PM 2: 31 To: From: Date: Re: IH� BEST BEST & KRIEGER ATTORNEYS A,r LAW Memorandum Palm Desert City Council AGENDA PACK57T 3SCT10k MUM DATE File 72500.00001.00314 No.: City Attorney's Office January 2, 2015 Potential City liability for approval ol' Clark Day Care without adequate traffic conditions Background Samantha Clark applied to the City for a Large Family Day Care Use Permit to operate a day care at Ms. Clark's residence, located at 74-085 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert (Clark Day Care). Clark Day Care will provide after -school care for children attending Washington Charter School. After the children leave Washington Charter School, the children walk to the adjacent Hope Lutheran Church. The Clark Day Care is located mid -block on the south side of Fairway Drive, across the street from Hope Lutheran Church. On appeal from the City Zoning Administrator's denial, the City Planning Commission approved Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14-188, for Clark Day Care, subject to conditions. Ms. Clark objects to two (2) of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, including a condition requiring Clark to van -ferry children leaving Hope Lutheran School, located across the street on the north side 78544.IXX1114\9489016.1 ids BEST BEST & "IEGER ATTORNEYS AT 1.AW of Fairway Drive, to Clark Day Care, on the south side of Fairway Drive. ("van - ferry condition") Ms. Clark requests that the van -ferry condition be removed and that she be permitted to cross the children over Fairway Drive mid -block without a crosswalk or other traffic controls. Question Presented Does the van -ferry condition reduce the City's exposure to liability in the event a child is injured crossing Fairway Drive while travelling from Washington Charter School or Hope Lutheran School to the Clark Day Care? Discussion The City is among the potential defendants in an action arising from injury sustained by a child crossing Fairway Drive while travelling from Hope Lutheran School to the Clark Day Care. City liability could be based on an alleged dangerous condition of public property, or on an alleged failure to discharge a mandatory duty. Dangerous condition of public property Government Code Section 830 imposes liability on a public entity for dangerous conditions of its own property. But property belonging to a public -2- 78 544.0(K?)4\94890 l6. l 12/30/14 6:56 PM 1091k BEST BEST & KRIEGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW entity may also be considered dangerous if a condition on the adjacent property exposes persons using the public property to a substantial risk of injury. (Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Auth. (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 139, 144; Jordan v. City of Long Beach (1971) 17 Cal. App. 3d 878, 882-883.) In Bonanno, a transit authority approved a bus stop where bus patrons had to cross a busy thoroughfare with an uncontrolled intersection. The court upheld a jury verdict against the transit authority after a patron was struck by car based on the jury's determination that the location of the bus stop constituted a dangerous condition of public property. In Joyce v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist. (2003) 110 Cal. App. 4th 292, 298-300, a school district was liable to a student struck by car in dangerous crosswalk, based on district's placement of entrance gate adjacent to crosswalk. In Cole v. Town of Los Gatos (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 749,779-780, the plaintiff sued the City of Los Gatos after she was hit by an intoxicated driver while standing near the back of her car parked next to a city park and a city road. She alleged the city was liable for her injury because the area where she had parked was a dangerous condition. The trial court granted the city's motion for summary judgment and the appellate court reversed. The court held that even though the city did not have prior notice of any accidents in the area, a trier of fact could find -3- 78544.111X1114\94R())16.1 12/30/14 6:56 PM INS BEST BEST & KRIEGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW actual or constructive notice sufficient to satisfy Section 835 because the city had received complaints about drivers on the roadway where the plaintiff was hit and was aware that people parked their cars in the area. A jury could find Fairway Drive dangerous to children leaving Hope Lutheran School because the children face a substantial risk of injury crossing the street to attend Clark Day Care. The van -ferry condition reduces the City's exposure to liability based on a jury's determination that Fairway Drive is a dangerous condition. Failure to Discharge Mandatory Duty Government Code Section 815.6 provides that, where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the public entity is liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty, unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty. In Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist. (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 925, plaintiff Frederick Hoff, a nonstudent, was injured across the street from a public high school when he was struck by a car driven by Jason Lozano, a student exiting the -4- 7R 544.