Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Conditional use permit 86-25 - Barbara Leonard - Home Day Ca
Awwwd is pw~ A41V0140"M"s M i"N arc Vw4ft Illy tic►se of 1IN SV00104 Ce,. or 0+040 cowalw, CONOWPAo rauVROV A-621 4 •��sd 11 sro��+ta+w �N� era � A.2"3+ •Mee i 1 jwmil i9Q STATE Of CALIF'OANIA County of Orange n Oft We* . &*Now .� Gov" ow � �• 4 rr • w Pa- + Nc•tM.M.O� I am a Citizen Of the United Slates and a resident of the County aforesaid. I am over the W of rqnhteor� lr Dh yea►3 and not a party to or intef"ted in ttow W �,e4 Willed rnatter I am a principal clws( of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT with whrCM is Combined the V 7 '4', NEWS-PRESS a newspaw of general Circulation, Pun ! ,r � . prentdd and published In the City of COtita Mesa, A. w� County of Orange Stale of California. and Ihat a M■� t Nct+ce of PUBLIC HEARING any %10 �81y sumar o .r IrMM! of *h+cn copy attached hareto is a true an0 Complete ; �r will , copy. was printed and published in the Costa Mesa. NWA- aloof"411111 Newport Beach. Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley. md »��� Irvine. the South Coast communities and Laguna 'emaw do M "';'w, geaCM Issues of said newspaper for ONE TINE Consewulivi w"k>i to wit the iswe(Z) of aTom T � i C w w 10111111,0111111 + t July 9 etass� h iai�+►a� .r� VON N oN198- OW wv 19e M NVIRONVINTAL' $TAn* Cogpp * rr. Mow tsdON"AOL or s i M fr�M 4"is wr wins AY, r11 Ka FM w ww w 011111111111 declare, under penalty of prlrjury, that the w� foregoing is true and correct. July a 6 q r Ex uted on .�_�___r_ ► 19!! ..._ "tt to Mesa, California. CP Pw i V s r . � ' David Sandor _._...y..._t7224-_,2*urus Zane Husain ton Beach , CA 92647 July 2 , 1986 Huntington Beach City- Council Huntington Beach Civic Center 20U0 Main Street •„ Funtington Beach, California Re: Conditional Use Permit. 86-25-Appeal Location: 17242 Argo Circ`I'&`-- 110 Since I am recovering from major surgery, I am unable to attend this hearing today. However , my position on tonigh400s proposal has not changed. 2 am still categorically 222osed to the applicant' s request to operate a large lama y cay care nome ox up to 12 children in an existing family home . This is a residential neighborhood not a business area, and we have the right to a reasonably peaceful environment. 4ith 12 small children in one residence there is bound to t•e a lot of noise . I am working often at night , since 1 have a rotating work shift . Therefore , it is often necessary that 1 sleep during the day. 1 cannot afford to be kept aw&ke by a lot of noise. Right now, hcwever , 1 will need peace and quie „ more than ever , since. ? have a long recovery ahead of :rye frorr. major_ surSerL. Vy :am.ily and I have e=n liv i::g here since 1371 . We chose "a give here because we wanted to live in a friendly, rice , and ouiet neighborhood. It has been t:iaz u: tc n:ww. b child care facility for up to 12 children is a noisy bueiness , and as such should be operated in an area zoned for business . Let hie ask you , �1emners cf the ity Council , would you like to have a day care center c;f ur to 12 small children rear your base, yard? Since:.ely I ) David Sandor 0000 / �i�•r 1 , CITY OF mxrrl► t0M ■M ArCM INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMON ION CJpit /�'t To Charles W. Thompson ra James W. Palin, Director City Administrator Development Services Subject STAFFS RECOMMENDATION FOR Date November 17, 1986 MODIFICATION TO CODE AMENDME NO. 86-30 - LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE USES (AGENDA ITEM D- 2d ) Code Amendment No. 86-30 is scheduled for today ' s City Council meeting. Attached is a draft version of the ordinance for Code Amendment No . 86-30 which demonstrates staff recommendation for inclusion of the three items defeated by Planning Commisuion which are being recommended by staff to be included back into the ordinance . The proposed modifications have been inserted into Section 9634 No. 11 9 and 10 on page 2 and 3 of the draft ordinance . Section 9634 lists provisions governing family day care homes for more than six children . Listed below is an explanation of the proposed modifications . 9634 Family day care homes for more than six children are subject to the following provisions: ( 1 ) That provision ( 1 ) be amended to state that a six foot high masonry wall is required to enclose the outdoor play area , rather than a five foot high fence or wall whenever adjacent to other residential uses . A masonry wall is necessary to reduce noise impacts on the surrounding homes . ( 9 ) That provision ( 9) be amended to state not only that approvals for family day homes shall be non-transferable , but also that the dwelling shall be owner-occupied . The owner of the home is the person best able to accommodate the requirements for day care homes . (10) That a provision be added to state that in addition to the two required fully enclosed parking spaces , a minimum of two on-site parking spaces shall be provided. This requirenent simply ensures that the driveway be Clear for an aide 's car and/or for dropping off and picking up children. The above stated provisions were reviewed by the Planning Commmission at the public hearing on October 21 , 1986 but were deleated by them. Staff is recommending that the City Council include the three modifications for regulating family day care homes for more than six children . Attached is W., draft ordinance prepared by Development Services staff. The proposed modifications have been underlined in the draft ordinance. Attachment. JWP:?W: kla (6660d ) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9630 AND ADD THERETO NEW SECTIONS 9634 and 9615 RELATED TO DAY CARE USES The City Council of the City of Huntington Deach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1 . The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9630 and adding thereto new Sections 9634 and 9635 9630 PERMITTED USES. The following list includes uses that possess characteristics of such unique and special form as to make impractical their autornatic inclusion as a permitted use in any district . The location and operation of such uses shall be subject to approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning commission and any additional provisions included herein . Uses marked with an asterisk shall not be permitted in any residential district . � A. Airports and heliports I C. Churches Colleges, private schools, elementary and secondary public schools ( Mirimum 10% of parking area shall to landscaped for the above uses. ) *Contractor ' ; storage yards pursuant to Section 9631 *Convalescent huspitals and sanitoriums *Commercial recreation and amusement enterprises , including bowling alleys and skating rinks D. XXl �dK�r�x�/XIK�ldel/t�C//dLlddl�dddXl�X�t�/dK��/�� IK1Xd!/0911WA/080/ov/II Own I ail 1XKd/ 10Idddolow dldd/�d�l/,�I+XX�,[I/��tKddd�l/�X�i�/��td,�/dKrfXX/I�d/Xdrfd����#d/ddA dddXdd�d/1�tJd/dX�/Xd�X/ntr�Kld�t�drtX'�/d�tXX,!//Xr��/��tL�/d�f1�K�/dNdYl -1 - i D. Day care uses . Family day care homes for more than six children pursuant to Section 9634. child care facilities other than family day care homes pursuant to Section 9635 . C . *Golf driving ranges; miniature golf courses If . *Health clubs over 2 , 500 sq . ft . l Horticulture Hospitals K . *Kennels, animal hospitals or clinics M. *Mulching operations pursuant to section 9631 Museums O. *Open air or drive-in theaters P. Parking lots *Post Offices *Private clubs and lodges Private recreation areas or other uses for exclusive use of homeowners Public utility substations of less than one acre, excluding switchyards R . *Radio or television transmitters (commmercial ) *Recreational vehicle parks subject to locational criteria adopted by resolution *Rest hones Retail nurseries (do not require conditional use permit if in a commercial district ) Ronning or boarding houses , except in low density residential districts T . 'Transportation terminals U . Utility facilities, public or private , including but not limited to waste--water treatment plants , power generating plants , and pump stations . W. Wind energy conversion systemn pursuant to section 9633 9634 Family day care horses for more than six children ere subject to the following provisions : 1 . Seventy-five square feet of outdoor play area per child. Thirty five square feet of indoor: play area per child. outdoor play area shall be grassed and enclosed by a five foot high fence or wall . When Way area is adjacent to a residential use a six foot hi h masonrIf wall Is re u � o enclose trC area , Any e>>try gat# shall be Securely fastened. 2. the total enrollment for the family day care hoses shall conform to state law. 3. The applicant shall submit clearance from the Fire Department and a copy of the orange County Social Services License, prior to the operation of the family day care hone. 4 . Such facility shall not be located closer than 600 feet to another large family day care home . 5. Garages shall not be used as a designated play area or used in calctIating minimum square footage in a family day care home. 6 . Loading and unloading of children fror. vehicles shall only be permitted on the driveway, approved parking area or directly in front of the facility. 7 . The family day care home shall comply with all applicable requirements of Chapter 8 . 400 noise control of the Municipal Code . 8. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke the approval of a family day care home if a violation of the conditions of approval occurs. All revocation proceedings shall be preceded by a public hearing . 9. Approvals for family day care homes are non-transferable and the dwelling unit shall be owner occupied. 10. A minimum of two on-site parkinjagaces shall be provided in a t on to t e two required u yy enc ose parking s aces . 9635 Child care facilities other than family day care homes a er subject to the following provisions: 1 . Seventy-five square feet of outdoor pliy area per child. Thirty five square feet of indoor play area per child. Outdoor play area shall be grassed and enclosed by a six foot high masonry wall . Any gate entry shall be securely fastened. 2. Minimum 10• of parking area shall be landsceped. 3. The total enrollment for the child care facility shall be established by the Planning Commission . 4 . Pire Department clearance shall be obtained prior to the operation of the child care facility. 5 . Hours of operation shall be established by the Planning Commission. 6. The applicant shall submit a copy of the orange County Social Services License prior to the operation of the child Care facility. 7. The applicant shall obtain 6. business license prior to the operation of the child care facility. i -3- 8 . Off-street parking for child care facilities shall comply with Article 960 . 9 . Loading and unloading of children shall only be permitted from approved parking areas. 10. Children attending the day care facility shall be restricted to designated play areas only, unless supervised by an adult . 11 . The child care facility shall comply with all applicable &equirements of Chapter 8 . 40, noise control of the Municipal Code. 12 . The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke the approval of a child care facility if a violation of the conditions ,of approval occurs . All revocatijn proceedings shall be preceded by a public hearing . SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its passage. I PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1986 . Mayor ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED City Administ ator Director of Development Services (6660d ) 11/13/66 -4- LAW ortu as or PV' I itf lra �„• 1 , t),�,� 1�, �.�! Ir We �w1eCIRYi am SOUTH DILWD AvaNut Mown •o" S r� w1a�t roer.0 e: Los Axomuia. CA:.aroMPIA WM71 M' POSA" wiw DONVan TwLirwowt (OW eft•0"0 WALNUIT tog" ii wn" TULXX Seem -110") us July 21 , 1986 ..,,�T��, Q«�rt ���L t1c>.�ej■ (213 )621-9433 Mayor and City Council Members City of Huntington Beach 30143 Crown Valley Parkway Laguna Niguel , California 92677 Re : Conditional Use Permit No. 86-25 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: I am an attorney assisting Ms. Barbera Leonard � with regard to her application for it conditional use-permit (referred to as "CUP" hereafter) for a large family day care home. For the reasons stated below I respectfully request that you grant Ms . Leonard a CUP for a day care home in her residence. FACTUAL BACKGROUND: i On February 1 , 1985 Ms . Leonard first applAed for a CUP for child day care of seven to twelve persons . h,t that time, and until May 2 , 1986, Ms . Leonard was without the assistance of counsel . on February 6, 1985, the Plaza-ping Commission (referred to as "Comission" hereafter) rent out notices of a public hearing concerning CUP No. 85-3 , t%) neighbors within 300 feet of Ms . Leonard's residence. The notice alerted neighbors of her application for a "day care facility. " on March 5, 1985 , the Huntington Beach Develo;ment Services Department Staff issued a report recommending approval of CUP 85-3 with modifications. The report fowid that: ( 1 ) there would be no detrimental affects on heallph, welfrre, safety and conveniences of persons or property value; (2) that the conditional use is consistent with the goals and objectives of the general plats and Article 933 of the Huntingto,;:. Beach Ordinance Code; ( 3 ) that theve would be no undue traffiv problems caused by the stay care game siD76 no two parents pick up or drop off their children at the sane time; and (4) that the proposed use was compatible wAth existing and proposed use• of the neighborhood. The repol;t • MONMI10014 & F0%NW XR Mayor and City t:ouncal Members City of Huntington Beach July 21 , 1986 Page 2 alsu recommended that the following modifications be made: (1 ) that the site plan of January 14, 1985 be used; (2 ) that Me . Leonard be licensed by orange County; (3 ) that the Com- mission reserve the right to rescind; and (4 ) that the day care home be limited to 10 children. The staff arrived at the limit of 10 children by applying Section 9331 of the Huntington Beach ordinance Code with regard to the insi.de area of Me . Leonard' s hope. All of these modifications were acceptable to Ma . Leonard. At they Planning Commission hearing held on March 5, 1985 , Albert Brusewitz and two other neighbors opposed the grant of a permit for the first time. They complained that noisy children had a detrimental impact on sleep and property values . Mr. Brusewitz also presented a petition opposed to the noise children presented. Ms . Leonard, surprised by the opposition, was unprepared to document local support. The CUP was denied four to zero with three counsel members absent, on the basis of findings which directly contradicted the findings of the Development Services staff. The minutes of the hearing indicated that Chairman Livengood based his deci- sion against granting the permit on the rounds of protecting 9 9 g p 9 p 4 privacy in the cul-de-sac and because there was neighborhood opposition. On !March 22 , 1985, Ms. Leonard filed a request for City Council appeal . Again, the staff viewed the granting of the CUP favorably, with the additional condition that an assistant be hired once there were more than six children. Ms . Leonard indicated her agreement to this condition. Ms . Leonard sent letters in support of her appeal on March 12 and 13 , 1985 to the Mayor and City Counsel Members stating: (1 ) that there was no prior notice to her of the neighbors ' complaints; (2 ) that as many as 10 neighboring home owners supported her; (3 ) that Mr. and Mrs . Drusewitz were personally angry at Ms. Leonard for a previous complaint about their weeds encroaching on her property; and (4 ) that after talking with neighboring homeowners, five of thoRe who had previously signed the petition presented by Mr. Brusewitz reversed their position and signed a ;petition In Ms. Leonard's favor. TV* that refused to siqu Pia . Leonard's petition did so, not because of noise or traffic problems, but because they were afraid of a day care cis to and the big business that the word "large" implied.' ther neigpbar refused to sign i I Mo�irox & Fo�Rwrrs�e Mayor and City Council Members City of Eamtington Beach July 21, 1996 Page Ms. Leonard ' s partition solely because he was a friend of Mr. and Mrs . Brusewitz. On April 1, 1985, Barbara Leonard appeared before the City Council with petitions from 23 Orange County bay Care Association members and 33 neighbors and parents, and six letters of support. Mr. Brusewitz opposed her by pre- senting the same petition that he had presented during the Commission hearing, as well as the testimony of one neighbor who complained of noise in general . The City Council voted five to zero to deny the permit with one abstention and one absence . Since the Council hearing, Ms . Leonard and her hus- band have constructed a six-foot cement block wall to mower the noise level . Since July 1985 , the home has been at its capacity of six Children. Ms . Leonard has been receiving an average of three calls per week from parents seeking day care. no . Leonard has been forced to refuse interviews with prospective parents since her day care hone is operating at her current licensed capacity. On May Z , 1986, with the assistance of counsel, Me. Leonard raised the issue that the automatic public hear- ing as required by the Huntington Beach Ordinance Coda, did not comply with Cal . Health and Safety Code Section 1597 .46 et: sea. , an opinion which is supported by Carol Stevenson, StaAttorney, Child Care Law Center, who worked closely with the staff of Senator Watson in drafting that legislation. On May Be 1.986, Ms . Leonard submitted a permit application, for the permit now at issue, CVP 86-25 , She did not request a public hearing. on May 14, 1985, Abby Liebman, Directing Attorney, Community programs of Public Counsel wrote to Lisa Curran of the Department of Development Serv- ices to esoasize that the application of Huntington Beach Ordinance, Co4e, Article: 933, was inconsistent with the public policies reflected in the state legislation. On May 22, 1996, Public Counsel received a reply from James W. PPlia, Director of Development Services Corpo- ration stating his position that: (2 ) Me. Leonard's *"ra- tion is a day Care fgcjljtj requiring a public heasriA as with any CVP; and t at the 100 foot notice provis oo a i NORRIBON & FOURsTB31 Mayor and City Council Members City of Huntington Beach July 21, 1986 Page 4 of the state statute is a minimum regvirement, ex-pandable to 300 feet. On June 17, 19861 the Commission held a hearing on CUP 86-25 . The evidence presented at the hearing in support of the application was : (1 ) a report by the Commission staff recommending approval of the use on the basis of no adverse effect on noise and traffic conditions ; (2 ) the opinion of an attorney from Morrison & Foerster that a day care home is different from a day care center; (3 ) testimony on-ie short- age, and need for adequate, safe, and effective day care; (4) testimony of mothers currently using Ms . Leonard's home that her home wau reliable, effective, and safe; (5 ) peti- tions and testimony of neighbors in support.; and (6) reports of Me. Leonard' s efzorts to reduce the noise level by build- ing a wall, adopting out her pet dog, constantly rescheduling traffic, and keeping the children quiet. The evidence pre- sented in opposition to the permit consisted of three letters from neighbors stating that traffic and noise caused by the day care home would be unacceptable, a petition containing signatures from some homeowners outside the 300 foot radius, and the testimony of three homeowners. The permit was denied. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The statute governing day care home in the Stata of California, is contained in Cal . Health and Safety Code Section 1596. 70 et see. it should be noted that under the state statute the term "child day care facility, " in a broad tern denoting "a facility which provides non-medical care to children under 18 years of age in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the acti- vities of daily living or for the protection of the individual on less than a 24-hour basis. The child day care facility includes day care centers and family day care honer. " Cal . Health and Safety Code, Section 1596.75. A day care center is specifically not a family day cars home, as it includes infant centers, pro-school, and extended day care facilities . Section 1596.76. Mather, a "family day care home" is a hme which regularly provides care, protection, and supervision of 12 or fewer children in the provider' s own home, during the day, while parents or guardians are away. The difference between a large and a small family day care hme is that the small home provides cars to mix or fe+rer children, while the large services seven to twelve children. Section 1S96 .76 . NORMIsrox & FomRwrefe Mayor and City Council Kwbers City of Huntington beach July 21 , blab Pages 5 Chapter 3 .6 of the statute, entitled "Family Day Care Homes, " concerns the licensing of family day care home not centers . The legislative findings accompanying that F apter set forth the reasons why the legislature adopted the statute : ( a ) The state has a responsibility to ensure the health and safety of children in family homes that provide day care; (b ) That there are insufficient numbers of regulated family day care homes in California; (c) That there will be a growing need for child day care facilities due to the increase in working parents; (d) That many parents prefer child day Care located in their neighborhoods in family homes; (e ) That their should be a variety of child Care settings , including regulated family day care hoses , as suitable alternatives for parents; ( f ) That the program to be operated by the state should be cost effective, streamlined, and simple to administer in order to ensure adequate care for children placed in family day care homes, while not placing undue burdens on the providers ; and (g ) That the state should maintain an efficient program of regulating family day care homes that insures the provi- sion c.f adequate protection, supervision, and guidance to children in their homes . The chapter astabliohes three options for a city to choose froze in implatmenting these goals . The options are as follows : (1 ) to classify the homes as permitted uses of resi- dential property, (2 ) to grant a non-discretionary permit to use a lot sons for a single family dwelling; or (3 ) to require that any large family day care hosie suet apply for a CUP. Since Huntington beach has not specifically adopted either of the first two options, and aiwe it has required Me . Emonard to obtain a CUP, it must be assumed that Huntington beach has &4opted the third option which reoires Mouniaox & FOURS En Mayor and City Council Members City of Huntington Beach July 21, 1986 Page 6 applicants to obtain a CUP . Under Article 933 of the Huntington beach Ordinance Coda, procedures for obtaining a CUP for a day care center and nursery require the notifica- tion of neighbors within a 300 feet radius and a mandatory public hearing prior to Commission action on a CUP . What Huntington Beach has failed to account for in requiring Ms . Leonard to follow its standard procedures for obtaining a CUP, is that the state statute does not call for a standard CUP. In contrast to the ordinance Code, the state statute requires that the CUP be reviewed and granted by the zoning administrator or persons designated by the planning agency. Furthermore, the statute does not permit local governments to exercise discretion as to whether to grant the CUP when "they large family day cage home Complies with local ordinances, if any, prescribing reasonable standards, restrictions, and requiremrents concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control , parking, and noise control relating to such homes . " The statute further states that any noise standard shall be consistent with local noise ordinances implementing the noise elownt of the general plan and shall take into consideration the noise levels generated by children. in addition the sec- tion requires the local government "to process any required permit as economically as possible. " To reduce the cost of the hearing the city official must send notice to owners within a 100 foot radius , not 300 feet. Additionally, the statute forbids a hearing on the CUP "unless a hearing iw requested by an applicant or other affected person. " None of these state law provisions were followed when the Commission automatically applied Article 933 . Indexed, many of then were violated. The decision to grant or deny was not made by the zoning administrator or another person designated by the agency. Moreover, the Commission scheduled an automatic hearing even though no affected person had requested it. Notices was sent to people within a 300 foot radius, not 100 feet. At they hearing, the Commission focused on ne17!Wbor' s complaints rather than the objective standards listed in the statute . Finally, the procodute required by Huntington Bach was considerably more costly to they applicant than anticipated by the legislation. in this ease, there can be no question that Ms . Leonard meet* the statutory r*quirsments of the Health * Monwaox & Founwraf Mayor and City Council Ns bers City of Mmtington Beach July 21, 1966 Page 7 and Safety Code. The noise generated by this facility in no way Mould exceed the bounds of noise levels allowable in the presidential area. Furtherno:e, measures such as an assist- ant will Delp keep the noisy at comfortable levels . The legislature did not intend that a day care hose such as Ms . Leonard's be prohibited merely because of the complaints of a few disgruntled neighbors . Under such circumstances, the City council should not permit the Comission' s decision to stand, but nether should grant Ms. ieonard' s CUP. Sincerely, d4KC e -0 f4';e Alice C. Hill for 14ORR I SON FORSSTBR ACH/od cc: Ms . Barbara Loonard bomb M ML in An act to amend Sections 097.31, 15WS% 150734.and 1gD U of to amend and renumber Saoions 1W.M and 1Sg AOI of, k Wd Sections 159 M, 1397.45, 1M.46, 107.417, and 13W.63 to, grid to re- ,,:� . '.:':;�'';,' peal Section 1597.63 of,the Health and Safety Code relating to fussily ;.,, •' ' ,;'., •`'"•..' '.':�•• day care homes. LEGISLAME CUUNSEG'S DlCM SB 163, Watson. Family day cut homes. (1) Under existing law,all family day care homes for children am _ r required to be considered a residential use of property for the purposes of local zoning and no conditional use permit or specie{ •• `� �. exception may be required for such residences. •. ��:•�~`'''' • '••t'�' The bill would classify family day care homes into two classm largo a �-•>••• family day care homes and srrall family day care homes. It would,in relation to a large family day care home, authorize a local government to clauify those homes as a permitted use of resicletAW property for zoning purposes, grant a rmit to use residential property to such it home that complies with s mwMeJ local ordinances and specified provisions of state law and any regulations . :-� adopted by the State Fire Marshal ptsrwant thereto, or require such . .. . ...,.. . a home to apply for a permit to use the residential property, .; f't' (2) Existing law requires family day care ho n o to funuWs ' ` ' •••" ' evidence that the home contains a fivo extinguishes• or smoke r':M'"':!•�•Y:.� detector device, or both. which meet standard: established by the State Fire Marshal. Licensed community care facilities which provide nonmedical board, room and care for sty. or fewer ambulatory children are not subject to certain standards and requirements of the State Fire Marshal, This bill would sp+ecil'y that small family clay care hones are not ... • . . ...,. . . ._. subject to such standards and requitements of the State Fire Marshal. .+' The bill would require that large family day care honmts be • : �;�•;: �• s considered as single family residences for purposes of the State Uniform BuildingStandards Code and local buit wW fire cocks, except with respect to certain additional fire and life safety standards � of the State Fire Marshal. The bill would also provide that the use of it single-family dwelling for a small family day cure home shall not constitute a change of occupancy for the purposes of the State Housing I.Aw or for purposes of local building codes. It would also provide that the use of a single-family dwelling for a large family day we home shall not constitute a change of occupancy for the purposes of the Stage • • . ', , • • .r,•.•i ..;' ,.t. .,�'Mt.�., •Et7,'_`�PMi!'1c l:.t•�+i�'MP . . •t a' ! t'#- V•t: ! , ,.. {`•.i.•. .• • •i,. . ,,.it. : , '•''' •••! ��•i;•'i :tf;•. ',•,i, ,,1,• • .�' 'i •!� •t•M.,�j*1�., '�•�,••-�t����.i''�/�,,,�{ ,� • �•�w ra•iur••M �. . I �r r CIL 1231 .2-- # r • =kml `VVI a of lot the "poses of kvW bo or An codaand ge family dey ogre house sfuall not l be mWect to the ` prarvisiorss of the Californk Envirmunn" Qua* Act. . 1U bill ww1d, in addition, provide far further enfwaemant FIR wres. 71w bill would Impore a state-mandated brad program by making it a misdet wanor for any pmum to violate in a specified manner the family day care home licensing provisions. (3) Article XIII B of the California Constitution and Sections g4;11 and M of the Revenue and Twwtion Code require the state to reimburse heal agencks and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Other provisions require the Deparhneat of Finance to review statutes disclaiming them cosh and Provide, in certain cases, for making claims to the State Board of Control for reimbursement. However, this bill would provide that no a propriation is made iu►d no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. rh►e people of the State of Caallfornia do coact ar foliow:r SECTION 1. Section I 7.50 of the health and Safety Code is amended and renumbered to read: 1597'.30. The Legislature finds and yeclaret i (a) It has a responsibility to ensure the 1►csath and safety of � children in family homes that provide day care. (b) That there are Insufficient numbers of regulated family day care homes in California. (c) There will be a rowing need for child day care facilities duee to the increase in wooing parents. (d) Many parents prefer child day case located in their neighborhoods in family homes. i (e) There should be it variety of child care sgttInA includivi. regulated family day care homes, si suitable alternatives for parents. M (1) That the program to be oj;c•iated by the state should be cost efftive, streamlined, and simple to administer in order to ensure adequate care for children placed in family day care horses, while not placing undue burdens on the providers. ; « (g) 'Tlut the state should maintain an effk*nt program of regulating family day care homes that enstims the , ovW"n of • a adequate protection, supervision, and guidance to children in their homes. b SEC. S. Section 15M.35 is added ta,the Health an4 Safety Code, to read: IM 35. For purposes of this chapter. the following def'Initiom shall apply. ( Md (a) "Department" means the State Deluartment of Social ' Services. (b) "Director" mQu the Director of Social Services. (c) "Family day cdc" means regularly provided care,proteatiws Mt a 71 Ch. 1133 re codes and' and supervisio 2 or fewer children,in t vider's owns home, .*ct to the for periods of less n 24 hours per , while the parents or guardians ure away, an ieludes t wing: :nforcernent (1) "Large family du y ' which means a home which rat program luovides family day care:to to 12 ch ildren, inchuive,Including i a specified children who reside at 11 as deflneu In departmental regulations. actions 2231 (2) "Small fami ay care home" ich means a home which :M state to provides family cart: to six or fewer c en, including children stain costs who reside a home, as defined in depa ental regulations. partment of (d) "Pl• ing agency" rneans the agency des ted pursuant to provide, In S!n t i o n 100 of the Covernment Code. Control for (e rovider" means a person who operates a family day care It 11 and is licensed or registered pursuant to the provisions of this ion is made apte:r. 'fled reason. + SEC. 3• Section 1597.501 of the Health and Safet) Code is amended and renumbered to read: 1's 1 1597.40. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature that family stay care , homes for children must be situated in normal residential !ty Code is surroundings so as to gh-e children the home environment which is canducive to healthy and safe development. It is the public policy of this state to provide children in a family day care home the same d safety of homey environment as provided in a traditional home setting. The Legislature declares ;his policy to be of statewide concern family day with th^ purpose of occupying:sir field to the exclusion of municipal zonicig, building and fire codes'and regulations governing the use or acilities due occupancy of family day care homes for children, except as specifically provided for in this chapter, and to prohibit any din their restrictions relating to the use of single-family residences for family day care hones for children except as pru%ided by this chapter. •itten instrument entered into relatin s, including (b) I.ve ry gyros ision in a w. 6 for parents. to real }rroperty %vhich purports to forbid or restrict the conveyance, )uld be cost encum ranee,leasing,or mortgaging of such real property for use or !r to ensure occupancy as a family day care home for children, is void and every omen, while, restriction or prohibition in any such written instrument as to the use or occupancy of the property as a family clay care home for children program of is void. )rovision of 0 (c) Every restriction ur prohibition entered into,whether by way In t1leir • of covenant, condition upon uscyur occupancy, or upon transfer of title to real property, which restricts or prohibits directly, or ;afety Code, indirectly limits, the acquisition, use, or occupancy of such property fur a family day care home for children is void. t definition; ' '. 4. Section 1597.45 is adAu then }icalth and Safety Code, to re.e of social 1-y c17 V 11C furl' g %hall apply to srnall family day care hotnc��: (:�) "I'hu use• �;le•frm bncc as a snu�lt family day rare " h011le steal comidered :e resit a it esp11 property for the protectinti f1 70 91 t0O C RIM04AL PENALTIES FOR vKK.A noN CF THE Li INS: STATU M C�aetopan" Prior 1.981, criminal y provisions In the community care licensing law applied to ily day t homes. In 1981, the licensing provisions governing family day carb a ded and removed from the general cornrnunity care provisions of the stat The criminal penalty provisions wero not Incor- porated into the 1981 at Current Laws 163 reinstates cri anal penalties for willful or rerproted violations o licensing statutes or re gu ions in a monrw which Is determined to thr the health and safety of the chit in care. A person violating the stet can be found guilty of a misdemeanor ished by a fine of up to $500 or up to 180 days in jail. DEED RESTRICTIONS PROHIBIT114G USE OF HOME FOR FAMILY IDAY CAR � I � Background: Often deeds in a partic filar subdivision contain provisions which restrict the use of the home to residential purposes and/or prohibit business uses of the home. These provisions are sometimes invoked to stop family day care in a particular subdivision or condominium complex. changes in the family care statutes contained provisions which I98I c mode void 9e Y �Y Pr any private deed restrictions (also known as Cl C A R's and restrictive covenants) which prohibited the use of property for family day core if the deed restriction was entered into of ter June 28, 1981. CWswr! Lwm Under current law every restriction or prohibition entered into at Mime which prohibits the use of property as a family coy cage harnf for children is void. This means that a homeowners' ammiation or neighbors in a subdivision corxiot close down a family day hone because of a deed provision which restricts the va of the property to residential uses, or prohibits business use4 no rnattae when the property was purchased. 3 ►AUU l 1�6 am Ix H: NT•NGTON BEACH COUNCIL Of July , 1986 Dear City Council Member: a This letter is a request that you help prote :t the rights of the citizens of Huntington Beach in keeping businesses out of our R-1 Zoned neighborhoods . A case which is currently under consideration by the council (CUP 86-25) 9 is asking you to allow a daycare facility housing up to 12 children in our neighborhood . I feel that such a facility in a neighborhood which is composed of single family dwellings and is designed to provide ptace and quiet to its residents is just a violation of ■y privacy rights . i i The City Planning Commission reviewed this case and denied it based upon the detrimental effect on property values , unacceptable noise levelo, and because the neighborhood was opposed . This same request was denied by the Planning Commission and the City Council last year . There is no real difference between the license request last year and that which is being ' considered this year . Your strff has recommended approval based upon compliance with legal requirements , however, those requirements do not reflect the wishes of Mrs . Leonard ' s neighbors , the loss of home values , nor the effect of increased traffic and noise . I , a voting citizen in Huntington Beach , request that you think of this as your neighborhood and consider the effect on your house- hold . Please deny Conditional Use Permit 86-25 and protect the integrity of my neighborhood. j Sincerely , r July, 1986 Dear City Council Member: This letter is a request that you help protect the rights of the citizens of Huntington Beach in keeping businesses out of our R-1 Zoned neighborhoods . A case which is cutreatly under consideration by the council (CUP 86-25 ) , is asking yoi+ to allow a daycare facility housing up to 12 children in our neighborhood . I feel that such a facility in a neighborhood which is composed of single family dwellings and is designed to provide peace and quiet to its residents is gust a violation of ■y privacy rights . The City Planning Commission reviewed this case and denied It based upon the detrimental effect on property values , unacceptable noise levels , and because the neighborhood was opposed . This same request was denied by the Planning Commission and that City Council last year. There is no real difference between the license request last year and that which is being considered this year . Your staff has recommended approval based upon compliance with legal requirements , however , those requirements do not reflect the wishes of Mrs . Leonard ' s neighbors , the loss of home values, nor the effect of increased traffic and noise . I , a voting citizen in Huntingtnn Beach , request that you think of this as your neighborhood and consider the effect on your house- hold . Please deny Conditional Use Permit 86-25 and protect the Integrity of my neighborhood . Sincerely, j CaAA.&U_ t V "bv, `Ject. yzb�� nt) 4UG ISO N� of, ►CE C1 July . 1486 Dear City Council Member : This letter is a request that rou help protect the rights of the citizens of Huntington Beach in keeping businesses out of cur R-1 Zoned neighborhoods . A case which is currently under consideration by the council (CUP 86-25 ) 9 is asking you to allow a daycare facility housing up to 12 children in our neighborhood . I feel that such a facility in a neighborhood which is composed of single family dwellings and is designed to provide peace and quiet to its residents is just a violation of my privacy rights . The City Planning Commission reviewed this case and denied it based upon the detrimental effect on property values , unacceptable noise levels , and because the neiShborhood was opposed . This save request was denied by the Planning Cormission and the City Council last year. There is no real difference between the licenAe request last year and that which it being considered this year . i Your staff has recommended approval based upon compliance with legal, requirements , however , those requirements do not reflect the wishes of Mrs . Leonard ' s neighbors , the loss of home values , nor the effect of increased traffic and noioe . I , a voting citizen in Huntington Beach , request that you think of this as your neighborhood and consider the effect on your house- hold . Please deny Conditional Use Permit 86-25 and protect the integrity of my neighborhood. Sincerely , _ - f L LO July, 1986 Dear City Council Member: This letter is a request that you help protect the rights of the citizens of Huntington Beach in keeping businesses out of our R--1 Zoned neighborhoods. A came which is currently under consideration by the council (CUP 86-25) , is asking you to allow a daycare facility housing up to 12 children in our neighborhuod . I feel that such a facility in a neighborhood which is composed of single family dwellings and is designed to provide peace and quiet to its residents is just a violation of my privacy rights . The City Planning Commission reviewed this case and denied it based upon the detrimental effect on property values , unacceptable noise levels, and because the neighborhood was opposed . This same request uss denied by the Planning Commission and the City Council last year . There is no real difference between the license request last year and that which is being cunsidered this year . Your staff has recommended approval based upon compliance with legal requirements, however , those requirements do not reflect the wishes of Mrs . Leonard ' s neighbors , the loss of home values , nor the effect of increased traffic and noise . I , a voting citizen in Huntington Beach, request that you think of this as your neighborhood and consider the effect on your house- hold. Please deny Conditional Use Permit 86-25 aad protect the integrity of my neighborhood. Sincerely , 0 LAW orricas or rioIRRieox & FusxtsTsU aW aovTO UNAX0 AVXWU2 ad" am* wu�t�s�sw, s c Los ANUML211, CALItOUNIA 00071 o Inw UOlrir TNLSPX0192(9W)*"-6500 'vAANM MOM TRLM is-Of October 14 , 1986 City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P .O. Box 190 Huntington beach , California 92648 Re : Barbara Leonard ' s Application for. Conditional Use Permit 86-25 Ladies and Gentlemen : Pursuant to Section 1094 . 6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, as Barbara Leonard ' s attorney , I am requesting that the complete record of the proceedings before the City of Huntington Beach City Council concerting Barbara Leonard ' s appeal of the denial by the Planning Commission of her application for conditional use permit No . 86-25 be prepared . In accordance with Section 1094 . 6 , the record prepared should include transcripts of all City Council proceedings concerning Ms . Leonard ' s application , including , without limitation , proceedings held on July 21 , 1986 , August 4 , 1986 and October 6 , 1986, all pleadings , all notices and orders, any proposed decision by the Planning Commission and/or City Council , the final decisions of the Planning Commission and the City Council , all admitted exhibits , all rejected exhibits in the possession of the City Council or the Planning Commissioni , all written evidence, including , without limitation, any reports made by the staffs of the Department of Human Services or the Planning Commission and any letters submitted to the City Council or Planning Commission in connection with Ms . Leonard ' s application , and any other papers in the case. Thank you very much for your cooperation in this matter. Please notify me of any costs incurred in preparation of the record . Very truly you s , al.;, A' f Alice C. Hill for MORRISON & FOERSTER ACH/lhp Rncloauri 1,7 777 Till r' � Ybf 4 -0 . ' too T, � 1� Y 7t? e.ful . n1 - ( r a n .t y I ._ •• i6,M F=T I Z MN•$ PET I T I ilNt TO THE CITY OF "LINT I NQTON IEACN JULY IIM We the Neighbors of Barbara Leonard sign this petit ion r4queatlay that she be denied license to expand her day care center to 12 children. The lesation of her place of business at 17242 Argo Circle is in the Cotner e4 a resldent i al n• i hborhood which Is icnwd R-1 and designed for single family residences . he specl41c concerns addressed by this petition aret 1 . Noise 4rom the children which is disruptive to our households. 2. Potential loss of property values. 3. Additional traffic in our neighborhood. -441- oA � - �nCY l� i w f� / I oal AA A Z 7t; UPY2 Aa Va 7 #2v? s F 126 4 ells 1?e r �e July , 1986 dear City Council Member % This letter is a request that you help proton the rights of the citizens of Huntington Beach in keeping businesses out of our R-1 Zoned neighborhoods . A case which is currently under cons14erstion by t;je council (CUP 86-25 ) 9 is asking you to allow a daycare facility housing up to 12 childran in our neighborhood . x fail that such a facility in a neighborhood which is composed of single family dwellings and is designed to provide peace and quiet to its residents in just a violation of my privacy rights . The City Planning Cnauission reviewed this case and denied it based upon the detrimental effect on property values , unacceptable noise levels , and because the neighborhood was opposed . This save request was denied by the Planning Commission and the City Council last year . There is no real difference between the license request last near and that which is being considered this year . Your staff has recommended approval based upon compliance with legal zequirements , however , those requirements do not reflect the wishes of Mrs . Leonard' s neighbors , the loss of home values , nor the effect of increased traffic and noise. I , a voting citizen in Huntington Beach, request that you think of this as your neighborhood and consider the affect on your house- hold . Please deny Conditional Use Permit 86-25 and protect the integrity of ■y neighborhood . Sincerely , M� 4 r a! 77 t ' "C T I * PET t T Y G1 TO THE CITY TY OF HUNT w tNdTON @fACM JULr !piaUre i -W_--.. _ aoA neighbors of a b JYc"(�r�� .��, ..�� ., ..r �� �r0 01 11 r ara L*onard sign this @ t i t 1L requostlite that denied i i cans@ to expand hers day car-4 center to 12 chi 1 drfa. The location of her place of business at 17242 Aargo Circle i s In the center df a rosi dent i al neighborhood which Is seined R-1 and designed for single family rest derrces. The specific concerns addressed by this petition are t ! . Noise from the children which is disruptive to our households. 2. Potential loss of property values. 