(X1)114\94R9016.1 12/30/ 14 6:56 1'M BEST BEST & KRIEGER A'rrORNEYS AT LAW school parking lot at Vacaville High School. Lozano, a licensed driver, lost control of his car as he drove out of the campus overflow parking lot onto West Monte Vista Avenue and struck Hoff, who was on the sidewalk across the street from the school, causing serious injuries. There was no adult supervisor monitoring the flow of traffic from the lot. The Court of Appeal held that the school district could be held liable for such injury, based on the duty of teachers and other certified employees of a school district to supervise students in their care. The school district only escaped liability when the California Supreme Court granted its petition for review and reversed. (Id. at p. 941) In an action against the City, a plaintiff could allege that California Health & Safety Code § 1597.46 (a)(2) requires the City to grant a permit to a large family day care home that complies with local ordinances prescribing reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements concerning, among other factors, traffic control. A plaintiff could also allege that pursuant to Section 1597.46, Palm Desert Palm Desert Municipal Code § 25.64.020 (E) (2) requires the City to approve a day care permit with a traffic circulation plan designed to diminish traffic safety problems. Plaintiff could assert that the City's approval of the Clark Day Care -5- 78544.(NX)04\9489016.1 12/30/ 14 6:56 I'M BEST BEST & KRIEGER ATTORNEYS A'r LAW without the van -ferry condition subjects the City to liability under Government Code Section 815.6. An alternative is suggested in the staff report of the construction of a sidewalk and relocation of stop sign and construction of crosswalk as potentially viable but carries an increased level of risk of liability because we have no traffic studies or warrants to substantiate this relocation. Conclusion The van -ferry condition reduces the City's exposure to liability based on injury to a child crossing Fairway Drive while travelling from Hope Lutheran School to the Clark Day Care. More than the alternatives of sidewalk and relocation of stop signs. -6- 78544.(XXH)4\9489016. l 12130/ 14 6:56 PM January 6, 2014 Dear City Council Members, I received the packet with the agenda for this week's city council meeting, and I have some concerns. Apparently the staff feels the only way I can safely cross the children is at the intersection of Lantana and Fairway, with the installation of the sidewalk. Although it is legal to cross in front of my house and I feel it is safe, I agree that a crosswalk would make it safer. I also feel this would benefit both my family childcare as well as the community, as the intersection is so close to the elementary school, which also is a public park. The intersection is only 500 feet away from WCS. My concern is the suggestion that I incur the cost of the sidewalk. I feel it unreasonable to suggest this. For clarification, my house is only 160 feet from this intersection. It is two houses away from the intersection at Lantana; it is not in the middle of the block. It is stated in the staff report that my house is in the middle of the block between Black Rabbit and Portola, but my house is between the intersections of Portola and Lantana, and not in the middle of the block. I think a crosswalk in front of my home would be a good solution as well. This way, the installation of sidewalk would not be needed. Perhaps a sign that says Caution Children Crossing could also be installed there. If installing a crosswalk in front of my home is unacceptable, and the city staff still feels the only acceptable thing is the installation of the sidewalk, than I need their assistance. It is my understanding that the city has childcare mitigation fees to help with new childcare slots. Is there a form or application I could use to apply for assistance for the sidewalk, or for a crosswalk and sign placed in front of my house? Although licensing, and parents feel how we are crossing the children is safe, and it is legal, I think we all can agree the installation of a crosswalk would make it safer. Hopefully we can find a solution. But regardless if the city helps with the crosswalk and sidewalk, I am still requesting the current condition prohibiting me from crossing my street be removed as we are not obstructing or controlling traffic, and it is legal for everyone else to cross. Thank You, Samantha Clark z ir-x 74085 Fairway Dr Palm Desert, CA 92260 mO o (nX— (760)408-8088 = m my o c.� > CA � STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY „- ' CDSS DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES .r-- 744 P Street • Sacramento, CA 95814 • www.odss.ca.gov WILL UGHTBOURNE EDMUND G. BROWN JR DIRECTOR GOVERNOR January 8, 2015 Whom It May Concern, The childcare field is highly regulated by the State of California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division ("Licensing"). The primary responsibility for ensuring and regulating the basic health and safety of children at Family Day Care Homes or childcare centers belongs to licensing. (Health & Safety Code 1596.816.) In addition, the California Legislature has found that "quality child day care services are an essential service for working parents." (Id., 1596.72 (e).) For this reason, the California Child Day Care Act (Id., 1596.70, et seq.) ("the Actj supports reducing barriers that impact Family Day Care Homes and encourages municipalities to include Family Day Care Homes in residential areas. The Act provides, in relevant part: • It is the intent of the Legislature that Family Day Care Homes for children should be situated in normal residential surroundings so as to give children the home U. _environment which is conducive to healthy and safe development. It is the public n o� policy of this state to provide children and a Family Day Care Home the same >y'W E- home environment