3. Additional traffic in our neighborhood NAME � AZma ZJ" 1-1 AQQ� • ti/ 14 6 C 7w idim U( .A 1 ,4& 0 DA, slow" if 11 I C I T I ZEN P i PETITION TO THE CITY OF HINT I NtlYON OWN JULY 1#96 Mien the neighbors of Barbara Leonard sign this petition requesting that she be d*n i ed 1 i tins* to expand her day care center to 12 children* The location of her place of business at 17242 Argo Circle is In the Center Of a residential ne ! ghborhood which Is zoned R-1 and designed for single family residences. The specific concerns addressees by this petition Woe I . Noise from the children which is disruptive to our household*. 2. Potential loss of property values . 3 . Additional traffic in our neighborhood. LME 0=931 AaA A-P P 7�- 21- "U6'L 2Lf , #2AW 1A jA- 0 Ah tic. Ly C I T I ZEN O ti PETITION TO THE CITY OF HINT I NGTON BEACH JULY 198b Mle g the neighbors of Barbara Leonard sign this petition requesting that Me be denied license to expand her day cars center to 12 children , The location of her place of business at 17242 Argo Circle Is in the center of a residential neighborhood which is zoned R-1 and designed for single family residences. The specific concerns addressed by this petition arei 1 . None from the children which Is disruptive to our households* 2. Potential loss of property values. 3. Additional traffic In our neighborhood. NAME ADDRESS ice ✓ - 1 aES rn fk �J 6; /)/I",&)bt- L22L <�hv r 2I /-7 ,L lyl al ZA/ /-72>. a !1!Tr�ry;',it _ ►� July, 1986 Dear City Council Nember: This letter in a request that you help protect the rights of the citLzens of Huntington leach in keeping businesses out of our R-1 Zoned neighborhoods. ♦ case which is currently under consideration by the council (CUP 86-25) , is asking you to allow a daycare facility housing up to 12 children in our neighborhood. I feel that such a facility in a neighborhood which is composed of single family dwellings and is designed to provide peace and quiet to its residents is Just a violation of my privacy rights. The City Planning Commission reviewed this case and denied it based upon, the detrimental effect on property values , unacceptable anise level : , and because the neighborhood was opposed . This same request was denied by the Planning Commission and the City Council last year. There is no real difference between the license request last year and that which is being considered this year. Your staff has recommended approval based upon compliunce with legal requirements, however , those requirements do not reflect the wishes of Mrs . Leonard ' s neighbors , the loss of home values , nor the effect of increased traffic and noise. I , a voting citizen in Huntington Beach , request that you think of this as your neighborhood and conalder the effect on your house- hold . Please deny Conditional Use Permit 86-25 and protect the integrity of my neighborhood. Sincerely, On the attached petition in opposition _� ,, !, �•. � -�, +"� ,.J ' - 2I-i( there are 12 valid signatures of whiche71 i ,, ttJ1b46•„10 .6 7. or these homes , both husband and wife work Traffic & ;.1oi se TVA & of these homes are located between a grade school and the applicant Traffic & i►oise MIA of these homes have allowed their children ( since they were toddlers, to date) to play unsupervised in our public street . . . . . Traffic do No:.r•3 N/A Supervision & Street Safety is Keep in mind the residence on Taurus Ln who may be home during day time hours are subiect to traffic and noise generated by Ocean View High School and Wintersberg School , r try day care children, infants through 4 years, can hardly generate any competition to this condition. How many valid signatures are left on the attached petition? i .0 d'x i C i T I Z V40 FIT I T I ON TO THS CITY OF H#JW I NOTON BNAW JIAViF 1 llti also Wa , the, no i ghbdr`s of Barbara Leonard s i On th i s pe# 1 t f one��f,79W t„st she be denied license to expand her day care canter to 12 Chi ldrerti . the location of her place of business at 17242 Argo Circle is in the center of a residential neighborhood which Is zontd R-1 and designed for single, family residences . The specific concerns which we object to area I . Noise from the children which Is disruptive to our households. 2. Additional traffic in a cul de sac with 1 1m1 ted par%lnq space . 2 . potential loss of property values . Lam!!: BDD$.E.S 1 ? c C?;': ,q GRx , NC I Si & TRAFFIC N/A ZZaZ �.w■.rr■r 1���. ; ,,►� „----_ j ; =:: 1�� . ��.CS: fiIcISr 1 00�RA F IC Ii/A c., ?�a7 .1 L.♦ I/rr �w.� •1� w.w v.lr i�� �.�V yi .fir i..rl.■ �� ��1.�.�. ..ter■ �����\� • 1 %-flu 'in :t :IL ..1 21Q:T• ZIWAI j /; :;-.: ►'C T" RADIUS ' 6 Z1. //.Z ?26fz Of oye r c7 J� r 1 1a e r C t T i Z ENE PET 1 T i ON TO THE CITY Of HLW t NOTON IMACH JUNE 1966 Wee the neighbors of Barbara Leonard • i gn this petit 1 ors r#4V0st in4 that she be denied IIconse to expand her day Zare con tar to 12 chIIdron . rho location of her place of business at 17242 Argo Clrcl # Is In the Center Of a► residents al neighborhood which is zoned R-1 and designed for single family residences . The specific concerns which we object to arei 1 . Noise from the children which Is disruptive to our households. 2. Additional traffic in a cut de sac with limited parking space. 2. Potential lass of property values. C OM PLAYGRIR OUND, THEY USE E HE MOR�.E NOISE Tp N 21Y DAY ARE C .ILDREN . NOISE do TRAFFIC N/`, qc 5U�' V I ' OPt A TUEPTC ULM,: vv IS • 0 LOTH WORE 1pt. MOSr NOISE & TRAFFIC N/A KOO %or s .� 1�1A O:I 2 3—;1-i A't'L'A'� l tiR ADDRESS PLEASE � 1 . LCC��. i) E� .'VE...., JRAD.. 5CNCCL cc A?PLICAh'r' ONE" ADDRESS FI &EASE, CL k, r- Z" �r /i t ✓ �^ {}i}ii it _,�.�/f ..._ ►.C''��_SD �...:';�5:�;' 3ni�E SS:-:c•c ,r ICA;VT -4 Vl� CrIE SI PURE PSR ADDRESS F'-. A S E r •�.'40: r � The City of Huntington Beach (Ci,�y) requires pie an the applicant of a Conditional Uso Permit ( CUP) , for a large family day care home (L' FDCH) , to furnish, at ray expense the required varience report (maps & address lablea ) so the City can mail the Notice of Public Hearing to , property owners within a 300 ft. radius of the exterior boundaries of my home. Since the City requires the public notices be sent to all property owners within the 300 ft. radius# it would seem that p1l those property owner' s voices should be heard as it is their neighborhood equally. It is their right as a property owner, to say to the City that a (LFDCH ) will not create a loss in property values, excessive traffic or noise . It seems unlikely that the City would require the applicant to bear the added expense in having the varience report to cover the 300 ft. radius if the City dosen' t hear their voices as being a property owner in the neighborhood. 1986 ' . y VNe neighbors are Not in opposition and feel Barbara Leonard should be issued a Conditional Use Permit from the Clay of Huntington Beach to do child day rare in her home. I forsee no traffic problems as the parents are very cautious in their driving and it is rare to see more than one car in front of her house at a time. They are harp a very brief time then gone. Y+-Mro -P-,Oor jo� • • 7 i /* J?l0cc/ 1dddA r W-NNNNf.1 5e 7 A Luumn " �/i t' ZZ2 .• . � b132, tr �:� .t TN r. -, �nf.,1 c• .3,.\ .`'1 / iIr'• + ..n ...M. t1^ ••/ ;•:�1+'nC ^� ^ C30 � ?' C• Q� ,.? ,lf..L:'J 1`'A ~01:��` Via neighbors are not in opposition and feel Barbara Leonard should be issued a Contitional Use Permit from the City of Huntington Beach to allow her to take in additional day care children. I forsee no traflk problomsas the parents are very cautious in their driv ng and it is rare to see more than one car in front of her home at a time . They .are here a very brief time then gone. Day Care Homes dSL 13ol decrease+,p„roDerty values nor do they ore to excessive noi-se. Zoe A UY . Qr ' cr .�] �. �� l ( z 77 OF r zm= 9 I�,1, t :l ♦ V •�sa c rT Lf�. y' ) ,1 •, ^ CP , 02 . 0 ca D, o F � i �►..! � : l^f• `� „� �'r .�•�: {rf��S Si. S# t�� st 4/ 3! it i 000 3NM 31Vtt? • N i��f'+ETAfORE' ..,� 3 t Q '�.�'� � .� •'� � t � .�Y. �s 'Sir• �.i 5 L :i ZL onIL-tx 'P.. .ii. ti .a. tp 3A'�!7 Sngnvt ti 43 •�3 to,: ea a� 4� s= .tJ 4 f 13 -dot I'll G ° a �.� • t , ' , .,Ass to low i 3 t• t at+«►� 9N7d s1°�!43 �l OF I-TIV-W 7!TqncL n�}u �O S9 �c J� 'M., as V✓U Vy s r 1) R • r - TR44 .Pi0 051 1 St !•� Sri hr!1. .rt. RE r ws .#coo to All it .;s 2f JBI 24 23 r�► o� oitr �.� a' .1•j1 ! I ►4V r e. l j R!t r Letter of June 24, 1986 • by Mr. and Ptrs. Murray and ' Mr. and Mrs. NoWntoak 1 . �Nois• a. Each of 1h eee families have two children and these children have friends. b. When all of those children are together, unattandedp they do create a much hie per noise level than my day carer children as some of these children are older, school age. 2.4°Traffic a. Two of these Children have been playing in our public street, unattended, since they were tolfilrat other neighbors as well as myself have seen this happen on a regular basis. �F�'j p b . A public street is alt a playground. 'Where are yards to play in as well as several parks close by. c . Parents of the neighborhood children should be instructing their children on street safety and not give them the fa je security of a oul de sac. d. A new petition signed by our neighbors stating no traffic problem,. 3.e Declining property value . a. This is speculation, not a proven fact . b. Large Family Day Care Homes that are part of the neighborhood � care just as much as do other residents about keeping the neighborhood attractive . c . Often the day care home is the best kept home on the block because the woman who lives there is at home all day and takes special pride in her homes appearance . d. Since most mothers work , day care is often seen by homebuyers as an asset to a neighborhood. It may even raise property values. e. A Conditional Use Permit for a Large Family Day care :;ome is a conforming use in a residential zone. 4.? Small home. a. Staff report shows s 1 . Outdoor play area Requiredr 900 sq. ft. Provided : 1040 sq. ft. 2. Indoor play area Requiredg 420 sq. ft. Provided : 890 sq. ft. b. Staff has ;jade a on-sight inspection of my home. Rebuttal bys Barbara Leonard i OWAMMMW M ! 7 Dear tlaAni �eswissia�rc� PA. am 0 IM�A MA Su% CA ! We oppose granting a CondiOnsE Use Permit at 17242 Argo Circle beaswe of anise# traffic a" declining property value. The ois• factor is disruptive with the existing six children and the levy noise is the same whether they are in the enclosod patio pUytoom or in the backyard The main reason we pure hoa!as on a cul de sac was berme there is usually little or no taffi on a cul de sac. !However, if a permit is granted there would be yre cars Coming down our street twice a day for a total of twenty-four car trips daily-generated from this one residence alone. We ar oneernad that a large family day care facility would hinder our roperty value We would not have purchased our hooves eight and fifteen years a or been a large day care facility in operation at that ti�ae. We fe treat does not lend itself to a large family day care center. The crises are smPnk especially a single level such as the one in quest on. a large business of any kind is inappropriate in a low density residential area such as this. We would very much lika to keep our street of single family haws strictly j residential. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Jeff Hurray //.2� . Mr. and Mrso lay McClintock W , IOU_07- AI i { i 4 �_ �-fir • '� ��T \ r� wr ! , t � w 1 -Yam• �, ^•f .`,��-.: � � Ll�`yri ���y t �� •� �,�' ++mow . �7 _� - L J,. `, ','w ; :`- '� •. = is� 4. ; - t .. ,��i -� ', „'mot•� ���Y rl dl zr two .•,• •�'r it, J.Orj'm1-7 j fire 66 IM CZ .a XXa•'��lk •;'ir�t'r t'' '•I ! �t��, t ,� � ,' `�,li its��. •• •.. •'• 7.1�«, �• x• (�.Ar��r��y.•r`r � r i,F `� i ..w�_ -,,...1•.. .. +�.. _.. _..w.-+►�\�•'�+win , RER Bowyer letter of June 16, 1986 1. Three home business a. I'm not aware of the other two businesses and I'm home all day, every week day. b. "If" there are two othersg are they licensed through the City It If sot then it seems as though I'm being discriminated against. 2. a. My day care children are.. infants through four years of &Se. b. My day care children create less noise than unattended neighborhood children. c. My day care children' s activities are scheduled and controlled so they dn,.Mgt create problems for neighbors. 3. Repeated tirotegts from the neighbors a. V ve had no protests from any neighbors except those of ,"rs . Brusewitzs who claims she hears "childrens voices" . 4 . replay environment for our children. p } 004 a. I' ve watched neighborhood children from toddler ise playingo unsupervised in our public street. This is concidered nerleSt on the part of their parents. b. A public street is not a play ground. There are yards to play in as well as several parks close by. c . Farents of the neighborhood children should instruct their children on ptreet safety and not give them the a security of a cul -de sac . *�qrs. Leonard submitted petitions from last year and is trying to present them as new. a. :his (attached) petition was submitted for evaluation. b . The petition is clearly dated Karch 19e5t twenty-three ticaaa. h c . There was no intent to represent it •as a new petition. E . 30oth :Tr & '.!rs Bowyer hold outside jobs# they are rrL,,ot home all tho time, every week-day . It seems odd that they are having a daily problem copping with our street in general . # A new petition signed by our no_E;h bors stating no traffic problem. Rebuttal bye C/_,do� . . narbara Leonard i y ` . i�1S-�i •� � `! Mr. Sri Nrr. .��t lwr�we 17221 Arp Circle . "atr'lirs r PA so 10 11 wiatiwes 9040h, CA ""7 We ave writiar thisetteer in opposition to a petition filed by Mrs. Barbara Lesnord, who resides at 17242 Argo Circle, to open a day Qata amtor to 12 children. We abject to this petition an the gmmds that existing Conditions is tbo neighborhood are such that adding additional day, care chiidrta, dwtbrr It be iA two shifts or a one day shift basis, Mould cause intolerable stress to an already overstressed situation. At present we have �jbme-�, iioi pr*;�an our street, one of which beiongsto !Mrs t another address and bring S to 10 additional vehicles to our street each day as will as several trips by UPS delivery trucks and occasionally a semi truck and trailer. In addition to this traffic we have the usual resident traffic and Mrs. Leonard's day cart traffic. There are only 13 homes on our street with approximately 28 resident aimod vehicles. i. there are 19 small children and teenagers living here, not including the day care children. We are also blessed with a practicing rock and roll band and 12 V, of the usual dogs and cats that populate a neighborhood, all adding to e noise and confusion. "''� We are not doubting that Mrs. Leonard's heart is in the right place as she assured us last year she was not doing this for the money but rather her love of children. We do feel# however, that she has ignored e ated protests from the neighbors -to increase the number of children in oM, ask rig to extend ourselves even further by allowing more traffic through the cul de sac each day. When we purchased our horse, is hears ago, we paid more non+:, for the advantage of living on a quiet tul de sac. We now feel thaz 1th increased traffic from thew businesses and an increase in Mrs. Leonard's businmen that our rtr values are in jeopardy, our peace and quirt is threatened and safe play environment for our children is lost. W al o feel that it is an insult and a burden to have to urnue this battle each ear with new letters and more tri s to the C*uncil Meet n s. ke have no intention of changing our stand on this issue and NU d like to see the' veriod of time far reyetitionina on the part of Mrs. Leonard extending to several reairs rather each year *a it is now. The constant utter Uriting, threats and petitions on the part of Mrs. Leonard are annoying. It has also colas to our at that Mrs. Leonard has submitted to the ticouncil petitions that are o tes franc last vea and is trying to. present them as new . itions. Many o t epee p e who signed her petition last year no longer live in this neighborhood. Sincerely, Mr. and mrs. Jack to st r i • a PRtITION Iy FAVOR of WAARA LZOMMOS CHILD DAY W'S HOPE We, the undersigned, as neighbors and Wants of children who are in need of a licensed Day Ca4 a Hove o do support Barbara Leonard in her owe of toddlers and infants i We aek the,appropriat• legislative body of the 'City Counsel" to approve her Conditional' Use Permit, ftf &I .- , "7 r , r 9 . 10 - j f'S' 1 2- 11 - ... `�. 17 r VII z 0 S v D .ego 22 z - - 7Liu 14AdLA r J 2 ' ' I i Z - .y — r Ms Repro letter dated Jura* k5, 1986 1. Not allowing conditional use pwmits-neighborhood disease, a. Are the "Center" photos submitted zoned Rl ? Are they in the thei Gity of Huntington ea.h? Exactly where are they located? 2. Mde in our horses. a. Large family day care homes that are part of the neighboftood care just as much as do other residents about keeping the neigh" boyhood attragtive. 3. Zoning and deteriction of- Erp2srty values. a. Conditional Use Permits for a large family day care home L, a conforming use in a residential *one. b . Loss of property values is pure speculation, not a proven fact. c . Cften day care provided in a neighborhood is seen by homebuyers as an asset to a neighborhood, as most mothers work outside the home. 4. Photo a hs of day care centers includin the..existipA one in our neighborhood, a . The photos submitted, except for the one in our neighborhood, are just that, centers. They are not Large Family Day Care Ho^:e s in our city. Although many people don ' t realize it, child care programs come in two forms.-family day care hones and child care centers. When people hear the term child care, most often they immediately think of a large center. b . Centers are usually 20 or more children and are located in buildinSs designed as child care institutions. : amily day care homes are legall i r jguired to be loca-ed in homes where the provider lives. Twelve is the maximum capacity for family day care homes . CO .he photo of the day care hone in our neighborhood shows the addition has been done by a proi`cssionai . It is nice which will income property values in the neighborhood . . .y eta.tior. ( to be submit .ed ) si ed b.Y nei&hborinx residents •,r; •rs "no loss f n grocer ` vglue.5" .ch sa_ . _ Rebuttal by1 'tonard June 1S , 1986 JUN i 6 Ob C.O. so lie Mkt► WA Planning Cossission i Huntington Beach Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , California Subject : Conditional Use Permit No 56 -2r Commission Rembers : � I ' Conditional use permits do break down the integrity of single family residential neighborhoods . One conditional use permit is used as justification for a second or third conditional use permit and has been used for this purpose in this case . Several conditional use permits are used as justification for variances and both are used as justification for Nt ot ton.in changes . My point is that the best way to maintain integr ty of the single family residential neighborhood in this community or any other community is by not allowing conditional use permits in kanestablished nei hborhood . The system becomes a progressive 8 her ol�o0 s This is a good neighborhood in which the owners take pride in their homes and are improving and up-grading them on a contintling basis . As a home owner in this community I expect 4iteoning set by the city to be up -hold and prevent the . riation of ro ert�• values . 1 am enclosing some raWr-- ng3 including e x ' st ' our a orhoo s ame has an a ition with a secondary entry marked) which can be easily converted to a second living unit . Of course , legally this Mould have to be done with city approval but with exterior work completed (with permit ) the interior could be changed without anyones knowledge . Sii cerelr• , Jades K. 1teaR' � 17251 Argo Circle Huntington leach , California 92647 F � rMif M aMM�s*aeyerlNa Ms M mum �M w curse N IM svww Cowl M OI•r Gamply. f»MMMaN. MWwMr A."14. Mwd !r I0019011 IN I a" � ••t1M31 AAN. "W STATI CIF CALIF0fiN11A A 1 County of grange •�. 0 op .,�.�. •...•w �«.+�.+ r.., i am a Citizen Of the United Stales and a residl"I of 1 the County aforesaid. I err+ awo the ape of *Volelen "vs. and not a 04rty to or Mterested In the below sniffed matter I am a pr+ntlpal clerk of the tkaMp Coasl GAILY PILOT with wrhbeh Is cowMm4d tfle ' NEWS•PIIESS, a newspaper of general orculataon, printta snd published In the City of Costa Me". County of Orange. Stale of California. and that a Not►cf of PUBLIC NEARING of which copy /1lachoo heroic Is s true and complete copy. watt printed and publi~, In the Cost• Mesa, Newport SeaCh. Huntington Ikjach, Fountain Valley, Irvine. the South Coast cofrlmunitles and Laguna 1106ch Issues of said newspaper for ONE TIME Consecutive *v"s to wit MA Issues) of _._July e 6 Ilie__ 414Clale, unU*f plenal:y Of PWIUry, that the foregoing 19 true and correct. July a 6 C to Mersa, C O nla. 1, . �- I111000 or IN ATM • ` orryOF M MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA MW oPFKx co TIC aTy Cum October 10 1996 Barbara Leonard 17242 Argo C i rc l t Huntington Beach, CA 92647 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular aeettng held Monday. October 6, 1946s denied your appeal to the j Planning Comission 's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 66-25 . This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of Cal i frrnia you have ninety days from October 100 1936 to apply to the courts for ,judicial review. If you have any questions regardin; this matter, please con:act our office - 536••5227. L / I Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk kM4:cb enc . cc : City Attorney Development Services Director ITdophow:71 r r r j 004.S trr�aa�r. �ncrc�a�tru 4.4tailmifar ".0. IrMI tlr some.. 1+tr rrwr 1, tNi111'tt frvere.1. • f. ~ 11101440tvillt 1l"q4+►WrUt Ih., Al+t rnir 11.1. uu4 rtlwl tterl� 1111N I 1:T 1'01.11 pi r. AM. re, I'..%m m 1.trrtie fur. Ti41 tit 01 /tttlrtnwttl tie trt itte writ n/ 31fi, 1N1 t'.:A3i1 IttAlltiie/t li t•Irltlpol tNrrrytrr «f t.trru•t►illtri hM IM/h : r:F..,.:•. � to M 84IM iII% mini%i.rrt rr►IA4w imflliatt• i•l ►•M r► i« fOqrm y . or's litr•moo as 1imr.tfl 141tit it, f atialm re sit Ismail rhw wu. tttMt� tK+l raiettwl witsrrtrr�trl AIMI r'MNfr rr I'mm1/ta 1+1*li► rhtrer111. f , • •,'. d j, ;k: +Nutdr.l to InNI .•.n►rl Willi flirm-lir.11a In Ni tllln/ilyt arri samov" � rrmatul r•n•t Irr riirwlar fur 1wrle4ow for Attire. triw#ftq it brojen I rtv'MtnieleMoij Ike twitNll► Mre%iwt►ly lu►• ritil .r•rri+t t,milgi ►M.j., � � f lolwwj, trltrre it was foltatl Iltwt oem of Ihwlw'r4 daioi> ItA r� w� o t"a the cltarlrlw nr++tn•l l.ttilirlrtr WOO owl tNtr of oleo 40ttr�, tiitl Mil t�ir � go � etulq.n►t1d b� a rMlFnr`r. N1•iyfi`MI ►. t nH t�rurl ut »ltirrw) Mt NI t+al e 1!trmist of Asirki►harr (1117"1 111u VAL towel muar.Iigg ur•rtwr a M1tt ' VO r„td i Illttt.610.26 C.A.&I 30. MAM41r, 1IIr/ tv+trttt.M,l tl t► tM M 1'rwrwnlThe for rrteirr t+f .Itelul{I h. ertttt• lift ttr►lrrrtar Ow ", its POPUMetl 165 IFM+�r nti•tlitmel of hNiwt►Oligtl• At lorl"ll in Iw tiff, r..t�lwt.Nitrtr ftrr rwwlre N►� t hNNttr •Alhec rights ref •limrpLuwl.-r. rrheyr, lhrrr hN• A •lte.IMPN► tttl ions *09. U41 Ix /raruutl«rl In t■nitrrtrtr t•.ttt" for ho/"unit rrut.f►ni fit tier .1w,w.�tlr ,t, if tlrtrnniuntinn trht!Nttr lht h +•sit► sul+.tnn, of Illr rinla�. 1•roll ►. 1,0.. .%swif 1•rrea, tittl shortie+ lu �ulgwrt t.anutiMilMq►'r l) l.ie11 rir►►Mr 1 (tlfR'il �1 fu,tMasr. �lhrrr aotrl tAlprorwrl► "irr• I ..•Ilw. 11h t..�Jri 11�. 1094.6. jWkdal reviefiri &cialons of kxcal apaalltris; prtliko; filing; !Urns; record; 6draon and pans• def irad; or- dipanev or rt-aa W ofa (a i Judicial review of on.'- decision uI ;i imal agen,!� , other than school district, as the term icx.al awerlry IN defirsert in St clil►r► 54951 of Pip Government Code, or of any commission. Wait, officer or apm Ov -cot, may be had put,suant to Section 110M.5 of this Fade onlY it flit, petition for writ of mandate pur'sunni io such scti'tion Is tiled .ithin the lif w limits s1welfied In this wellun. (b) Any such lift+lition shall he filwJ tot later than the Mh day fullow'ing the date on which the til►c•isirn becomes final~ if there Is no provision for e'c+ronsideration of the decisim In any applicable pfo'i• lion of any I. mute. charter, or rule, for the pu pmes of this section, i he deco:le;r is final on t he date it is macle. if there Is such prop ision for mconsideraltion, the decision is final for the purpoat.+►i of this sec• tion upon the expiration of the jwrlud during which smit recon alders• (inn can tx+ sausht; ;vovided, that If rm-cimilderation is aiuught pumu- ;,sa to any such provislon the decision Is final for the purpom of this cilon on the date that rec•onllideraition is rejeted. it.) I*iw t•omioll+ir• rivaiii tot list+ l►Irt•trdfligs x1mll I►t• lirlrls.'tred by ten• 11tt•:11 ;t;;t'111'�' ill' t1, t ttlllllll�• Itlll. lomirtl, flffit'rt, tir nL:mll which tltack+ Ihr division and ,hall lx'- lh+liverrti lu Ilm 11MI110110r withill 9U slays rtrl►•r he iut!. tiled ;I wrillrit retlimfit llivrefur. Iliv ItKul 111w rwy may rmviver from the liet itioner its urtual touts tot- it ftn•rribing car ntherwise prffering the record. Such rm-ord shall It, Iude the t1'arl• .=:ripe of iho• pt•oI•evdint.^I, all plellsdinps, nil natims and vrders, any prui>'ost.,d &vlsm by a W-aring offlaw, the fislul dmWon, all admitted 674 !MMWINS OF NAMWI floe* . �Ifrgtdd eoetlli'hi!'t � tlM M alai then !a! ai/eM16'y Or �01lI iQl�, Wr& aftwo M` faint, 40 Wrl"M ovkUrm. MA OW - eltlter popiii I i11 the awe Idl If Uk, peUlkxxt r fills a roeok%l for 1W rocolA/Y1 lie slalsrcitWd in s1lllhflivitlihm Ir► withbl 10 e111ww offer 11w dMe the dec! inn bercmmss [I- owl as piv%-kW in ruh►rlivbelwn tbl, Ow Iona wilhin whk* c1 1oolloililayt pumsrint to lWWO W1ei,S mity fir flied s1h1111 he oxWW dad to nett Weer than the Mth day following the date on whk!h ft rlxrclyd is dither petmtollly dclived or mailed to the peetitlomr or his attentay of noe► +ord. It he has one. eel As used in this slecctim, decialen means ad#rdiottrry 6601n- istrative 4eltWon madle, attar helae'itlg, sluspelyding. don oltheg, or diw mining an offlcer or empioyre, revoking ex dales` ng an appiloati" for a permit or a 11cenrr, or donyiag an appilaUan for any retire event benefit or allowance. (f) In making a final decision as defined in stlbdivialan (ee), thw lrratl gpwy shall provide notkv to the party that the time within which A dlclal re kmv must be scwght is governed by this carbon. As ~lied In this uubdivl4ion, "party" means an otfkw or on- ploy" who has been suspended, denoted I,,r dieltelislreed; a parson whose permit or licnime, has been revoked or whose appiiatian for a {let'mit or lken%e hru been denied; or a prism whose applicutiw for a rethett>►e!!nt benefit or allowance has been denied. (g) This election shall be applicable in a hxa! agency ordy if the governing board thereO adapts an ordinanim or resolution making this wM ion applicable. If such ordinance or aeoolution is adopttld, the proviRlonx of this section shai1 pmail over any contlicting pr*visilon In any clherwilte applicable lam' relating to the subject etratter. Added ley Stat11.19%.c. 27,6. p, bile f Ll Flflf'wl� Set �l't.t'. l'41,11nru►ts I'vllt 1'arals, I'1t11 1'r% rlh-rt. Lbri1y tilIi e i e\11a11uul/ellhI. IAVI 011e1 1'rt►e•.e,111re. CJ.N, 1'ullhe AII«lalal tots to IMJh. aMl C�1�� t'rew•rrlltff { lel�. Man of D"Is Ma>rn I Beflorel i Ilelll 11111411. 1'I11 flies r111r"I rrlrll"ll► l"MI11 Efhavellee of rrIIMIAItf►allq IwmMlol a had Iu Ih Irrn111sf Nhrllev/ 011- 1111fOl1r lital'tHY 1,1111►e" Mfrl• II1u1111+•I. it tool, Ito t1r• of IMMh�ru' rltllllrr too I.of hMINI Ille•1r 1N111111141411 ToMI. rT111M111f11 1. IA �IMf11 Uhil"I Ilil ll►rlelN AI-I. trial loll/t o►n 11 to IIG•Ileleel irwlr,l'. Iulih111'►,e1 frvvpilop off Wrllnlllllt 1lrral 111 111«"Ilan' to rr/lpllrl Ifllllmr• 1•Ue Iwo.' Il.laNfle•• 011ie to IwjoIl1e111l► 1-el tot 1111NM1e111 Ili 111.t too l MI11( 41thel. Ill rM1nr .eh1«,1 1r«1, whits 1-e111r11.'I Ito will fit II-Vol. •/1olf-, 11f IMI1«III N•MjIMrM. AMM+llrI► Val- wt'te Ii1• ,411116, 11966*14l �'«• Nth Ilh�ylt le l S-solNlors 1:.e1«'IIIn1. A-10i, 1, SI•w1111 lor"1IW'1 bit rMrllllwo of the )lowr ArI M. 00fti 151 1.'41,I1op1r. TOO, Mh ":A.Al Wei, 675 City Council City of Huntington Beach , California 'fir r N*AAA October 1 . 1916 Re : Conditional Use Permit No. 86 -25 V i Mayor and Council Members : This hearing has been In process for several months , therefore . j it becomes necessary to repeat some items . In reviewing Mrs . Leonard ' s letter of appeal there are many items most of I which are not worthy of comment , however , 1 would like to correct the statement that there were only three neighbors who objected to her application . There were three spokesmen for a large number who either signed petitions or sent letters . If written objections are ignored then written support should k also he iunorrd leaving Mrs . Leonard without any neighborhood i support . The support for firs . Leonard at all the public hearings has been from, out s icie sliec iai interest groups , parents of her pupils and rvpresentat ives of clay care associations . Ar, I have stated before the residence of Mrs . Leonard does not comply with tin i Form litti lding lode requirements for a day care center and the homer would no longer roml) lN. u:e 1r dwelling since it no longer would meet minimum residential urea requirements for 1 children and 4 adults ( the home does not comply for 6 children anti 3 nclul ts ) . The items involved are exits and fi rt. separation of house and garage (2 exits , 1 hour fire sera rat ion wall , fire dampers for air duty/returnair and 1 hour assembly for door) . A report in the case file states that day care centers I f of this type are exempt from code requirements . These items pertain to life/safety of the occupants and lowering fire resistant requirements is not in the interest of public health , safety and general welfare . I question the ability of two adults to safely remove 12 infants and toddlers from a bursting structure . There are too often newspaper accounts of two parents unable to remove 3 or 4 children from a burning family home . By allowing this occupancy to occupy a non -comforning structure , does the City and/or State assume liability? Since this applicant has been denied hermit twice by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and once by the City Council previously , does the City Council ;assume 1 iabi l i tv^ There seems to be net requirement for the operator to carry liability insurance and in case of child injury or death the same parents now supporting this petition Mould seek compensation from other sources . A mother with small children and keeping 2 or 3 other children would fit the family image and be acceptable to most neighborhoods . This is not the case and is purely a commercial operation within a residence . A commercial operation combined with the noise resulting from 12 children can and does render the adjacent homes undesirable Property to the present occupants and/or to future occupints which is detrimental to the neighborhood and in turn is detrimental to the City ' s General flan and Land Use flan . Thagk you for consideration of ray views . .isTes W. iteagin 1.7*251 Argo Circle , taunt ington Beach , California t RE� F , , ACT'! emb N so: Monorabl cil &*a4ftIby: Charles W. Thompson, City Administratod�W' Flop1w by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services ass bobim: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-25 (APPEAL) , DAY E CENTER, APPLICANT: BARBARA LEONARD cambowrt with C,eu"l Poiiar? bd YN i l New Pofty of Exorptim E 4 of lone RammnaWatim, Andyeis, Fundkv Scum, Apt emod"Aedws, Atudiwsnu: This item was continued on August 4 , 1986, to the Octobtr 6, 1986 meeting with the public hearing closed to allow time for a code amendment on day care centers to come before the City Council . Code Amendment No. 86-30 was scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission on September 16 , 1986 , but due to the lateness of the hour , it was continued to October 7 , 1986. The ordinance is proposed to ba scheduled for your meeting of October 20, 1986 . It should be noted that since August 4, 1986 , two large family day care centers have been approved by the Planning Commission . Staff continues to suppn, t the applicant ' s request and recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No . 86-25 by the City Council . The request meets all requirements of the current code for day care centers . The request would meet all but one requirement of the proposed ordinance covering day care centers , if it is adopted . This provision states a minimum distance between large family day care centers of 10000 feet . Since there is an existing large family day care center approximately 300 feet away at 17272 Whetmore Lane (approved by Conditional Use permit No . 81-4 ) , the applit.,ir:t ' b requested location would not meet this criterion should it be adopted as part of Code Amendment No . 86-30. ATTACHMENT: 1 . Appeal letter dated September 2 , 1986 2 . Area Map 3 . Original RCA dated August 4 , 1986 and July 21 , 1966 , with attachments , including proposed code amendment . JWP :JA : kla (6288dFlo t c T+ "0 4 „ . Glaw UNT ' \ t ( • I 1 1 - • h' To Charles W. Thompson f `Jame City AdministratorFero Sublact CODE AMENDMENT NO. 88•-30 October 'i• � �� �' CITY or RuIrZINGTON BEACH DAY CARE CENTERS On August 4,, 1986, the City Council directed staff to 'review 'tlii► provisions for large family day care centers (those that involve frj..( seven to twelve children ) and develop a revised ordihanei:thit not only would be in keeping with State law, but "uld 'incor - rate more restrictive provisions than are currently ppaart of the :city code. State law permits cities to have reasonable standards for spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control . The draft urdinance attached has,,tifteea . Items added to the requirements for day care centers. Nany' af the requirements are simply clarifications of existing City practices and policies or provisions required by the State already. The Planning commission had the code amendment set for public hearing oo September 16, .1986 . Due to the lateness of the hour, the Planning Commission continued the item until their meeting of October 7, 1906 . Staff will set the public hearing for October 20, 1986 after planning Commission recommendation . JWP : JA : kla ( 6 2 8 7 d ) Attachment: Draft Ordinance r ',; ` I L 1. 0 .. ... "l; '► as,— ^., .a. ,.,' CODS AXBNDNWT 90• If-*39 D�PT �'RDiM�i AN=D UNC LASS I t I ED PSOVI S IOPS f NGARD►I MG DAY CARR CUT a $1 9430 PERMITTED USE$. The following list includes uses that`p" Wsaar cha�tac er s Co of such unique and special togs to to make impractical their automatic inclusion as a permitted use in any district . The location and operation of such uses shall be subject to approval of a conditional use ppermit by the planning Commission and any additional provisions included herein. uses marked with an asterisk shall not be permitted in any residential district. D. day care centers for more than six children subject to the following provisions: ( 1 ) Seventy-five square feet of outdoor play area pot child. 'Thirty five square feet of indoor play area per child . outdoor play area shall be grassed and enclosed by a six foot high masonry wall . Any gate entry shall be securely fastened. ( 2 ) Minimum 101 of parking area shall be landscaped where applicable. ( 3 ) The total enrollment for the large day care center shall be established by the Planning Commission and shall include the applicant 's own -hildren under the age of 12 years . ( 4 ) Fire department clearance shall be obtained prior to the operation of the day ca . e center . ( 5 ) Hours of operation nhall be established by the Planning commission. (6 ) The applicant shall submit a copy of the Orange County Social Services license prior to the operation of the day care facility. ( 7 ) Such facility shall not be located closer than 1 ,000 feet to another large family day care center in a single family residence . (8 ) The applicant shall obtain a business license prior to the operation of the day care facility. (9 ) in addition to the two required fully enclosed parking spaces , a minimum of two on-site parking spaces shall be provided for day care centers located within a residential none. Day Care Centers loested within a commercial sons shall provide one and one-half ( 1-1/3) spaces per classroom* a t0g81D1 w ; + •_ - - • rw tail 0894108 shall sot be Good in a"Juatiom nitrlr the day care evocation# Witb the excortias of Vockiad n vehicles* (11) Loading and unloading of children frm vehicles Within a residential district @hail only be yernitt*d on the driveway, approved parking area or aiciotly iR front of the facility* All loading and usloodiad of children within a commeccial district shall only be permitted from approved parking areas. ( 11 ) Children attending the day care facility shall be restricted to the first floor and designated play areas only, unions supervised by an adult . ( 13 ) The Day Care Facility shall comply with all applicable requirements of chapter 4.40f noise control of the Municipal Code. r (14) The Planning Comaission reserver the right to revoke the approval of a day care facility if a violation of the conditions of approval occurs. All revocation proceedings shall be preceded by a public hearing. (13) A► prcvals for day care facilities within the Rlo 8 ngle Fnaily Residential bistrict, are non-transferable and the dwelling shall be owner occup',:-d. ' 7T7 ._ T : - • � ik I +� 1 • oA/ AA&o SO t MG /M a7.'A-P ov C#I.L D 1),I Y e-f^id . 4, Saar Cc� .you+ �.�' Foy ��►�f�hrrs 4 L icic� 4 T l `7.7 7/ +<'C C r No IT 4LL_ e^I W bAt A, iN f!� 2 Nvn+ r."", Tf YO4 c✓%rN 7`0 �'c���T 1*-,56.13 Iry (6700 WARNER) ISO 1 (6770 WARNER St 17111 GOLGENWEST) rt �.: r, .4 MM ~ .•1 "� H N �Y n� rl .-4 r1 0-001 r" M ►4 �4 cc DR e 1 ROOK ryry NN DR e fV CANI 17192 17191 .J.J ro � V to � N % 1D � a °,$ °$ .a h rr h o $ ) 17702 17201 , 17202 ti 17201 17202 l� 17201 J ~ ID U 9-4 17202 1 �1 � 172 17212 elf 17211 .+ PARK w 17212 r, , 17222 r 17222 11 72221 221 1722 V 11 17221 N 17232 17231 U 7211 17232 72 17231 TUCaN 17232 Pch O� 172'2 17241 77, 172i 1i111 J ` 17211 %a �+ bb 17251 W 172S 17251 17s52 17151 1725"s 1?251 r Z 17252 w 17272 1727I 1727 17271 17272 7 17271 �s J 17282 ll%N PSTONE DR. ?92 �\'o'� ry H v h � of a H 1 2 o w � � b N GOLDEN VIEW SCHOOL 17]02 1? 7302 17301 17302 5 17302 �1 1730 173 `0 �� 17311 H 17322 �fr ���� 7311 7..] 17]12 Jfr �1"� 3tloIr11 17- #inr�.v ch 73? 1732 ,,1.111 1 17321 173 ,No04 (17251 GOLDEN' VIEW) 17341 0 173/2 17111 , ok cr l73i2 1 17342 17341 1134` 17311 17> d 17352 17351 2 17]S1 17131 1735? 17352 17351 17352 17151 171, 11361 BAKER DR r► •y 17162 17361 17362 17361 17162 7361 173� 7371 17372 17371 17372 17371 17372 17371 173I ar 1?let 17382 s m z 228 M .. ', 11381 OC 17102 173e1 y, 17382 17311 17382 17381 FORD 1 1% 17392 17391 V 17392 17391 -j .1g1 17391 7341 m i 17102 """ b 17392 17392 17391 17392 r 17101 17402 17401 17�y � MANHATTAN DR 3 17412 17411 17412 17411 17�/11 W •174!? •�' h V h h h r, h n; ry h f• 1741 vi LL J 17112 '�` �'+ v �n .c r~ o. a .� w ., .. 17/ 17 4 22 m �+ �+ w ao m 0 a v� 1 CL 17121 17422 17421 X 17422 17421 �O �D A 'g `g `O '° '� '° '� 7431 W Q 17422 == 174. ! P4 0-4 v+ r~ A o rr n N r+ • &A %a to n rt • 1741 7441 •`Do :� ro ro LF1C 174421� °� 3 � 'a to � a � $ 174< 17152 CORY DR ��''� x SPICKARD DR 1�� rY ry ry h r+ h rr rV h ry 14 171b: ��'� h ry h N h rr 7! rr rr h I r1 N in � N dD a O N r7 b SLATER 6> .,eat ML pSTITION Iy FAVOR Or Ut .BRA LEONARD I S CHILD DAY Uft HOME 'go , the undersigned, as neighbors* and parenfs of ci►.Lldren who are in need of a licensed Day Care Home, do support Barbara Leonard in her care of toddlers and infants, its ask the appropriate legislative body of the "City Counsel" to approve her Conditional Use Feralt. JA 7E ADDRESS '= r 3 . - 3- S 17 Z 3 2- 41 o clec2 46 S. 4&-O:i e-.to 12 14 J ' 21,E 1 t7j lam, _. �O C/� fZAI w . 2^ 8 . J 'J ��+...... wr N■ 1 CA WO LOO� �✓�a�o -�� as ��o,,� irk ,may ti % � W .. o tLILt v a :ENO a• w r. 1u N Al V W Al O k PJOkiAl w1 1V' q�V�13IdS x �Li a �. �, c �`�' ?s►L as M103 "► *► W ~ g � v � u � �i � i t►►Lt 'v � a e+ � e, e� w ►►L1 tow ,�+�, ."'V. ,!? w v ,°� i►fL ENT ZZ► n ~ ' Ll ' C- ?►LT wo �' a e. MILT t?It1 a7 A m TOL 1 tC1 4 N N N ti ti $ m 1r1Lt rtILI N TZ►Li CULT r tz►tt N ?LT m Na *+ tt►Li t.'TILT tt►L1 C1,f[ti Vn Tt►LT ITILT f�1 Z►Lt i To►L1 to tt 6tt Nd11bHNt7W tct 'AZ 61V i6Ct? m 16ELT r6CLT ti[L 4 ti[[t to►Lt to/tt ; t6EL � t6[LT ta[LT TICLt te[L1 "t ZiCL1 ° °w' t6CLT n NUT L6CL1 �qS•1 a tltL � tlCtt art � LT Tt[LT � �41 TICLI ti tt[lt Tt[l.T ZLCtl TLCL urnTLCL to vq rel `, r �� ZI CLl f LT t9tL OUT 19CLT I9CLt 119CLI Z91LI titi erg Tt�Zr ,��� � VS{,� ere :t tSCLI ZSCLT TSCO tSCLi U0 83XVIS t9[Ll tSCLt tS[L1 ISCL1 Lt t►[LI ZftLi t►CLT ItELt ?►CLt tSCLt iS[LT ;.t r tzcct ��,� tzttt �, 0 T►Ctt t►cit p t►cct (M31n .rV3TIOD 2 tti � r�l tZ[tT LLB �p zCtl X TeW _T TIE �t r ZT[LT ItCLt LZtLt tip`' rr A t io[Lt ti t r �u[t TOW L ?otc ��r zo[LT t1 g g cm w �00HOS M31A N30`100 cc O y a hiN N N N N N ►y �OI�� t64Lt �a .V. ao 3N01 dd3 `ett ?aztt ° �� y v w N TLttt tL?Lt tL t ttZLi m LtLt cltci rn A TSttt tS?Lt � TStLt � iSrL ZSILT m tSZtt tSttt Z N e• Q, C tr S ZL T A bX t/ZLt O p T►ZIT Z►ZLT O OUT �pA N e x tf�tt 'dNV ni t[tct CCUT HUT Et!t z[ztt � n t[tct IrELt L1. tZLt w 1CZtt /r Zttt1 < a r CTtLt °; °; °� ?TILT Tt?c ti � rr m ..� o n A dd jli,"-j r tortt t root ? for t ti db rott �`r tozct totct torct m 21 JCIO ;fit y l ft y •• �'! a o v r TITO C6141 be �► - � ''� I N .r .. ti ...r ►.1 N Z t r"' � o `tib ao MOON orer w r o► e ! 0 .t � �- ►- •• .. .,. .. ... .. � C � � � °' � � y rrr Lqt�' as � � � � W + � a UUMN30-100 111,41 T 9 U3NUVM 0119} Ow 091 %43NUVM 001.E r' 1986 J�CLARAT ION �o^ :c c ;nren-^ of :ho }ild:An ::ho have placed our -/ .... ".il�_••�. In -he care of sz -3 Leonard feel she �r.o•.:1 issued a U3e Permit from the : i �= .:ar� :�n ,ta;t ::eae!► . :This would allow More s .. c,n11dr :he opp3r.-u;:i;.y of receivini ' ,•,:d c�; .1i day care in her hom.E . ' :.: ex tr e.ne cau t ion %.rhe:: drive+ng through the o:•�:aod and w2 respec= the property of the es- keeping all drive ways clear at, all e :c . : am here at the 'mostI maybe 5 minutes -ne .~rung and in the 3:ternoon/evening. Dee. ::o traffic probler. as it im very rare :o :'°rd 7ore :han one other car in fro.: I. of her (~ t A _, .,..�.r.,..._..-�...._ ram._• �_ A I •/ I Dom A ~ WNW MAY 8 06 PA 1* t!a Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach To whom it may concern; I very close the Leonard family right next door. S h een doing day care in her home , I have had no problens with either traffic or unreasonable nose . I feel she is doing a wo::der ul l o b -si,h the children as wel? as he:.ding .vor:t:n parents in our coi=un-..y .o fee, conf=da:: chat their children are weal cars! fc: . I feel Earbar a should be gr s:ted her reo,aested Conditional Use :e_::i: -.o enable her to serve more paren.s 16n our o i JUL J ti ` AN i II 1. JANE JACKSON P" LAW KNtMrON HAM, CAL "e0 Evelyn Nichka. Assistant Planner June 8,1986 Huntington Beach Planning Co'emiesion P 0 BOX 190 Huntington Belch , CA 92647 re r Barbara Leonard 's Conditional Use Permit #86-25 for family daycare facility Dear Ms. Niehka r We have received your notice ofrublic bearing regarding the above application. We are neig ors of Barbara Leonard. We have lived at our current address for the past thirteen (15) years and seen the City grow in population . We recognize the value and Importance of the services Mars . Leonard can offer to families in the area and we trust that you will grunt her application. Respectfully, ' ill am Jacks ac s i i M d 'T SERVICES c�. ©• Box w1�a�E I •, s June 17, 1986 Planning Commission I 'm unable to attend tonights hearing as my son graduates tonight. I would like to say that I live one house away from Barbara Leonard . I spend a lot of time in my back yard, messing with my plants and enjoying the weather . I am not disturbed that Barbara does day care, as I do not hear the children, no matter what time of the day it is. There is No noise problem. If there were a traffic problem, I would see it, because I live on the corner of Capstone and Argo Circle., There Is No traffic problem and I don' t think there would be � one if she oared for more c ildren. She is doing a valuable and much needed service for our City and I think she should be given a Conditional Use Permit. Yours respectfully, i I June 13, 1986 Huntington Beach Plannine Commission j 4 Due to a prior committment, I 'm unable to t attend the Planning Commission hearing of June 17, 1986. Because of the type of work I do, I' m at home for long periods and outside quite often. I' ve never heard Barbara ' s day care children while I 'm outside . The only reminder I have that she even does day care , is when I see her taking them for a walk occasionally, on a nice day. I've not found and do not anticipate any traffic problems as it appears that the parents come and go at different times of the day . I urge the Planning Counisnion of Huntington Beach to grant the Conditional Use Permit to Barbara Leonard, as her services are very much in need in our community. Please take the above statements Into consideration as if I were in attendance at the Planning Commission Hearing. Respectfully, Terry eterson 21.2 Argo Circle Hunt n to Beach , Ca. 92647 �i June 17 , 1996 TO WHOM. IT 11AY CONCERN: It has come to my attention that Barbara Leonard wishes to increase the number of children she is caring for. I see no problem with this . I am aware that she cares for approximately six children now. Living across the street, I see no traffic • r problems , no problems with the children themselves , and no increased noise . If other input is requested you may contract me at Westminster Police Department, 99R-3311, 1600 to 2400 hours, Tuesday through Saturday. Sincerely, ell �4'Cc"�O4� ' ck V. Upstill 17Z*n- �on Bea , aton Beach, CA 42647 v Q. (y Y y June 17, 1986 To Whose It May Concern: This letter is urritten on behalf of Barbara Leonard. We have a daughter 2k years old, and Mrs. Leonard has been our child care provider for almost 2 years. We consider Mrs. Leonard a highly capable and organised provider: The children in her care are given a great deal of personal attention and it is reflected in the warm relationship she has with each of them. I have visited her homy on several occasions unannounced and have found the children playing and having fun without becoming wild or unruly. Good child care is hard to find, and, because we both work, it is a nucessity. We are more than happy with the car& Given to our child, and the enrichsrent she receives being with other children close to her age. Respectfully submitted, � I Mary ,key 8211 Terror Dr' , - !i"unt�agton Beach, Ca., 9264.7 1i J I 1 i I S101 1r. STATE OF CALIFORNIA (.OM 1A111 E 1.