as provided in a traditional home settings. O:uj CID Y N "I W= c � policy The Legislature declares this olic to be a statewide concem with the acU� c 5 purposes of occupying the field to the exclusion of municipal zoning, �a building and fire codes and regulations governing the use or occupancy of the Family Day Care Home for children, except as specifically provided for in this chapter, and to prohibit any restrictions relating to the use of single- family residences for Family Day Care Homes for children except as provided by this chapter. (id., 1597.40 (a)(emphasis added).) In order to ensure that local agencies advance this important policy, the Califomia Legislature has removed most of the discretion that municipalities might otherwise have to regulate Family Day Care Homes. Pursuant to the provisions outlined in the Act, cities must permit the operation of large Familv Dav Care Homes in residential neighborhoods if those homes comply with REASONABLE STANDARDS, restrictions and requirements concerning (1) spacing and concentration. (2) traffic control,131 parking. and (4) noise control. Again, the health and safety responsibility of daycare children is that of California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division. For any additional questions or concerns regarding the Department's role and responsibility, please contact me Sharon Greene, Childcare Advocate at (310) 654 — 4655 or email me at sharon.greenel Adss.ca.gov Sin y, CShar a e, ildcare Advocate RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PALM DESERT CA 2015 JAN 20 AM 9: 21 .. i>1),NIn. January 16, 2015 Mr. John Wohlmuth, City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Wohlmuth: The City of Palm Desert has requested that the California JPIA provide an opinion regarding a traffic condition associated with the city's potential issuance of a Large Family Day Care Use Permit at 74-085 Fairway Drive. In order to transport students from a local school to the day care center, the applicant intends to cross Fairway Drive at a location without a crosswalk or any other traffic controls. After review of a video demonstrating how the applicant intends to cross Fairway Drive and a written opinion from the City Attorney regarding this matter, we concur with the City Attorney that the city faces a increased liability exposure if the applicant is permitted to cross the street in the manner indicated, as compared to using a van to ferry children to the day care facility. Sincerely, Jonathan Shull Chief Executive Officer CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY 801111 MOOP1 5I ill I I . I A i'AI mA- t A ` M)2_3 It I t 5(,2) 467 8700 1 AV 860-.199- 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9 2 2 670-2 5 7 8 TEL: 760 346—o6zi info C@city4palmdeserr.org Sent Via Email January 21, 2015 Mr. Allan Lehmann, Principal Washington Charter School 45-768 Portola Avenue Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Mr. Lehmann: Re: School Bus Drop-off for Clark Day Care Home I am writing this letter to thank you and Mr. Matthew Thomas, Manager of Transportation, for your follow up related to a discussion we had last week that involved the use of a school bus from Washington Charter School to potentially drop-off the 14 children that would be attending the Clark Day Care home at 74-085 Fairway Drive. Based on our discussion, I am confirming that there is a school bus that can accommodate the 14 children. I am also confirming that the bus will travel eastbound on the south side of Fairway Drive, directly in front of the day care home to drop off the children. As we discussed, the total cost to drive all 14 children would be $5.00 per day. Over the school year, the total cost to Ms. Clark would be $900 each year, which is approximately $64.23 per child. The school bus option would appear to be a great solution to address the City's concern with the safety issue related to mid -block crossing and the applicant's concern of the cost of purchasing a vehicle to transport the children to the day care home. If you have any additional questions, please call me at (760) 346-0611, Extension 480. Sincerely, GATO TONY AB � -0� PRINCIPAL PLANNER e �� N rn cc: City Council 'v U) - John Wohlmuth, City Manager M cn M Dave Erwin, City Attorney rV 00 n Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development r.4 ` > F) Mark Greenwood, P.E., Director of Public Works rM Gin vRwr[o ory etaum verEe CITY CLERK SEOFFICE PALM DESERT, CA 2015 JAN 22 PM 1: 22 CAIIFOR NIA i' ! A January 21, 2015 Mr. John Wohlmuth, City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-51.0 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Wohlmuth: The City of Palm Desert has requested that the California JPIA provide an opinion regarding the proposed installation of a striped, mid -block crosswalk on Fairway Drive associated with the city's potential issuance of a Large Family Day Care Use Permit at 74-085 Fairway Drive. As with the construction of any new roadway feature, the Authority recommends taking the following steps in order to ensure the safety of pedestrians and drivers, and to establish design immunity: 1. Conduct an appropriate study to determine the effect that the proposed roadway feature will have on pedestrians and traffic. The study should also address whether the existing conditions meet established warrants that would justify the installation of the feature. 