>s 4Eha1[ [[XKA11O�. lµ/(XAT AND/ISCAI (Ii.1EW NATURAL NE9,M1VCtS .. , t .... Ahpr111GtIt1. SIICCif.OMMlTill f7NUMtXi TN&NSIRM14NON Ahp A(CO�I Atl1,Sl NEYI'.Ut R ?AfA1K39. t1^. TO1 WiM Ah(1 AylA f10W JOHN SEYMOUR 1k. .Art N ►HrM1. i d t.. [ -St r'., I CHAIRMAN t-..r( 'A-. t#It, A„r 1,,. March 12, 1986 Ms . Barbara Leonard 17242 Argo Circle Huntington Beach , California 92647 Dear Ms . Leonard , Thank you for taking the time to respond to my recent questionnaire and for expressing your views relative to the licensing of more large family day care homes. During the past session my colleagues and I have worked diligently to address the needs of the children of this state . In so doing, I focused a great deal of my attention in the area of child care . I , too, share your concern, Ms . Leonard , over this important issue. There is indeed a tremendous need for licensing in order to care for our most important natural resource , our children. According to a study by the commission on the Status of Women, the number of women in the labor force increased 52 percent between ^1970 and 1984 , to 542, 400 . The c0M1s61ota,."f0U1A that 50,982 'of these warking won= are ■otbars of children undef six years of sge . *he need for large fattlily day cats, facilitlo is inew.*selsg plroportieoately and we will research this aspect of the child care ,issue for potential legislation. Again , thank you for writing, Ms . Leonard, and please don' t hesitate to contact me again about any matter of importance to you or your family . Sincere y, OHN SEYMOUR , State Senator JS:kmf Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants . -Edmund Burke (1729-1797) 0161M1G1 01"C1 214103 10*01PE f_IM11.E ON Act SIYf[ %CM A%"J%O CA06011#441A •:.Wo 41176 f(t[1MONt 47%4, 305 17C40 Publia July 8. 1986 NOTICZ or MLIC HMMG APPEAL TO PLANNING C"ISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 86-25 (DAY CARE WITHIN HGME ) NOTICE IS HIREHY GIM that the Huntington beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Reach Civic Center, 2000 !gain Street , Huntington Beech, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statesents of all parsons vho wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE: Monday , July 21 , 1986 TIME: 7: 30 P.M. APPLICATICN NUNDER: Conditional Use Permit No. 86-25 - Appeal LOCATION: 17211 Argo Circle - R1 - (f.ow Density Residential District) ?_ . 0�: Appeal of Planning Cmwissfon denial of applicant' s reouest to operate a large family day care home of up to 12 children, in an existing single family home. EMMOPOGYTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmentally quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed conditional use permit is on file in the Deaartment of Develwmen t Services. ALL L'r:FAESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or asainst the & placation as outlined above. A?1 applicaticas , exhibits , and dascriptioas of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 min Street, Huntit4lton Beach, California, for inspection by the public. H1J- INCTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Alicia H. Wentworth City Clark Phase (714) 336-5405 Dated: July 1 . 1986 7 NOTICE TO CLERK TO S HF.DULE PUBLIC TARING' ITEM. _ C 10 + �.?� r TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: FROM: _ C , 1 PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE A DAY OF198 At n I -- a t tac ed �- ��,trl1 dP.G�. 74 AP 's will follow - &A'k-- Initiated by: �JA Planning,Coc;mission Planning O'rpartment Petition * Appeal Other _ Adoption of Environmental Status (x) NO Has City Attorney' s Office been YES 0 informed of forthcoming public hearing? Refer to _ Planning Department - Extension # Is Z.7/ for additional information. S-S60 • If meal , please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal . 'r i t1a ics or Punic pLArRm CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-25 (4tots ( Day Care Within Home ) r NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Peach Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center , 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach, California , on the date and t, : the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below . ZDA"'E/TIME: ay I I APPLICATION NUMBER_: Conditional Use Permit No . 86-25 APPLICANT : Barbara Leonard , � 't i E i LOCATION: 17242 Argo Circle ZONE : R1 ( Low Dens ' t Residential ) , REQUEST: orum a arge fami�iy day care home of up Lo 12 Sf children, lo-- operete in an existing single family horse . - G}4t�r� �1 .ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : d Exempt .�. .. {,�,a,, pro,,,: �+,t . -#fig csl��,��, E.�vi•..,..y ONFI,'r,E_: A copy of the proposed conditional use permit is on file In the Department of Development Services, 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public , ALL INTERESTED PERSONS a invi�d"�to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit e#Q nce for or against the application as outlined above . If th , re an further le y questions please call Bm r_ 536-5271 . James W. Palin, Secretary Huntington Beach Planning Commission ( 5323d-7 ) i h�bi.Ls4 July S. 19" wliC! OF "nic UNARM APPEAL TO PLANNING C(kb1ISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86.25 (DAY CARE WITHIN HOME) NOTICE 1S MEBY GIYE1i that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntiniton Beach C1 vic Centnr, 2000 Maia Street, Huntington Beach, California. on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statereats of all persons vho wish to be heard relative to the soplicatioo described below. DATE: Monday, July 21 , 1986 TIME: 7: 30 P.M. APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. 86-25 - Appeal LOCATION: 17242 Argo Circle - R1 - (Low Density Residential Distrir:t) PROPOSAL: Appeal of Planning Commission ded al of applicant's request to operate a large family day care home of up to 12 children , in an existing single family home. 10;-;XAO AL STATus: Categorically exempt from the provisions of the California "— Environmentally Quality Act. ON FILt: A copy of the proposed conditional use permit is on fil -, in the Depar,,-:rint of Development Services . ALL IN?F.itES'TED PERSONS are invir.ed to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or asainat the application as outlined above. A11 applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are an file with the office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, NuntioDton Beach, California, for Inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk thane (714) 536--5403 Dat*d: July 1 . 1986 W ADDRE:SIM r �r• �� } t�iutr LAMILA iWM i .i.No-lw�1Wmb ALTCL !t>tOTN --.r 1►AIMANA Ctt1*rll `. '!� JOHN PEAUFFIN ALTO CWI com 1Yl41 limoo CIOLCE. 6892 CArsTONE 6932 CANTS IlRACH,C1.9li41 NUNTINGtON PrACN,CA.Wfi47 HUNTINGTON MACII,CA.92647 17!(11 pRFr l.N. QRACF ,TEFL. MARTIN FOLLY MUNTTNGTc►N (•FACH,CA02647 691? CAPSTONE, 6922 CANIS CIO. H1INTINOOTH PEAC1l,CA.926h7 11UNTINGOTN PF-ACII,CA.92647 A�7'rf'M' • 169-13s-Oi, M ti'1•t!>i�T• CLARENCE WON rm WAylpoN IT30?- PRF.T I.N. 6n2? CAPSTONE 692IN CAN HUNTINOTON PFACH,CA.92647 H1iNTINGOTN PI:AC HUN II,CA.92Fh7 TUCANA UNTINGOIN BEACH,CA.92647 .»�►ar�=et' M6s-tjs-off, fps-t"!�•t�► sloolls ANOOPIM WITIIATA T11AMA1HAKULN _ PAUL ANTDOSON • 17301 W11FIKIFF. h952 TUCANA 6911 TUZIARA HUNTIGOTN 14EACH,CA.9?6117 111►NIINGTON FIIACII,CA.92647 NUNTsATON MACH,CA.92647 �iS:�►�:�• �165-�jA:tI1 flb�.t�1 ANNE MARIE: ARCLFSS GAIXRIEL CONEY 17312 GIPSON 09942 TU C ANA NG 6941 TUCANA 1113NTINGTON PFACII,CA.92647 HUNTINGOTM DEACH,CA.92647 111INTINGOTN PF.ACII,CA.92647 1 FRFd COPMYA - MARIKU ADAH3 GFORGE .IANECFK 17zua rtPsr!N iR�;1 PYCRFST 6951 TUCANAN l(UNtINvrVl PFSrll,CA.9? IVO E47 HUNtINWN IVO REAri1,CA.9?647 HUNTI40TON BEACH,C.A92647 1Rg.til-d� fps«T��N PoPF.RT FRAN7. CAI lIAU CHU CHIN CHEN JIUNN 17311 GIP"(lN 6Q?2 TUCANA 6832 ROCK LN. 11UNTINOTf1N PFAC)1,CA.7?647 11UNTIWITON PFACN,A.92647 HUNTINGOTO PEACH,CA,92647 FRANK LAI CARL SAYIN DENNIS MOTEN 6842 CAPSTONE. 1416 SARAZEN 6842 ROCK HUNTINGTON 11FACII,r-A.W647 'LllAMPPA,cA.91AO3 HUNTINOOTN BEACH,CA.92647 JOHN CAMP C^HAPI.F.Q HWAF RORCRT w.NTZ RN57 CAPSTONE h911 CAPSTONE 6852. ROOK HUNTINGT('N PFArH,CA.926h7 11tIdTINGOTN PEAC11,097647 HUNTINGTON r6ACH,CA.92641 •�y6�t�•+Of 16S-1N4-Ob 11y'1�r�t _^CUTT fir CI.UPE -,-.-__-- ^- I'At1TL0A 111-PAOl.A 0N0 KHAN ~- Am? rArSTONF 1127? M11FTMORE 18902 FLAGSTAFr HUNTINGTON PF,ACII,0.92647 11UNtINroTON PEACII,t'A. o76117 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA.92647 1 H.91i-•tip A t 6�-t/b.ot ��•r1iKON� RTFPHFN ZAPFI, CAM MFRAJ TOGESH PANIKH 0112 CA►'StONE P.O. PDX 3170 6872 ROOK DR. HUNTINGTON PFACH,CA.92647 COSTA MF9A, .CA. 92628 HUNTING"" BEACH,CA.9?64T �►y"+s'�M�r �6�-1 spa t r`ty� i o'k in ADDRESSING 6A Y. �. t4rlar� i PUT LABEL$ �,....�. ...�!..,...�.,. HAL MINCAN ! 1 NJ11'l$ MIFNTFR %CH1FO MANPR7tD LIFT& 4149 MANNKN AFK 17?37 ARC,O CIO tin? J1N.IF NUIIT'INOTCN PPACH,CA.92649 WINTINGYnN l%fACl1,.CA9?h47 lrtaylpo0T1r NFACH,C.A1?N7 MINKO MF4EtCCHKOw JEFFREY MURRAI WILLIAM JACK" 6992 RCOK DR. 17?22 ERGO 17?42 JULIF WMINGOTN NFACII,CA.97647 IIUNtIMaTON PFACI1,0.92647 HUNTINGTUN 9CACN,CA.920? DAYF. HURZFLFR TFRRY PETERSFN EU8F.NE HABICH 17?ol TAURFS 17?17 APGO CiR, 17232 JULIF HUNTINGTON PFACIl,CA.97.647 HUNTINGTON PF.ACII,CA.9P(A7 ',UNTINGOTN BEACH,CA.^?647 POPFRT KUPOTA ,1079 KINq TtiCMAS PLAKF 17711 TAURFS 17?;1? AFrly 17??P JULIF IIIINIIIJti()TN PF.At'II,CA.q?/,47 III►NTlllf7TvN f.VACii,C.A.9?6117 HUNTINGTON BEACII,CA.92647 hw9"1�!•Or' 165-132-21 116�-1 tl�391 DAVID SANPOR TAURFS PFTFP;"F.11 ROT SUDDERG 11??l tAiiRF." 17?11 ARGO 17?12 JULIF IIIINT1NGTON SFACH,CA.42647 HUNTINGTON FPACII,CA9?64t HIINTTNGOTN SEAC11,Ck.926A7 165�1)!-iN� RONALD HAPTIN JOHN BOWYFR 17231 TAURFS 17?21 ARGO KENNETH ENGSTROM HUNTINnTON 11F.ACH.CA.V647 11202 ►TULIP IiU11FING07N PFACIi,CA.?9?.6hT HUNTINGTON BEACII,CA.9207 �"A3��'Y�+r� result-:� �tbs-tom ALLFN PRI)SFWIT7. POPERT MGI.INATTI 17?hi TAUPE IT?ii ARCM IiFNRT RANSFORD HUNTINC07H PFACH,CA,v;6117 1111NT1N1,TON FIIACII,CA.92647 17211 JULTP HUNTINGOTH PEACH,CA.99647 KFNNET11 1'I0NNF PATRICK APSTILL STEPHLN HARPER P.O. PDX ?p77 17741 ARGO 17221 JULTP SFAL PF•ACH,CA.g071ln 111INT1NGTON F.PACII,CA.92647 HUNTINGTON PEACH,CA.92647 biS�11�1; • lis••t�l=?'A N1iS�1�f�l�' --.IOSFFH ZAPPALA --- 17711 TAUPFS 17751 ARGO CHARLES HOSTETTER HUNTINGTt'N PFACiI,CA.9?6h7 1111NTINCTUN 8FACH,CA.42647 17231 JULTP f1iy� 1� M6S=1�!'w 66NTINGGTTOONN BEACH,CA.92647 11272 ARGO rIPL DART NC FADDF.N CORDON COLLIER HUNTINGOTN PFAC14,CA.92647 11771 ARGO 17241 JULTP 11UNTINGOTH PFACN,CA.92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH,C.A92647 tl i'J•11�•!T' R1bl+AT!lttl!'1 RAYMt1ND MC CLINTOCK THC+MAS KIKUCHI JOHN KoCIS 17PS2 ARGO 17272 •1UI.IP 17251 JULTP HIINtIN�iTdN PEACH,CA.92647 HfINTINGOTH REACII,CA.92647 HUNTIMTII OtACN,CA.92647 • 08 ---slim--d M ADDRESSING �r rt`, ,o., ._ W-M (4m) ! An L>,ABEL$ 1 �w w ►Ar+� w,M��� NtCNARL �HAMDL.INIt � HUp MOOTN t#EACH,CA.q?6�1 �A MICHAFL I.000ND 6622 CAp�tONR NUNTINOOTN F9ICfi,CA.9P647 WU YANO 4042 CHANCE CIP. IIUMTIN(ZOTN PEACN,CA.92647 1 � 1 - v j 4 i _ �•'- --. ��. �'� (mac{/C_..C,,.,� 1 ace ID LAI-I let t-4 � � C', .41 II 71—mvpFFmcm-W—7. CLERA MWr Rik y OF IPJTIZEN' S PETITION TO THE CITY OF RLNTINOTON BEACH JULY 1996 We the neighbors of Barbara Leonard sign this petition requesting that she be denied license to expand her day care center to 12 children . The location of her place of business at 17242 Argo Circle Is in the center of a res i den t i al ne i 9hborhood which Is icr,•d R-1 and designed for single family residences . The specific concerns addressed by this petition &rot i . Noise from the children which is disruptive to our 'households. 2 . Potential loss of proper t >• values . 3 . Additional traffic in our neighborhood. i -NAME ADDRESS n 17oZ_3 ' ILiz tZi Aff A Zqj Aim dr, 4 i �c v v�n--t _ � 2- • • r 7 ?o? RoA AwAto 124& 4 7 7 x-cr/ Cam id- f z ty f�` C11 1j��Gf 1. 0 9W -e July, 1986 Dear City Council Member . This letter is a request that you help protect the rights of the citizens of Huntington Beach in keeping businesses out of our R- 1 Zoned neighborhoods , A case which is currently under consideration by the council (CUP 86-25 ) , is asking you to allow a daycare facility housing up to 12 children in our neighborhood . I feel that such a facility in a neighborhood which is composed of single family dwellings and is designed to provide peace and quiet to its residents is just a violation of my privacy rights . The City Planning Commission reviewed this cafe and denied it based upon the detrimental effect on property values , unacceptable noise levels , and because the neighborhood was opposed . This same request was denied by the Planning Commission and the City Council last year. There is no real difference between the license request last year and that which is being considered this year . Your staff has recommended approval based upon compliance with legal requirements , however , those requirements do not reflect the wishes of Mrs . Leonard ' s neighbors, the loss of home values , nor the effect of increased traffic and noise . I , • voting citizen in Huntington Beach, request that you think of this as your neighborhood and consider the effect on your house- hold. Please deny Conditional Use Permit 86-25 and protect the Integrity of my neighborhood . Sincerely, i i J July, 1986 Dear City Council Member: This letter is a request that you help protect the rights Of the citizens of Huntington Beach in keeping businesses out of our R-1 Zoned neighborhoods . A case which is currently under eonsideratior, by the council (CUP 86-25 ) , is asking you to allow a daycare facility housing up to 12 children in our neighborhood . T feel that such a facili *y in a neighborhood which is composed of single family dwellings and ig designed to provide peace and quiet to its residents is just a violation of my privacy rights . The City Planning Commission reviewed this case and denied it based upon the detrimental effect on property values , unacceptable noise levels , and because the neighborhood was opposed . This same request was denied by the Planning Commission and the City Council last year . There is no real difference between the license request last year and that which in being considered this year. Your staff has recommended approval based upon compliance j with legal requirements , however , thane requirements do not reflect the wishes of Mrs . Leonard ' s neighbors, the loan of home values , nor the effect of increased traffic and noise. I , a voting citizen in Huntington Beach. request that you think of this as your neighborhood and consider the effect on your house- hold. Please deny Conditional Use Permit 86-25 and protect the integrity of any neighborhood . Sincerely , f � July , 1986 I Dear City Council Hembert This letter is a request that you help protect the rights of the citizens of Huntington Beach in keeping businesses out of our R-1 Zoned neighborhoods . A case which is currently under consideration by the council ( CUP 86-25 ) , is asking you to allow a daycare facil.; ty housing up to 12 children in our neighborhood . I feel that such a facility in a neighborhood which is composed of single family dwellings and is designed to provide peace and quiet to its residents is just a violation of my privacy rights . The City Planning Commission reviewed this case and denied it based upon the detrimental effect or, property values , unacceptable noise levels, and because the neighborhood was opposed . This same request was denied by the Planning Commission and the City Council last year. There is no real difference between the license request last year and that which is being considered this year. Your staff has recommended approval baseA upon compliance with legal requirements , however , those requirements do not reflect the wishes of Mrs . Leonard ' s neighbors , the loss of home values , nor the effect of increased traffic and noise . 1, a voting citizen in Huntington Beach, request that you think of this as your neighborhood and consider the effect on your house- hold . Please deny Conditional Use Permit 86-23 and protect the integrity of my neighborhood. Sincerely , *A 1; I July, 1986 Dear City Council Member: This letter is a rer•rest that yoj help protect the rights of the rAti=ens of Huntington Beach in keeping businesses out of our R-1 Zoned neighborhoods . A case which is currently under consideration by the council (CUP 86•-25) , is aakLag you to allow a daycare facility housing up to 12 children in our neighborhood. I feel that such a facility in a neighborhood which is composed of single family dwellings and is designed to provide peace and quint to its residents is just a violation of ey privacy rights. The City Planning Commission reviewed this case and denied it based upon the detrimental affect on property values , unacceptable noise levels , and because the neighborhood was opposed . This save request was denied by the Planning Commission and the City Council last yeat There iL no real difference between the license request last year and that which is being considered this year . Your staff has recommended approval based upon compliance with legal requirements , however, those requirements do not reflect the wishes of Mrs . Leonard ' s neighbors , the loss of home values , nor the effect of increased traffic and noise . I , a voting citizen in Huntington Beach , request that you think of this as your neighborhood and consider the effect on your house- hold . Please deny Conditional Use Permit 86-25 and protect the integrity of my neighborhood. Sincerely , c fit! Can cap qa 21 pity 'of Huntington R�Tuam SEW a+K T �� W.IE �f2i�t filp FQ�twgplN OF 92647 - 4745 BRAIN I AVA firs �� 6421 ;�CORS - UNTIT BSRCH,CI.92647 I�UfFfi',IEl11 11�ZF 'S �5-13 � • :: y�pp :1 151263N1 07/11/136 RETURN TO SEWER FORNAkD3:14C ORDER ON FILE UHASLE TO FDKAARK) r_^ 7(", Dt .1 ..,. CJ �� CL�•� of f!y�cr ri�r Gr ,Qc fI CVV 1�r REQUE 1 FOR CITY COUNCI ACTION Daft August 4 , 19 8 6 Subm tlad to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subrwt d by: Charles W. Thompson , City Administratorb4 r.,Wo by: James W. Palin, Director , Development Services 1- gub*t, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 66-25 ( APPEAL) - DAY CAI E CENTER APPLICANT: BARBARA LEONARD Cott hunt with Council Policy? (x Yes ( 1 New Policy or Exception ftatavwt o��, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actioma Attachments: BACKGROUND: This item was continued by the City Council on July 21 , 1986 . Additional information was requested from staff regarding the specific requirements of both the State Department of Social Services and the City. LICENSING: The County of Orange requires a large family day care license for in-home day care centers serving 6 to 12 children. Prior to issuing such a license , the County Social Worker checks arrest records , child abuse cases and fingerprints . A tuberculosis test is required . On-site home inspection is clinducted for safety hazards , and the availability o:: materials and supplies . Huntingt•jn Beach Fire Department clearance is required before the license is issued by the County. For large family day care centers , one assistant must be on the premises at all times . The Uniform Building Code, Uniform Housing Code , and Uniform Fire Code do not apply to day care facilities pursuant to action by the State Legislature. The State Fire Marshall is charged with approving each facility for safety requirements such as smoke detectors , fire extinguishers . In addition, the State Fire Marshall requires that all activities of the day care facility be provided on the fiYst floor of the home . There is no requirement with respect to number of bathrooms . The State 's space requirement per child is : 35 square feet indoors and 75 square feet outdoors . However this space requirement pertains only to commercial pre-schools and day care facilities. The State still uses this space requirement as a rule of thumb when calculating space fos residential facilities ; however , each cane is reviewed individually . The City 's space requirement is also 35 square feet indoors and 75 square feet outdoors for any type of day care facility . "0#IM Large day cage facilities may care For seven to twelve children. The figure must include the children which are residents of the home . The following requirements are made on a large care facility : 1 . State Fire Marshall approval . 2 . Obtain the required City nondiscretionary permit . 3. Previous experience is required of the facility operator ( i .e . previous teacher in a pre-school ; several years of business experience in the child care field ) . All day care facilities are required to have a State license . The license is renewed every three years . No annual inspection of the facilities are conducted unless a complaint is received. The State does not have a cap an the density of day care homes per block . This is up to individual. localities to regulate . All day care applicants: must attend aii information and orientation � meeting conducted by the State . [A addition , an extensive background check is completed on each applicant prior to the issuance of a license . Please note that the City Attorney ' s office is preparing a report under separate cover reflecting the legal questions raised by the City Council . ATTACHMENTS: I . Draft Code Amendment prepared for day care provisions . II . Original RCA dated July 21 , 1986 , including following attachments : 1 . 'Research Information' submitted by applicbnt . 2 . Letter of appeal 3 . Vicinity map 4 . Petition/letters in opposition to proposed project ( 5 pages ) 5 . Planning Commission staff report and minutes dated June 17, 1986 , including : a . Site plans and floor plans b . Narrative describing project c . Petition regarding traffic d . Petition in support of Conditional Use Permit No . 86-25 e . Declaration from current day care parents f . Letters in support of Conditional Use Permit No . 86-25 JWP! JA: pb RCA - 8/6/86 -2- ( 5730d ) NRE UES r ' FOR CITY COUNCIPACYI � O Diq July 21 , 1986 SuWltted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subrnittedby: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Pry by: James W. Palin , Director , Development Services .� • Suit: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-25 ( APPEAL) - U Y CARE CENTER - APPLICANT: BARBARA LEONA.RD ConsistsmR with Council Policy? Yee ( New Policy or Exception ISum ment of lewa, Recommendation. Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attsd mMris: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: This request to increase the number of children permitted for day care from 6 to 12 was originally denied by the Manning Commission as Conditional Use Permit No . 85-3 on March 5, 1985, due to neighborhood opposition and concerns for noise , parking and traffic congestion . The City Council upheld the Planning Commission ' s denial on April 11 1985 . The applicant chose to reapply after one ear ' s time had elapsed, as required b code when a request is Y P � 9 Y 9 denied . The applicant has submitted a new conditional use permit (No. 86-25 ) along with several petitions in support of the day care center , stating that no traffic problems are foreseen as a result of the expansion of the day care center to a total of twelve children . Other petitions have beEn submitted in opposition to the project . At the Planning Commission meeting , two people spoke in opposition of the request and two people spoke in oupport . RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission action and recommendation on Jane 17 , 1986 : ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ROWE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-25 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: � AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood, Mtrjahangir NOES : Erskine ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1 . The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach . 2 . The proposal is not consistent with the City ' s General Plan of Land Use. I� 3. Access, parking and number of vehicle tr .ps to the day care will cause undue traffic problems for this neighborhood . 4 . The proposed day care will have a detrimental effect due to noise upon the general welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing in the neighborhood . 5 . Numerous adjacent neighbors testified that a home care facility is not compatible with their Rl neighborhood and that the noise created by a home care facility is detrimental to the enjoyment of their homes . Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No 86- 25 . ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting approval to care for twelve children in her home . At the present time , the County has licensed the applicant for 6 children. Since the site is located close to two major arterials ( south of warner and west of Goldenwest ) making it easily accessible to parents when dropping off their chi�dren, staff did not feel traffic would be a problem. Traffic impacts should also be minimized by the fact that parents come for their children at staggered times throughout the day and that there is space for three cars on the driveway of the residence . A petition signed by 9 of the 13 Argo Circle residents states tha _ they y do not foresee a traffic problem as a result of approval of this project . Section 9331 of the ordinance Code requires that 75 square feet of outside play area be provided for each child ( for a total of 900 square feet ) and that the play area he planted with grass and enclosed with a 6-foot-high fence . There is approximately 1 ,040 square feet of usable landscaped area enclosed with a six foot high block wall . The Code further requires 35 square feet of indoor play area for each child (a total of 420 square feet ) . There is approximately 700 square feet of indoor play area provided for the children . The applicant ' s plan complies with all code requirements . Since the time that the original conditional use permit was denied, the applicant has acted to mitigate noise impacts on surrounding properties . The applicant has replaced a wood fence at the rear of the property with 1 6 foo;- high block wall . The applicant will be required to hire an assistant at the time more than six children are cared for , according to State licensing requirements . With the addition of this assistance , the applicant believes she will be able to supervise the children more closely and therefore be able to control the noise level . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : The proposed project is exempt Class 3 Section 15103 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act . i FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable . RCA - 7/21/86 -2- (5591d) Irt~' 0 L, NATIVs ACTION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No . 36-25 subject to the following findings and conditions of approval : FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1 . The granting of the conditional use permit trill not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach . 2. The proposal is consistent with he City ' s General Plan of Land Ilse . 3 . Access , parking and number of vehicle trips to the day care will not cause undue traffic problems for this neighborhood . 4 . The proposed day care will not have a detrimental effect due to noise upon the general welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing in the neighborhood. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . The applicant shall hire an assistant to be present dur!ng the hours of operation, upon acceptance of the seventh child for day care. 2. The site plan dated May 8, 1986 , shall be the approved layout . 3 . The day care operation shall be limited to a maximum enrollment of twelve children . 4 ,, Prior to operation of the day care operation, the applicant shall obtain approval from Orange County Social Services Department. 5. The applicant shall file with the Department of Development Services a copy of the Orange County license which permits care of twelve children. 6 . The day care facility shall operate no longer than between the hours of 7 : 30 AM and 5 : 30 PM daily . 7 . The applicant shall obtain a business license from the City of Huntington Beach. 8 . The garage shall not be used foe the day care operation . 9 . The Planning Commission reserves the right to review/revoke this conditional use permit a proval in the event of any violations of the terms of this approval, or violation of the applicable zoning laws, or upon evidence that the occupa;jcy is detrimental to the neighborhood; any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant , a public hearing, and shell be based on specific findings . RCA - 7/21/86 -3- t55ald ) t ' �1T''rAC,11�i'�S 1 . Letter of appeal 2 . Vicinity map 3 . Petition:'letters in opposition to proposed project (5 pages ) 4 . Planning Commission staff rQport and minutes dated .Tune 17, 1986, including: a . Site plans and floor plans b. Narrative describing project c . Petition regarding traffic d . Petition in support of Conditional Use Permit No . 86-25 e . Declaration from current day care parents f . Letters in support of Conditional Use Permit No . 86••25 ii�,YWP :JA:k 1 a i ' i RCA - 7/21/86 -4- ( 5591d) d 36 71 � CITY of R %U#411MO104$JACK,V0F. ,4uN V 9 S� �.�► '�5 • 17242 Argo Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92647 June 25, 1986 Mayor and City Council Members Of the City of Huntington Beach '2000 Mein Street Huntington '�each, "California Re : Appeal of Denial of Conditional-Use, ,hermit No------ -- -_ 8 b 2 5 Dear Sirs: Please eoLsider Vile letter as a formal notice of Appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission to deny my application for a conditional use permit t "CUp" ) � to have a large family day care home ( "day care hor4e" ) in m residence . Thin appeal is made on the Y this letter. grounds not forth, {a 1. The Commission 3 snored th Wei vht of Evidence and Testimony The -to - It , I and persons sneaking on my behalf presented the following testimony: ( a ) The Cony INnion' s Staff found that the day care home would not adversely affect noise and traffic conditions and thereby recommended the approval of the CUg. (b) Crist"ta S. Paquirigan, an attorney on behalf Of Public Counsel, e):plained the purpose of the Child,Care Act which encourages the establishment of day care homes and � is codified in Californ.ta Health And Safety Code 1597.30 dag• The act distinqui.shes day care centers from ct&y care homes and explicitly requires day care hawf* to be establidwd j In the home where the care is given. ;�.I t f Page 2 (c) Concerned parents spoke on the neeQ for child day care homes in our community and their desire to have child day care homes located in their neighborhoods. A notber whose child is on my waiting ,list for day Care testified to the difficulties in finding any adequate day care for her son. (d) Mothers who currently use ray services attested to my reliable, effective and safe care of children and the lack of traffic congestion. (e) Neighbors spoke on the leak of significant increase in traffic or noise due to the day cart home. Several neighbors, including those adjacent to my home, testified that noise and trafr" c from my home was not a problem. 1 also submitted a pe ton of neighbors in Argo Circle dated 1986 (Attachment No. which states that the neighbors are not botheredexce a noise or traffic r ��m my home . b y ( e ) A number of speaker: testi fi � to by efforts to minimize noise and traffic: ( i ) I ' ve constructed a costly 6' block wall to buffer the alleged excessive sounds of children playing. ( ii ) I ' ve adopted out a pet dog who alleg- edly barked excessively to further minimize noise. ( iii) I 've scheduled the pick up and drop off times of children on a staggered basis to minimize traffic . I ( iv) I 've not received ANY complaints of excessive noise from ANY neighbors. ( 1 have asked them several times this past year. ) + See attached letters In contrast, the opposition represented a single interest -- that of homeownftrs . Three neighbors pro ented the followin^ testimony: (a) One resident who lives behind me on Taurus Lane alleged that sounds of children invaded hiss privacy, that there was traffic congestion, and that day care, "centers" lower their property values . (My Application to for a large family day care he be, which unlike a "center, " would pemit a I page 3 maximum of only 12 children. This residents' allegations were not supported by the evidence before the Commission. (b) Another residsnt who lives on Taurus Lane and who works rotating shifts testified that he can' t sleep "cause of ALL noises, not necessarily those generated from my dome. In fact, this neighbor lives sufficiently far from my home that it would be virtually impossible for hits to trace the noise which he complains of to my home. (c) Another resident who lives diagonally across the street from me stated that he did not grant a day care "center" with twelve children across the street. Again, this opposition Was not to my day care home itself, but to an day care home. 2 . The Commission Abused its biscretionaM Powers. It was 11: 00 p. m. by the t:inte ray Application carve up for hearing. Most of the Commission, my supporters end I worked all day and sat patiently from 7 :00 p.m. before we were called . Perhaps partly due to the late hour, the Commis- sion seemed inattentive and abused or misused its powers in the following way: ( a) The Commission ignored the report compiled and written by their own staff, which recommended approval of the CUP and ha9' L d made findings Dntrar to the views raised by the y neighbors opposed to my Applic ation. The Commission did not question Staff with regard to any of their findings or their recommendation, which was unusual since the Commissioners questioned staff on ALL items on the agenda preceding my Application. (b) The Commission appeared to single sty case out for discriminatory treatment. As I was at tlia podium, I was abruptly cautioned to be brief. Shortly after I began, the Chairman interrupted my testimony by asking staff if the timer was on. No other applicant or speaker, including those speakers testifying against my request, were requested to be brief. I believe this adversely affected my presentation. (c) The Commission voiced objections to my day care home because it is a "large" business. These r*narks by the Commission ignores two significant points. First, it points out the Commission' s ignorance as to the magnitude of the need for additional child care services, As one neighbor Page 4 testified, "there are very few small children on Taurus Lane, " and the neighbors who opposed the Application are without small children and have other interests adverse to the provision of totality child care. Second, and more significantly, it ignores the avowed purpose of the California Day Child Care Act, which was enacted to encourage the creation of family day Cars homes. The Day Care Act was in reaction to the growing need for child day care facilities due to the increaser in -working parents and expressly because many parents "prefer child day care located in their neighborhoods in family hoes. " Cal . Health & Safety Lode ; 1597 . 30(d) . Thus, the day care hoNe must of necessity be in a residential neighborhood. (d) The Commission failed to weigh the relevant testimony and decided, without factual support, that the legitimate needs of the community as a -,hole veto less isq5or- tant than those of three neighbors , whoso concernet regarding noise and traffic were unvubstantiated Find certainly highly controverted by other testimony and the Staff findings. (e) Tt:e Commission ' s constant denial of requests for increased day care capability has a chilling effect an day care in the City of Huntington Beach and is tantamount to a creating an "adult only" community. In addition to the above points, Y wish to point out that there was NO negotiating or compromising this issue at the hearing. 1 am open to compromise for all of our mikes, including a reduction in the maximum permissible riumber of children in my day care home. Please make every effort to schedule this appeal early on your agenda and to carefully consider the points I ' ve raised in connection with this appeal . Sincerely, Barbara Leonard ' BL;CSP: rain I 1 -y�Rp[R AY[ yy I R1 Mt C4 ' 1 RI i R! �..... ill RI 111 1 R t -R I RI RI Rt I! NI RI M I—M H P M I Ili 1 oil lifer Cr-E - • Rf Rt MI t• f R Rf Rt Rf nl fit w1 t F11 CF'C Its mi pill i RI R i Rt R 1 �iRt Rtt -! ! f4h co Rt-A Rf Rf, �+*r ii. - 111 -- --�-J R.� t IN-CD RI in L- 4. � i � � IIt Rt F- - A—C ----....-., _.. .__ . �-�-CF—E as $.-%A .ram.•w.-. VV' A. QI RI Rf 1> � r _ CF-R C 11 P06� S [JOB HUWP#GTCN REACH FLANNIM DIVISION L L • F(.W SE &w. ,YE )v f ;.;t SEC 5 S. q/I w C8 tOf• • j ~ C 0 h � • too- 1 CAVS= CAVCLF �i = r 2 J .w..r' f N M • .+ If l!^. v -1 -• .ti J1 • r !!_. •- 1) �• r •f I 132 1 '17• `�Jj}1 //� . .v 43 07 t 3.i �- . _ • n)rAAY 24) w •r w� so •• - I � JI 11raw � •. •• t 7.. �• -... ~� �, -LK V ?CwtnSTOJ19E = = OfiPE - - 00 Z AV 35 05 .. ... A Iwo ' FR S 07 � �Ar711 Il61J NOSE-ASS[SSM S $10" i •SSISUM'S MAP AMWM WS rM AV 7530 w A/ Z?v—2�.16.21 PAAC-L MAIN" DOW 05 PA1S 13 7W AD )7" Af N 2 .22.2J SHOWN Im Ci1"s COWryr O► OQANGI -w r 5 A) COM) fie► Ao st4"I A Cw630 PERMITTED LISTS . 'The 4011owing list inciCir udea uses that possr- ;u characteristics of such unique and special form as to make impractical their automatic inclusion as a permitted use in any district . The location and operation of such uses shall be subject to approval of 9 conditional use permit by the Planning Commission and any Additional provisions included herein . 'uses marked with an aate: isi shall not oe permitted in any residential district . a . ''airports and heliports Churches Colleges , private schools , elementary and secondary public schools ( Minimum 10% of parking area shall, be landscaped for the above uses . ) *Consractor ' s storage yards pursuant- to Section 9631 'Convalescent hospitals and sanitoriums *Commercial recreation and amusement enterprises , including bowling allays and skating rinks ..��- D. Day care centers for more than six children subject to the following provisions ; ( 1 ) Seventy-five ( 75 ) square feet of outdoor play area shall be required for each child; provided further that in no circumstances shall the total outdoor play area be less than five hundred ( 500 ) square feet . Such play area shall be planted with grass and enclosed by a six ( 6 ) foot high masonry wall . Any gate leading to such play area shall be securely fastened , or such play area Shall be supervised at all times . ( 2 ) Minimum 101 of parking area shall be landscaped where applicable . ( 3 ) The total enrollment for the large day care center shall be establishe-i by the Planning Commission and shall include the applicant ' s own children udder the age of 12 years . ( 4 ) Thirty-five ( 35 ) square feet of play area shall be provided within the building for each child . ( 5 ) Fire Department clearance shall be obtained prior to the operation of the day care center . A (6 ) Hours of operation shall be established by the Planning Commission . (7) The applicant shall submit a copy of the Ocango County social Secvicef License Mor to the operation of the day ears facil + 7 ( 8 ) The applicant shall obtain a busineaa license prior to the operation: of the day care facility . ( 9 ) In addition to the two required fully enclosed parking spaces , a minimum of two on-site parking spaces shall be provided for day care centers located within a residential zone. Day Care Centers located within a commercial zone shall provide one and one-half ( 1-1/2 ) spaces per classroom. ( 1n ) Garages shall not be user► in conjunction with the day care operation, with the exception of parking vehicles . ( 11 ) Loading and unloading of children from vehicles Within a residential district shall only be permitted on the driveway, approved parking area or directly in front of the facility . All loading and unloading of children within a commercial district shall only bp� permitted from approved parking areas . -{ 12 ) Children attending the day care facility shall be restricted to the first floor and designated play areas only, unless supervised by an adult . ( 13 ) The Day Care Facility shall comply with all applicable requirements of Chapter 8 . 40 , noise control of the Municipal Code . ( 14 ) The approving body ( City Council , planning Commission or Board of Zoning Adjustments reserves the right to revoke the approval of a day care facility if a violation of the conditions of approval occurs . All revocation proceedings shall be preceded by a public hearing . ( 15 ) Approvals for day care facilities within the Rl , Single Family Residential District , are non-transferable and shall bq own"r occupied. - I/Ne neighbort, are rrWt in opposition and feel Barbara Leonard d be issued a Conti tional Use Permit from. the City of Huntington -Zeach to allow her to take in additional day care children. I forsee no traffic roblemp as the parents are eery cautious in their driv it i s rare to see more than one car in front of her home at a time . They ' are here a very brief time then gone. Day Care Humes do not decrease property values nor do they %:reate excessive noise . Z I&L - . ;L w I loci MAIF No z. -blot 1.9 6921 C it �r it:.' :/ f• �-._ i S Tuc A vi PI ��' ► � 2 r � • y T .� . `� �+(7 T� Y�rJF^••^'- G!�� r�.��.. ,ram----�r�.�.�i��..r.���..�.....i Ck zu _ w � i i w lei r 1 . 1986 i/.Ie neighbors are Not in opposition and feel Barbara Leonard ohould be issued a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Huntington Beach to do child day care in her horse. I forsee no traffic problems as the parents are very cautious in tt;eir driving and it is rare to see more than one car in front of her house at a time . They are hers a very brief time then gone. A` i / .!,:.�4�t �• 99 1-0 .... \4 V V ii *see below /�+ = uvl ['l w-c c1 f� '�4 ......� �S et .w ' .. ' • > ly. A V/ Lv V' n �A� .�' • ►+ ,•�,. �� nr�+:•. vnluea nor do thev create excessive noi!!� Ap The •City of Huntington Beach ( City ) requires me as the applicant of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) , for a large Family day care home (LFDCH) , to furnish , at my expense the required varience report (maps k address P O O lables) so the City can mail the Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners within a 300 ft. radius of the exterior boundaries of my hcme. Since the City requires the public notices be Rent to all ;property owners within the 300 ft. radius, it would seem that all those property owner' s voices should be heard as it Is their neighborhood e uual1Y. It is thAir right as a property owner, to say to the City that a (LFDCH) will not create a loss in property values, excessive traffic or noise . It seems unlikely that the City would require the applicant to bear the added expense in having the varience report to cover the 300 ft. radius if the City dosen' t hear their voices as being a property owner in the neighborhood. I I I/,'Ie neighbors are *Not in opposition and feel Barbara Lennard should be issued a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Huntington Beach to do child day care in her hone. I forsee no traffic problems as the parents are very cn.utious in their driving and it is rare to see more than one car in front of her house at a time . They are here a very brief Ome then gone . 1 ' `� c C,V ! Z' A!25a - �...� ' ' . elf k)S q F, V i i / 114 A r_ l,.f_ �•�i��.f.�. ��.�• •j4 -• i � \ � N• 1.a`' )_6f,1 17 t,," I IV=7) (. ,v lqe r y ed 9,x /4c��r r�n �.•_ -ram. �� Iy/� 11 ` . .� �. ,�„ �'. . ,.r ,.,.,.. .•. ,M •. �].�. :_ �:cr �!c1 Lh.:' crea tc b. ce�;:�ii�e no 19Q� I le neichbors are not in opposition and feel 3arbara 1jeonard should to issued a Contitional Use Permit from the City o; Hunting-= Beach to allow her to take in additional day care children. I forsee no traffic Problems as the parents are ver;; cautious in their drivT'n,3 and it .is rare to see more than one car in front of her hone at a tim. e . They are here a very brief time then gone. Day Cure Homes do not decrease proaert•, values nor do they create excessive noise,. A7 w -V- u 'Ann 4- LvTY` / 1 Ov \ � ���r�.�. Year �..�.•�I.Y .if��'j • r ON `� -----I �-I-+-�. ter. L�►r: �..�... .� •.0 ;T..:,� 01 . � l f r i . N DRlV£' Wh,TLr IN w / 5 (ems h CANS Y C/RCL C 1 of � • 00 14?4' • 14i7'� Ad � l7 -- � :� •+ 2 56 M RICANA DRI V£ �+ g e4) y is • r C LP lob oi 14 Sit, 1 S. ��ri To`' "� •r z 1)RI VE n all Cl 3) OZZf • • ti No. �o .� h - 13 a w 1^ t El �s Jr c� / Ld K ► •' 3 F 7 0 l�l0 ZC tv a„ O 1 '• t 1 lh ---•• V t v P ' On the attached p ition in o z ositiorn there are 12 valid signatures of wh1 ch i .2 of these homes, both husband and wife wore . . . Traffic h Noise N/A 2 of these homes are located between a. grade school and the applicant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Traffic & Noise N/A I. of these homes have allowed their children ( since they were toddlers , to date ) to play unsu ervined in our public ;street Traffic & Noise N/A Supervision k Street Safety Is Keep in mind the residence on Taurus Ln who may be home during day time hours are subject to traffic and noise generated by Ocean View High School and Win•tersberg School . dry day care children, infants through 4 years, can hardly generate any competition to this condition . How many valid signatures are left on the at, petition? wr,,, •. _ sw"wew I vn PM474 DENT Son= CITIZENS T I T I ON TO THE C I TY OF HL0.11 NOTM) BEAW / •� JIVE 1996 PA ON 190 NunUMIM snag, G We , the neighbors of Barbara Leonard sign this peA i t ion request i no that she be denied license to expand her day care centRr to 12 children . The location of her place of business at 17242 Argo Circle Is In the center of a residential neighborhood which is zoned R-1 and designed for single family residences . The specific concerns which we object to are : 1 . Noise from the children which Is disruptive to our households. i 2. Additional traffic in a cul de sac with limited parking space . 