2. If warranted, design the roadway feature in accordance with a recognized standard such as the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 3. Prior to construction, the legislative body or their designee (i.e. City Engineer) should officially approve the design. Generally speaking, the Authority is not in favor of the installation of mid -block crosswalks. Studies have demonstrated that the use of painted crosswalks actually increase the likelihood of pedestrian vs. vehicle accidents as pedestrians tend to feel a false sense of security within the painted crosswalk and demonstrate less caution in traversing the roadway. Mid -block crosswalks pose additional challenges as drivers are typically not expecting to encounter crosswalks in those locations. Thank you for allowing the Authority to weigh-in on this important issue. Please let me know if we may be of further assistance. Sincerely, Jonathan Shull Chief Executive Officer CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY 8ort M00U1 STRF 1A. LA PAr.N1A- C 0o62g rF.I. (;;62) 46^-8?oo FAX (,562) 860-,F1)y2 RESOLUTION NO.2015- 06 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE USE PERMIT FOR A MAXIMUM OF 14 CHILDREN LOCATED AT 74-085 FAIRWAY DRIVE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS ATTACHED CASE NO: LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE USE PERMIT 14-188 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 22 day of January , 2015, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the Samantha Clark, Applicant, for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City must determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, further environmental review is necessary. The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the lead Agency has determined that the Large Family Day Care Use Permit is not subject to CEQA. The application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 2014-41, in the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed project is a Class 1: Existing Facilities (15301) Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further review is necessary; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons, which are outlined in the staff report reasons to approve the said request: Based on the conditions of the permit, the Large Family Day Care home was found to be in compliance with the City's Zoning Ordinance and state law. 2. As conditioned, the Large Family Day Care home will not be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. As conditioned, the Large Family Day Care home will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 4. The Large Family Day Care home will not endanger the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMING, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings for approval of the City Council in this case. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-o_ 2. That the City Council does hereby approve Large Family Day Care Use Permit 14- 188. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the day of , 2015 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUSAN MARIE WEBER, MAYOR ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA \\srv4il2k3\groups\planning\tony bagato\staff reports\large family day care permits\14-188 art house\city council\ccres_large family day care - revised.docx 2 RESOLUTION NO.2015- 06 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO: LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE USE PERMIT 14-188 Department of Community Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with the exhibit on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Operation of said project shall commence within one (1) year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. The day care staff shall ensure that the children obey all pedestrian rules, regulations, and laws. 5. During the school year, the 14 children shall be dropped off directly in front of the day care home or in the driveway of the day care home, such that the teachers and children are not crossing Fairway Drive as part of the transportation plan for arrival to the after school program. 6. Applicant shall coordinate parent pick-up and drop-off of children such that no more than four vehicles arrive at or depart from the Large Family Day Care home within any 20-minute period. 7. The applicant shall demonstrate legal authority and control of the property before the business license is approved, and before the applicant can operate the day care as a Large Family Day Care home. 8. The day care shall comply with the noise standards of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 9.24, Noise Control. 9. The operator of the Large Family Day Care Use Permit shall comply with all the standards and requirements of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.64.020. Upon determination that the permit has not complied with all of the standards and requirements of Section 25.64.020, the Zoning Administrator may require the use permit to be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. A noticed public hearing to review the permit is mandatory when the City receives six (6) substantiated complaints alleging violations of Section 25.64.020. If the Planning Commission determines that the operator has failed in a material way to comply with all of the standards and requirements, then the Planning Commission may suspend or revoke the permit or may, in its discretion, impose additional reasonable standards and requirements consistent with State law, based on findings derived from testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing. \\srv-fil2k3\groups\planning\tony bagato\staff reports\large family day care permits\14-188 art house\city council\ccres_large family day care - revised.docx 3