3 . Potential loss of property values . WE ADDRESS BO'i.t-i '4ORK , r40Isi'. 2c TRAFFIC N/A LZ z. ' Z- ��- f.: �_.t ��C�R.: , �r L . ;.osr idQ I5 �► :IC N/A 2- !00, , t;C' :4: ,��OILK , ". :5�: : i Z.�.:•F�E: r./A r, , Jr ` '• - ' �.�..-.; I�. �;:, . 1Ir isE r � y .f/a 1 f , ,/} N/A ARt I (} I � 3Qu t�'I' . . 1J TUs L ��h �...= _ _ • tZ/A AR i.'OT Ii, 300 f'_ . RA:)IUs C,��` i?�; :: :1G:�i; , I';C rs 3��FFIC N/A ' , r n ti f . ... . -,.• �::a� D,.'�.":.J EAS ;�T ef •iC21.. , N.. : Letter of June 14 1986 s by n.r. and .rs. t-,urray and Mr. and ?4rn. K cCl intock 1. f Noise a. Each of these fa-mi 1 ie s have two children and these Children have friend:. b. When all of those children are together, unattended , they do create a much b_;L„her noise level, than ray day care children as some of these children are older, school age:. 2. 4'►traffic a. Two of these children have been playing in our public streets unattended , since they were toddlers, other neighbors as well as myself have seen this happen on a regular basis. -A sLE P110701 b . A public street .i:. not a playground . There are yards to play in as Yrell as several parks close by. c . Parents of the neighborhood children should be instructing their children on street safety and not give them thr. false secur•itti► of a cul de sac . d. Anew petition si�,ned t �► our neighbors stating no tral'1'a.0 proalem. 3.;°Dqclininr property value . a. This is speculation , not a proven fdact. b. Large Family Da-, 'arc Homes t';at tire part of ty-c: neir;hborhood care just as much as dp o thvr residents a;;va t keepint; the. ne:.e.::horhood a . * ••�ctive . c . Often the day care ho-ne is the best kep',. I-o^:e on the block because the woman who lives there is at home all day and takes special pride in her home; appearance . d . Since most mothers work , da;.• care is After seen by hnmebuyers as an asset to a neighborhood. it may even raise property values. e. A Candi tional Use Fermi t for a Large Family Jay Care cio:re ;s a conforming use in a residon ti:i1 Lone. 4 . a0 Small home. a. Staff report sho,as : 1 . Cutdoor pla% area Required : 900 sq . ft. Fro videri : 1040 so . Alt. 2. indoor pla ,• area Retitilred : 420 s, ft. ro,21ded : •�90 cc rt. a. Staf f has n, nde a C:t-::i h t _t:;7e^ Lion of home. Rebuttal by► Zarbara Leonard KWN LO'Mai1' 9ENO JUN Rear Planning Comissioner: P.O. 9a 190 HunUnrton 16ad. CA 9M We oppose granting a ConditbW: Use Permit at 17242 Argo Circle because of noise, traffic and declining property value. The Dire factor is disruptive with the existing six Children and the lwe noise is the same whether they are in the enclosed patio playroom or in the backyard. The main reason we pure d Names on a cue de sac vas because there is usually little or no raff.i on a cul de sac. However, if a permit is granted there would be ore cars coming down our street twice a day for a total of twenty-fou., car trips daily-generated from this one residence alone. Ile a4cco=)perty ncerned that a large family day care facility would hinder ouralue Wye would not have purchased our homes eight and fifteen rears ere been a large day care facility in operation at that time. We fe r street does not lend itself to a large fanny day care center. The Comes are aural especially a single level such as the one in question. nk a large business of any kind is inappropriate in a low density residential area such as this. We would very much like to keep our street of single family Barnes strictly residential. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Jeff Murray Mr. and Mrs. Ray McClintock 'i � rFv�T�.Z - ' il..h IM• =•L��+1 t. � J f.. ,r'�+,1;, r', !''`ld�•y , All {.��:C i:? t)1 C'►.Ll r e:i �' - « .�.�.�r• •• '• '�Y.+,7iJ jii.•}•�� ,.•� ,,• show Vem ne i rlib r L child or, I the one 0111 .�• ► :'� the is 2 yrs. and ;,he one on the ':; • -'•• ' • t- _ , bike is 6 yrs. old . ho 6h of these children have been allowed to +� p1aC. -, n t1,e Stree unvn ,�-.ended sinct- imp they .oth were tudciel - - rill t�cw: sre�rrd ••, • `` _i; • ;Z� •r r n.nren: .are ear . u fi y �' ~' g, ` O• ._ .. . . . C . 1 i'';. '- ;�.� ••' :rr:7•+raw , .ii'^'..{YZ` t w ,` • 1, 1i T:�f';..• .C/ l �� �: .-.r, tho.•t. �••t ,�Ii; .. �r�• ^; jyi.1 Lh �..,�• +;. ��.t,f; ��.fy.{]� � •t•) t'.� �•y� '�1 � �•,\t: ;,,r /+j1Yx..n�•.r`i..h� !� ;"�L� �� ' +��'�. ���� i�•' a_ �• ♦♦ �._.._ ..�•-.. .� ♦yam'+''• ��'��r'k.h.. .1r!•4r .�w H CI1 C, • _:ii♦. ♦'J l:..r � 1�4 `. �If•�i. n ' -`1•� • .. � � ..:•• a♦.S'.r'�»• '1 C1�L�•■• •r •t,•• 1 J. soft- C.I r %P-" '..��+i+r� �.• +•-,'• J'�V ^�,I.,_� ••-:•fi !.rj.(�/...fl'.�•. •` • • 1� ..� _ •. .�• �• ��+,,,�.+� �l•>>+><�} -w r;�.y .:- • , ice:•.• •. �. - ^'• ..-. �r , C,l E.� ��r) ♦ T�� ::�'. •t•1,�.!. .• .r . • �,• p 'I-1 �y.ar�Y�"r •t ...l:.Jw`IS`�:�1• ■�! 1.���•r• � ~y •'..{•'• .• 1 .rn 1i••'-' �•a••'u A�/• �•`�1.�•�•�-w•�•�•I",.i•�•N,1'a,'.~'•i'•.'.�j. .. 1..t■• ��. i L�' :..:,'.' l R•rl, ..�1}i..1••1....• iLaK e"""`:��: OA • ,,'.,.•: Sri ,• . .. �'.�+ � �.q,,•'�'�"` ♦._^1 •t',.yi rat• :." ,r '.:.�4 ;;' .'r;�, I tom••' � �,� ♦ ._ �, .�/i•1+ .:.,.J%!!"�.. '• �'�� :wit �' . t '}� . 1 ,.� .•�.►•- �•�?b���f•�t7:�y- Y��`.i F �~tr�j• .��..i�"L l~Ir ry Ny,• �{ ~T Aho r, .1 •���If�•.�^�•�_'_±. : •. ,�'M r'j`�,.}�•�• try •./�' rue t4. r 16 Af 14 1 .��� �.. - 1.••. •+,i1r ♦ ar.. `1��4•vf- � � .� �/•w.>J(�•�A, ... _. + a1�i . .7 .. .1.�,�i 1�1r`I r' ,'i,•1`. � •!'.1�!•' !iR�a 1 1�� Od %•'••" •- ��' v w..a.' '• �•'T[' .�:......L-. oaf+'ram Z i,•�.�..r�.t.71�_��� • 1 �•�� t} �,;,.:..•.' '1• ~..Jt'►+•' _^�I�•`.C���'��•C.1+1•.'•.::.!!Z•��}7•i�•� `Lr r , �... : .. ••; ` - .,{• t• ,fir/.. ., ,�� •.. , •'��•• L'.;•- �:+. •.r h-.'••'„e+l..•::��M� - ram:. �. ,.♦+�,. ,•'� �L- 2•. {, . fir', 1`'`+ '•��t- ! ; �W mp � ♦ •'fir, : �.1•; 1. .... � �, "�,• t`11 a'll� :'�J ,.., - ' r�.:: . ems' . �..a..w�•-�--�ti.� j V :jt lc r 1: i d RZ# Dowyer letter of June 16 , 1966 I . Three home business 7 a* I'm not aware of the other two businesses and P.m home ' all day, every week day. be " If" there are two others, are they licensed through the City ? If so , then it seems as thoue)i I 'm being discriminated against. j 2. a. My day care children arc infants through four years of age, { b. My day care children create J 2.8n noise than unattended neighborhmW children , C . My day care children ' s activities are scheduled and controlled so they ap Mat create problem.: for neighbOL'S . f � protests rotest_� i'rom the neighbor: � Re .eated ai . I ' ve had no, protests from any neighbors except those of firs . Brusewitz , who claims she hears "childrens voices" . �d �► 4 . A safe play environment for our children. 0060 a . I ' ve watched neighborhood children frotn toddler sine playing, unsupervised in our public str•-et. 'Thin is concidered ne�ct on the part of their parents . b . A public street is not a Plan p-round . 'There are yards to play in Lis well as several parks c1.o3o by. c . Parent► of the neii hborhood children should instruct their children on street safety and not give theta the f lse security of a cul de sac . * :.'rs. Leonard submitted petitions _from _last year and is tryfnE _to -present them an now . a . This; lattached ) petition wa.; submitted for evaluation. b . The pe:i Lion is clt:�rly dated Ynrch 1935, twent____.hree ti:. stAArAuh sil c . There wan no inten ': to reprer(r:; t it as a new petition . 6 . Both ?:r 3 '.:rs Bowyer hold out^ job.: , they are not home all the tim. e , ever;; wee} -day. :t seems odd that they are having a daily problem copping with our street in geh-eral . +� A new petition signed by our nei j tbors stating no traffic problem. Rebuttal by r Mrbara Leonard r . . • . +' F��I.�Fir.• • • .. � OM KACH r KUM 6-15-" hum I Y Mr. and Mrs. Jack Bowy r 17221 Argo Circle Dear Sim P.O. lac 190 Huntington beach, CA 92647 1""I aq Beech, G192648 We are writing this letter in opposition to a }petition filed by Mrs. Barbara Leonard, who resides at 17242 Argo Circle, to open a day care oeetor to 12 children. - Ve object to this petition on the grounds that existing conditions is the neighborhood are such that adding additional day care children, whither It be in two shirts or a one day shift basis, would cause intolerable stress to an already overstressed situation. At present we have C.home businesses operatinjoon our street, one of which belondsto Mrs. onar . er a at another address and ' bring S to 10 additional vehicles to our street each day as well as several trips by UPS delivery trucks and occasionally a semi-truck and trailer. In addition to this traffic we have the usual Losident traffic • and Mrs. Leonard' s day care traffic. There are only 13 homes on our street with approximately 28 resident owned vehicles. There are 19 small children and teenagers living here, not including the day care children. We are also blessed with a practicing rock and roll band and 12 to15_ V• of the usual dogs and cats that populate a neighborhood, all adding to e noise and confusion. '�- We are not doubting that Mrs. Leonard's heart is in the right pla.:e as she assured us last year she was not doing this for the money but rather her love of children. We do feel, however, that she has ignored , repeated protests from the neighbors to increase the number of children in er ome, ask ng to extend ourselves even further by allowing more traffic through the cul do sac each day. When we purchased our home 15 venrs apq, we pr.id more money for the advantage of living on a quiet cul de sac. he now feel that with increased traffic: from these businesses and an increase in Mrs. Leonard' s business that our gp4wrty values are in jeopardy, our peace and quiet is threatened and safe play environment for ot-; children is lost. We also feel that it is an insult and a burden to have to pursue this battle \I+� i. each near with new letters and more trims to the Council Hectings. ire have no Intention ofchanging our stand on this is4ue and would like to see the • period of time ftr ,repetitioning on the part of Mrs. Leonard extending several years rather each year as it is now. The constant letter writingp threats and petitions on the part of Mrs. Leonard are annoying. t has also come to our at that Mrs. Leonard has submitted to the /camail titions that ayr o ies from last yea and is trying to••p"sent than at peptitions. Many a t e pool+ e o signed her petition last year be huger live in this neighborhood. ^rati, �iACitl�lr� #rid we J"k ft"J, r� T ,''Y xa FAVOR OF 9A�1 CHARD' S CHILD DAY CoHONE Wee the undersigned , as neljhbors and parents of children who are in need of a licensed yay Care Home, do support- Barbara Leonard in her care of toddlers and infants . 'pie ask the appropriate legislative body of the "City Counsel" to approve her Conditional' Use Permit. l I 2 . 4L dkk 11LOA r.ra...y..l. CeLGOP A see 10 12 1�52- 12 . $ 20- r -- - ZK- �0,r - , - l i 21 3 � �,��► car � •. / L' I 2i — 3" s..: : Regain letter dated Jl1 n-e 15, 19" I ] . Not allowing conditional use per..mits-neighborhood disease. a. Are the "Center" photos submitted zoned Rl ? Are they in the the City E of Huntington 'Beach? Exactly where are they located? 2. &ide in our homes . a. Large family day care homes that are part of the neighborhood care just as much as do other residents about keeping the neigh. borhood attractive . 3. Zoning and deteriotion of property values. a. Conditional Use Permits for a lame fani.ly day care home Ll a conforming use in a residential axone . b. Loss of property value; is pure speculation, not a proven fact . c. Often day care provided in a neighborhood is seen by homebuyers as an asset to a neighborhood # .ns most: mothers work outside the home. 4. Ph-- otoeraphs of da t care centers iric•ludinr- the existing one in our neighborhood . a . The photos submitted , cx.ccpt :'or the one in our neighborhood, are just that , cc•; ter , . :lhe�, are no-. I,nrUe Fa...il;;• Day Care N,o^:e :n our city !l thoa�;i-: pr.c_�i a doh.' t re,.,Ll : xe it, child care programs come in two for.ms --fa.mily clay care homes and child care ce Aers . 'then people hear tree torn child cage , most of ten they im.n.ediately th:nn% of a large center. b. Centers are usuall,, 20 or more children and are located in buildinr,,s desi�-ned as child care institutions . Family day care homes are l e rn1 l" r•enii i rr.d to be located in homes where the provider liver . :'.ve?ve is the raximun capacity for family da�r care hom'::. c . The p oto o." the dqy care ha:ne ir. our neighborhood shows the addition has 'teen done by a professional. It is nice I ore._gin;, :fiiich will. ,i.^.cr4ase prorerty value- in the nei.hborhood. K A yetitio' ( ` r '" • i t--2r1 ) si -41-nd .• rei -hborin- residents .� to �u _.:t � ,. ., V Robe t tat by a P„ NUNTiNGTON KACN DEVELOPMENT WWM June 15 , 1986 JUN 16 rAi P.D. 1" 190 Nuntifiilan %tick to $519 Planning Commission Huntington Beach Civic Center 1000 Maim Street Huntington Beach , California Subject : .-Conditional Use- Permit No 86 -25= Commission Members : Conditional use permits do break down the integrity of single family residential neighborhoods . One conditional use permit is used as justification for i second or third conditional use permit and Etas been used for this purpose in this case . Several conditional use permits are used as justification for variances and both are used as justification for spot zoning changes . My point is that the best way to maintain the integrity of the single family residential neighborhood in this community or any other community is by not alloi:ing conditional use permits in an established neighborhood . The system becomes a progressive etgh or oo disease . This is a good neighborhood in which the owners take pride in I their homes and are improving; and up -grading them on a tontine basis . As a home owner in this community I expect t zoning Set by the city to be tip -held and prevent the eteriation of �ro�e_rt�• values . I am enclosing some photo ra h� d;s�•- c-are including e xisti a 'n our r�ei hborhood Isis home has an ad ition with a secondary entr%• marked) which can be easily Converted to a second living unit . Of course , legally this would have to be de►ae with city approval but with exterior work completed (with permit ) the interior could be Changed without anyones knowledge . Sincerely , Jadr s 1i . to 17251 Argo Circle Huntington gleach , California 921647 i, � • • � � �rrvrvxae� � ,yMFr� .rM.._ _ .. IL '•gin M41 'J:•' • WitIPP ViDioowt sift AL ��� ��a��� Iry A� cx S�o TD / e ! LW,•jAStr F,9r tc1 Zo V �r�,t.r• nt�,' u, lg8s (�v�t Ki�vG � or•�� ,vt�� ��� Q QO f ryo C#i4j J)4 y c4 A& . 410e A& wtia a Cowl t�ar� t:s Fait. �M ►��r7.r 4.0,r t r �r To /7-2 ',mil Al#'Go C—T' No Nolte AT li44- /k Nt•2. No/+�+E, .TF e A,-r,k 7 ..cif• �� �1 -- ••r•— � r o' •��� — �— 'a � �� •iM_1 .'•'w.�� �r�,� i n•A�mum a ►,� r� - ---- iNUIM i1i1 In� Ilionloll I I'l I' � meu INN all � " :�::-�tu • i �: IT MAIN BMET CALIRMONAI" CWFKX CO TM aft CLINK August 18, 1966 Barbara Leonard 17242 Argo Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92647 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at the regular meeting held August 4. 1986, deferred the decision on your appeal of Conditional Use Penmit 86-25 to the regular meeting to be held on October 6, 1986, at 7: 30 P.M. Enclosed are the minutes of the meeting for your information. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMYL:b t Enclosure ' 41 410 City comci1 City of Nantington beach , California July 25 , 1986 Re : Agenda item D- 2a City Council meeting July 21 , 1986 Mayor and Council Members : ! 1 would like to briefly recap by objections to the proposed day care center by Barbara Leonard. 1 . Existing dwelling floor area 1 , 704 Sq . Ft . 2 . U . B. C. min . requirement (table 33A.) 300 Sq . Ft - 3 . 12 children and 2 adults 122 Sq . Ft . 4 . Considering husband and daughter in addition 107 Sq . Ft . S . Both 3 and 4 are less that, min . requirement for apartment huildiii-s and hotels 200 Sq . Ft . 6 . Both 3 and 4 are approaching min . requirement for an office building 100 Sq . Ft . A dwelling converted to day care should not be allowed in a "Low Density Residential Zone" . I do not believe it is the intent of "conditional use permits" to convert dwellings to commercial use , but rather a tool to allow the inclusion of day care centers , schools , churches , etc . in residential tones j during the planning stage when they can be placed in proper locations . In addition I would like to state there are other U. B . C . code violations : 1 . Two fire exits are required for the number of cooupants . The sliding glass door from living area .and the garage door do not quality. : . The fire separation wall between a dwelling and garage does not meet requirements for day care separation . These items may seem like small things , however , they and the sq . ft . Joccupant requirements are all dealing with life/safety . It ' s hard to believe 2 adults under panic conditions can safely remove 12 infants and todlers from a burning structure . It ' s just as hard for one adult to remove 6 under the same conditions . Which brings up the question of liability . Liability insurance for day cage centers runs from very expensive to non-existant . Would the City of Huntington Reach be assuming the liability by gproring this application . In case of death of injury to one of test children the parents will be locking for someone to par. Ttere seows to W a need for day care centers @ However, "any :art In a store" is not the answer. There are o irotorr$ of y care facilities that provide these services ry locatin is she"ing centers . These are not storefront operations . Tie � 0 orators buy separate pads and build facilities which meet all code requirements. If you think about i t , this is a. good conviont location for all . I realize the city can not require the inclusion of day care conters , however , it can encourage developers to plan for and approach these operators . Many shopping centers are bring built and there are empty pads available. a Thank you for consideration of by views sGl�G�7 j Reagz 251 Argo Circle Huntington Beach , California 92647 IAv Id SMW O 17221 Taurus Tian HuntinSton Beache CA 92647 July 21 , 1986 /y_ 1 Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Deach, California Re : Conditional Use Permit No. 86-25-Appeal Locations 1724�2 Argo Circle - R1 IrW�.Y Since I am recovering from major surgery, I am unable to attend this hearing today. However, my position on tonight 's proposal has not changed. I am still categorically o oeed to the applicant 's request to operate a 15rge ramiiy day care nome or up to 12 children k in an existing family home . This is a residential neighborhood not a business area, and we have the right to a reasonably peaceful environment. With 12 small children in one residence there is bound to be a lot of noise . I am working often at night , since I have a rotating work shift. Therefore , it is often necessary that I sleep during the day. I cannot afford to be kept awake by a lot of noise . Might now, however, I will need peace and quiet more than ever# since I have a long recovery ahead of me from major surgery. My farnily and I Have been living here since 1971 . we chose to live here because wo wanted to live in a friendly, nice , and quiet neighborhood . It has been that up to now. A chiA care facility for up to 12 children is a noise business , and as such should be operated in an area zoned for business. Let me ask you , Members of the City Council , would you like to have a day care center of up to 12 small :hildren near your back yard? r Sincerely . David Sandoz, Woo, 2 Now CITt SOM Pert Tt av T4 Ti1 CITY Cr 1411AMOMM-WAV ! '/ Ift A14 I"i PA. � � Meg the neighbors of •arbara Leonard sign this pert i p reques i that she to denied license to expand her day care center to i2 children . The location of her place of business at 17242 Ar90 Circle is in the center Of a residential neighborhood which is zoned R-I and designed for single fawiily residences . The specific concerns which we object to &rat i . Noise from the chi 1 dr%en which is disruptive to our households. 2. Additional traffic in s cul de sac with 1 imi ted parking space . 3. Potential loss of property values . zLa . ♦ i ,7 4 i r �-� ? ?2 ? Aos a 7- 2 Acft2 ,�,4 !)Z,60re �ar13 a+fazA No - Sit 6aft f 0 CI T 1 x04 il'!TI T t O1 TO TW C i TY OF NUW INWCN 81110I JUMI 1 V Wee the ne i ghbor a of OarW& Leonard sign this ►s t i t i an Pe4sest 189 that she be Coaled 11 ceAae to expand her day care, icon ter to 12 ch i l drift. i The location of her p i ext of business at 17242 Argo Circle is in the center of a residential neightwhood which is zoned 0-1 and designed for single 4solly residences. The specific concerns which we ebJect to argil 1 . Noise from the children which Is disruptive to our households. 3 . Addi tioral traffic in a cut de sac with limited parking •pate . 3. Potential loss of proptrty values. Nam ARRUSS V%fr L ILI :��a 7 1 , 'r• i i r I" I Tom � N111111111111111111100 I"CA i,. •' We oppose gsaatlnd a GoMlit1maL usd ferrit at 17242 Arpr Cirale brows• of poise, traffic and declining property value* The wise factor is disruptive with the existing six children and the Intl of noise is the same whether they are in the enclosed patio playro�aw or in the backyard. � .., The main reason we purchased homes on a cul de sac was because there to usually little of no traffic on a cul do sac. However, if a permit is granted there would be six more cars costing d: -n our street twice a day for a total of twenty-four car trips daily-g,snerated from this one residence alone. We are also concerned that a large family day care facility would hinder our property value. We would not have purchasrdrour home eight and fifteen years ago had there been a large day cart facility in operation at that time. We feel our street does not land itself to a large family day care Center. The homes are small, especially a single level such as the one in question. We think a large business of any kind is inappropriate in a low density residential area such as this. We would very much like to keep our street of single family, homes strictly residential. 5incerelys Mr. and Mrs. Jeff Murray �Wrt' Mr. and Mrs. Ray McClintock s 0, 9 I 00 "Nor.,l.*' All ' *x rrobMR: I"lass •-�,ref .4 �• a.. 08 ate oeltisig iAtii ette� is opposition 'te a petition flied e - wbo resides at 17242 Argo Circle, to *pea a "Y C"M Om UT to 12 ch11drea6 ire object to this petition an the grounds that existing conditions In the neighborhood are such that adding additional day cage children, whetber it be in two shifts or a one day shift basis, would cause intolerable stress to an already overstressed situation. �r At present we have 3 home businesses operating on our street, one of which belw4stc !Mrs. Leotard. The other Z are at another address and briar 9 to iC additional vehicles to our street each day as well as several trips by LIPS delivery trucks and occasionally a semi—truck and trailer* in addition to this traffic we have the usual resident traffic and Hrs. Leonard's day care traffic. There are only 13 homes on our street with approximately 28 resident owned vehicles. There are 19 small children and teenagers living here, not including the day Care children. We are also blessed with a practicing rock and roll band and 12 to lg of the usual dogs an4 cats that populate a neighborhood, all adding to the noise and confusion. We are not doubting that Mrs. Leonard's heart is in the right place as she assured us last year she was not doing this for the money but rather for her love of children. We do feel, however, that she has ignored repeated protests from the neighbors to increase the number of children in her home, asking to extend ourselves even further by allowing more traffic through the cul de axe each days When we gurchased our home 15 ears a o we paid more money for the advantage 0 living on a quiet col de sac. We now feel that with increased traffic frost these businesses and an increase in Mrs. Leooard's business that our pro"rty values are in jeopardy, our peace and quiet is threatened and a safe play environment for our children is lost. 11 also feet that it is an insult and a burden to have to Dursue this battle ea h ear with new letters and more trigs to the Council 14"tiftax.. e w no intention of changing our stand on th s ssue and would like to see the g2riod of tiM for r2aetitioniug on the part of Mrs* Leonard exttadim to several rears rather each year " it is now. The constant letter wr t threats and petitions on the part of Mrs. Leonard are knnoyiago 1 It has also caste to our attentis that Mrs. Leonard has susubmitted to the Council petitions that are to lee frasi ast ear and is trlr�uu�}m►�-gars at tb= as n&k. pet tiaras. Mioy the people signs! bar petering last nor no langrr live in this aeighbarhood. 8imrcerell►, . . Mt+ N d Mrs. Jack bkwirr WAM .dune l� , ibDb .I 6 96 r.aso i� 00 Planning Commission Huntington beach Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington beach , California Subject : sCe►gi. wJkVsw ftM'CJ16L dcf2V Commission Members : Conditional use permits do break down the integrity of single family residential neighbo7rhoods $ One conditional use permit is used as justification for a second or third conditional use permit and has been used for this purpose in this case . Several conditional use permits are: used as justification for variances and both are used as justification for spot tonin changes . My point is that the best way to maintain the integr ty of the single family residential neighborhood in this community or any other community is by not allowing conditional use permits in an established neighborhood . The system becomes a progressive neighborhood disease . This is a good neighborhood in which the owners take pride in their homes and are improving and up-grading them on a continuing basis . As a home owner in this community I expect the zoning set by the city to be up-held and prevent the deteristion of property values . I am enclosing some photographs of day-care centers including the existing one in our neighborhood . This home has an addition with a secondary entry (marked) which can be easily converted to a second living unit . Of course , legally this would have to be done with city approval but with exterior work completed (with permit) the interior could be changed without anyones knowledge . Sincerely , Ja s W. ea 17251 Argo Circle _ Huntington Desch , California 92647 1 coebw Nei 1,985 Dear Neishborp This Lis to oontim your reciept of my letter to you dated 9eptembW 21. 1985. In that letter I extended my fife„dship as a good neighbor and expressed my willingnes to correct any problem gay Day Care Home may cause you I must assume there are no basis for any complaints from you as you haven ' t demonstrated any need to respond to gay correspondence to you. Once again, I 'm offering my address and phone number for your convience should you have any complaints that I can take care of. 5ince:e?� L^onard 1'?242 r►M:-o .r IN c47_9Q52 This le w ar .vas sent certi:i ed .:a:l to the remaining four neighbors on 'waurus Lane as 6... didn' t respond to r.;; first le-.-per to them, I received no respcnse from three of the neighbors. I did receive a phone call rom Jan 3rusewi.tz. She stated :o me that the children were excessivly loud , no yelling or screaning bu: that she heard the children s voices and she didn' t like that, e other three neighbors didn' t appear to have a problem as they were twice given the opportunity to respond and did not. Mrs. 3rusewitz complaint about hearing children ' s voices in a residential neighborhood is far less severe than Mr. Brusewitz testimony at prior Commission or council hearings. Isar Neighbort 1 Learned a gory expansive lession when I was danced the .penit 1 needed to increase the number of children I car* for in pry home. At the =ae time I learned that the Children' s noiso bothered you (I was completely unaware of this) e Anytime in the future$ I really would appreciate it It you would let no know when there is a problem. If I'm not aware of a problemp I can' t correct it, Since the hearing I have tryed my best to keep the children' s noise level down. I'm not the type of person to create hardships on others. Due to a physical condition, I was forced out of the job markets I do need to make a living and I love the little ones (age* infanta to 4 years old) # and I'm good with them. I need to know from you if the noise level has improved and if not r I need to know that also , I really would like to talk to you. I've thought of stopping by to talk with you, but an unfriendly welcome would bother tee. I've thought of inviting those of you who are concernedg over on a Sunday afternoon for coffee and pizza, but if no one were to show up# I 'd be eating pizza for a week. I've also thought of doing nothing about the situation, but I don ' t think that would help any of us. I need your help and I' m a3%::ng you , of the three thoughts above, which would suite you bast? :lout: -7 be welcome to come to your home to talk,. to you? If so , when would ba a 4oaa clay and time? C3 Wou'_d ;;ou 1 i': to come Uo M home for coffee and danu zs with a few of your nei l'htcra or. 2-3urus Lane , sees the children' a- pla;;roo:: and yard and talc thin over? if so ,aha t would be a :rood dad or time for you? ar: trying,, w o u I d 1 ou c L Z Aj-'- s Pop by or phone me at 847-99;2 and In t, ne %no'rJ, m; r am concerned . ;;ou . Sincerely , Barbara and LVI "ichael Leonard 17242 Argo Circle Huntington Beach A copy of this letter was sent to each of the neighbors ( see the shaded area on the attached map) . I receeved no written response from any of these neighbors. I received a phone call from Helen Dionne. She told me that gay day care children were no longer a problem for her but that my dog's barking bothered her. I adopted the family dog out. filler�f�r�r�� 1ifa1►' 1 f ►•►rn !. b 11■�r111w . !• Mrfllfa A�I�N lii: - Fir• � K" " l7 ?l ga4kqn on !ira �ltJfd► ��7 t► aw •. r.'Dw1 fat g i985 x 21 �--q •" v1 t tMih�rakl t�efttt► d of ww1c a Nt your•dfirm In the"plET sm Tw flag•oft tM •�C�IMtft/i�� '' tw fm W4 Cwk can I F�IN►te ttl do Ihl!vrlN 0r A 1 o�td htlttl � d�k �twr+sdto rv�l, t ' F rope" ; jCm H r4m of thr p"ft dmkgww in"d tow 0 gegimpry.Poop�dutttolwd Mw r retivlr W at�wowlaA ' 1 1110",d■w farad IdAmm of CWWWV• wMiebw c4eft t pvslftam for lea WW eta Mal�a1 for flwvf mal 104O & t 16 1IMI Mi,dM Wd NOW Of d*"V-.s 'd r 3. A/deM A�lif�M4114 3, d 11�llkAd DMirw7. �: i�:1 Ill. David Sa:;cic r ,3. AItf"ck nder la m. , �►: 1?221 Taurus usewitz-,.,a1 .�•.w� ^� 17241 Taurus Hunt i r.�;t o n E I,a c i� , �� ;�• ;�-�;: • 't»•;P.;:�+i 1 bunt . Bch, Calif. 4. Towel lovism: Jlnbah X t Ucot P177 751 530 •. 7w.af:f.. .: iw�a.. hand ' AItU1N at.derfill�Mat•1�1 L7-E trfi�° ' U t atfsw Awl coo M fir. '• ... � i.. �. Adrf�rr�fw 120 the subs t propttty a • nta rrevocable r psocal deivsway i Ownt between the subject site and adj at corner lot at beae and McDonald. 13, Five foot wide street dedications are roquired n MacDonald and volt . 14. Remove and ceplac public improvements as equirod by Public Works Department . IS. On-site water facilit a of rtquiced) shall be dedicated to the City. 16, Another stairway is to be installs on the south side of the complex near the lobby are . Th stairway will replace the need to provide a clear-to- y nimum fire access lane of 24 feet on the west ride of the lding complex. This additional stairway will also satisfy th requirement to provide stairways for locating standpipes wit n 00 feet of travel from any unit . 17 . Automatic sprinkler syste shal be installed throughout pursuant to Huntington ach Eire parta�ent and National lira Protection Association amphlet 13 tandacds , 18. A 17 foot by 45 foot urning radius w 1 be required for the fire lane at the t n which extends th o parking I t from Beach � Boulevard to Mac ald . 19. A Eire alarm sy tom shall be installed thr ughout pursuant to Huntington Be h Fire Department Standards . 20. The size of he elevatcc installed shall be a inimum of 6 feet 8 inches w de by 4 feet 3 inches deep with a m imum clear opening dth of 42 inches . 21 . On sit fire hydrants Vall be installed in locati a approved by t mire Department . 22. T trellis above the fire lanes must provide a verti 1 earance of 13 feet 6 inches . ..3 The planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this Conditional else Permit if any violation of these condition or of the Huntington Beach Ordinan C-11 CONDITIONAL USS PUMIT NO. 86-25 This request to increase the number of children p+tcawittgd for day care from 6 to 12, was originally brought before the planning Comsission as Conditional Owe Pecan No . 85-3 at their March S, 1985 meeting, staff recoamended approval of this request . the Planning Commission denied this project due to neighborhood opposition and PC Minutes 6/17/86 +24- tSS4Gd ) R err•. � .. . dimserse for aolsoo patici4 a fl.a oaa ratia►a. The •ppliaBat tM a ippealsrd the decisioa to the A�fit i , ifd5 at C�un1ii s�tiag. ghe City Council upheld t e Planning ftme of oa r decision for "plate ?be a licant has submitted several petition*, one petition has boon ATgned by ! of the 13 bouseholds along Argo Circle, stating that they foresee no traffic problems with the addition of 6 more children to the existing day care home . Another petition has been signed by 17 neighbors stating they approve of Conditional dal► Permit No. 84 -35. The applicant states that the hours of operation for the day car* are from 7 : 30 AM to 5 : 30 N. JUIRONMENTAL STATUS : The propoaed project is exempt Class 3 Section 15103 from the, provisions of the California EnvironsentaloQuality Act . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Barbara Leonard, applicant, spoke in support of the project . She explained that she has done everything ?0hat ssiblete to address the concerns of her neighborhood and feels her proposal should be approved . Sandra branch, Lesli Susiek, Sandy Alexanian, and George Cristino, residents in the neighborhood, spoke in favor of the project . B. Christata, from the public Council of Day Care Centers, spoke in support of the project and the applicant . She felt that Mts . Leonard Beet all the specifications of a good day care center . Allen Brusewits, adjacent neighbor , spoke negatively about the project. Ht said th4t he felt his privacy was being imposed on because the children in Mrs. Leonard' s yard were too noisy. .dim Regan , spoke against the project. He felt that 13 children wire too many for a single family hope in an R] tone . There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed . A NOTION WAS XAD9 BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 66-35 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OP APPROVAL. There was no second to the motion and the motion -died. i It was suggested by the Colamission that a finding be added snaking reference to the numerous neighbors testifying against the project during the public hearing and stating that the project is not In compliance with an R1 neighborhood. 1 PC Ninutes - 6/17/86 -3s� tS50 0d ) r�r A NOTION WAS ff"t BY MINCXXLI., SECOND BY XOMNr TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PENNIT NO. 19-25 WITH ADDZD FINDIKGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOM AYES: R we, Winchell , Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir MDRS: Erskine ABSENT: Porter kBSTAIN: None NOTION ASS RD FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1 . The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General plan of the City of Huntington 8e4ch. 2. The proposal is not consistent with the City' s General Plan of Land Use . 3 . Access, parking and number of vehicle trips to the day Care will cause undue traffic problems for this neighborhood . 4 . The proposed day care will have a detrimental effect due to noise upon the general welfare , safety and convenience of persons residing in the neighborhood. 5. Numerous adjacent neighbors testified that a home care facility is not compatible with their R1 neighborhood and that the noise created by a horse care facility is detrimental to the enjoyment of their homes . 712 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CIO. 86-29/NEGATIVE DCCLARATION 110. 6 Co tional use Permit No . 86-29 is a request to permit rivate unive ty consixting of four buildings totaling 98, square feet and file ursuatnt to Article 931 , Unclassified U west Coast University an evening college designed to • ate working adults . Dayt. a use of the facility will i ude executive training for McDonnell lax (MDC) employees . university is planned to be constructed in o phasear first p e includes building A and adjacent parking area second pha proposes three buildings ( Be Cl D) , of which D will be lined an industrial multi -tenant building . Buildings 8 an a intended for educational purposes but may be industrial uses ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the irormental regulation n effect at this time, the Department f Development gervluea pact draft Negative Declaration . 84-31 for tern days , and no co too either verbal or writte sate received. The staff, in its init study of the project as recomor.-.led that a negative declaration issued prior to an action on Conditional Use Permit No. 46-29, it ecessary for he Planning Commission to review and act on Negative laration No . 86-33. PC Minutes - 6/17/86 -Ii- (950Dd ) boom �� sleis deps SfAf , REPORI a i TO: Planning commission till : Development Services DATN: June 17, 1966 SUBJECTz CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.• NO. S6-25 APPLICANT: Barbara Leonard DAT8 ACCBPTRD: 17262 Argo Circle June 30 1986 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 MANDATORY PROCES : e UE ST: To allow a large family August it 1986 day care home of up to 12 children, to operate SOME: R1 SLOW Density in an existing single Res dential ? family home. GENERAL PLAN : Low density .00ATION.: 17242 Argo Circle Residential Huntington Peach, CA EXISTING USE: Single Fail y des ential .0 SUGGESTED ACTION: pprove Conditional Use Permit No. 66-25 based on the findings and onditions of approval outlined in this report . .0 GENERAL INFORMATION: his request to increase the number of children permitted for day are from 6 to 12 , was originally brought before the Planning o mmission as Conditional Use Permit No. 85-3 at their March 5, 1985 •eking . Staff recommended approval of this request . The planning "*omission denied this project due to neighborhood opposition and ancerns for noise , parking and traffic congestion. The applicant hen appealed the decision to the April 1 , 1986 City Council sting . The City Council upheld the Planning Commission' s decision or denial. he applicant has submitted several petitions to be included in this taff report . One petition has been signed by 9 of the 13 ouseholds along Argo Circle, stating that they foresee no tzaftic tableaus with the addition of 6 more children to the existing day are home. Another petition has been mlgned by 17 neighbors stating hey approve of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-250 e applicant states that the hours of operation for the day care re from 1 :30 Ail to 500 PM. COW-\ I ltalll4 LAMID USIA_10019,t) AMD GINBRAAh PLAN rdl18 : sob jf�t Pcoo+rrty: GlMRMAL PLAN DealbMATION: Low Density Residential. SGMR 2 R-1 LAND Use: Single family residential North, cast, South ,and West_object Pro2g r tv : GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential SOME: R-1 LAND USE : Single family residential §NVIROMMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 3 Section 15103 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act . 5 .0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable . 6. 0 REDWELOPMENT STATUS : Not applicable . 7. 0 SPECIFIC PLAN : Not applicable . 8 . 0 „sUBDIytSION COMMITTEE : Not applicable . ,J,U ISSUES AND ANALYSIS : The applicant is requesting approval to cart for twelve children in her home . At the present time , the County has licensed the applicant to care for 6 children . Staff does not feel traffic will be a problem as a result of this conditional use permit . This site is located close to two Major arterials (south of Warner and west of Goldenwest ) , puking it easily accessible to parents when dropping off or picking up their children. Traffic impacts. should also be minimized by the fact that parents drop off and pick up their children at staggered times during the day. There is also ample parking on the existing driveway for three cars for drop-off and pick-up. A petition signed by 9 of the 13 Argo Circle residents states that they do not foresee a traffic problem as a result of approval of this project . Staff Report - 6/17/E6 4b2- is41Sd1 f 0 Section 9991 of the Ordinance Code requires that 73 square feat of outside play area be provided for each child (900 square toot) and that the play area be planted with grass and enclosed with a 6-fact-high fence . Alro, any gate to such play areas :shall be securely fastentd' or shall be suervised at all times. The applicant 's plan (see attachwent ? reflects compliance with the above stated requirtment . There is approximately 1#040 square feet of usable landscaped area enclosed with a block wall . The Ordinance Code also requires 35 square foot of indoor play area be provided for each child ( 420 square feet ) . The applicant ' s plans reflects compliance with this requirement. There in approximately 890 square feet of indoor play art& provided for the children. Ltetion Inssue Description 9331(d) Outdoor play area Required : 900 sq . ft . Provided: 1040 sq. ft . Indoor play area Required: 430 sq. ft . Provided: 890 sq. ft . Since the time of the original conditional use permit , the applicant has done a few things to mitigate the impacts of noise on surrounding properties . The wood fence that existed along the ap licant ' s rear yard has been replaced with -a 6 foot high block wa 1 . The applicant therefore has 6 foot high walls along three property lines. The applicant has adopted out one of her dogs , which seemed to be bothering the neighbors due to its barking . Finally , the applicant continually instructs the children to keep their voices down while playing in the back yard , in order to reduce noise impacts to the neighbors. if seven or more children art cared for , the applicant will be required to hire an asmistant , according to State licensing requirements . with the addition (if this assistanca , the applicant believes she will be able to supervise the children more closely and therefore be able to reduce noise levels even more . The children also have a specific time to play outside in order to reduce noise impacts . In the morning , the hours of outside play are approximately 10 :00 AM to 11 :00 AM. In the afternoon, children are outside between about 3 : 30 PM and 4 : 30 PM . 10 . 0 RLCONNENDA� TION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No . 86--25 based on the following findings and conditions of approval . PrNaINGS !OR APPROVAL: t 1 . The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of buntington beach. Z . The proposal in consistent with the City 's Genetal Plan of Land Use . Staff Report - 6/17/86 -3- (5413d) 1 I Access# parking and number of vehicle trips to the day care will not cause undue traffic problems for this neighborhood, i 4. The proposed day care will not have a detrimental effect due to noise upon the general welfare , safety and convenience: of person& residing in the neighborhood. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS Or APPR_ -OV&G: it The applicant shall hire an assistant to be present during the hours of operation, upon acceptance of the seventh child for day car*. 1 . The .site plan dated May 8, 1986, shall be the approved layout . 1 . The day care operation shall be limited to a maximum enrollment of twelve children. 4. Prior to operation of the day care operation, the applicant shall obtain approval from Orange County Social Services Department . 5. The applicant shall file with the Department of development Services a copy of the orange County license which permits care of twelve children. 6 . The day care facility shall operate between the hours of 7 : s0 AN and 5 : 30 PM daily . 7 . The applicant shall obtain a business license from the City of Huntington Beach . 8. The garage shall not be used for the day care operation. 9. The Planning Commission reserves the right to review/revoke this conditional use permit approval in the event of any violations of the terms of this approval , or violation of the applicable zoning laws, or upon evidence that the occupancy is detrimental to the neighborhood= any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant , a public hearing, and shall be based on specific findings. 11 .0 ALTLRNATIVB ACTION: am._��....�...�. deny Conditional Use Permit No. 86-15 based on the following findings: r i. NDI NCS roR DE. N 14L: 1 1 . The granting of the conditional use permit will adversoly affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington baach . Staff Report - 6 17 86 4- � 5 415d ) +' { 2. The proposal is not consistent with the City's General Plan of Land nso. 3. Access, parking and number of vehicle trips to the day taro will cause undue traffic probl*ms fox this neighborhood . 4 . The proposed day rare will have, a detrimental effect due to noire upon the general welfare , safety and convenience of persons residing in the neighborhood. ATTACHMENTS : 1 . Area map 2. Parcel map 3. Site, plans and floor plans 4. Narrative describing project S. Petition regarding traffic S. petition in support of Conditional Use Permit No, 86r-25 7. Declaration from Current day cart parents g. Getters in support of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-25 JNP :EN: kln i i staff Report 4/17/86 ( 5415d ) rld car, vo IW O �•N .•.• ••i• I at Solo 064to, Mt IWO it-ill Wolo A••.tYi•••w as SPEWAW •�.r••o.•bd . . . .. r r\'+ �.�►. NAM.. b' }' a'•Y• •1••i/d j s • Irr i•\ +N'w •S v♦ • w+am. 41 •ia `r � Fit l 1+ •/ to • 1 .f 1w'•V' • A4•iY In�MY I t a N d e.%som• •M 11•.Yiw q•r MAW M/w Ing got aft- Imm le w1 1•a+t•n.wr 3 .• .tr 1•��to a • N••Itw ••+•• ( I Mw one iw++. 4.•its a...•• � -� M•q r billor p1jaws" I � • & •. wri to aw *n 600 to Sol CA 03 • f , t Narative of Proposed Project I propose to apen my hone to more children and their famlies who art in Need o; a large family day care home . with a capacity of up to 12 children. I am currently licensed to car* for 6 children and I'm full to my license oapaci ty. %y hours of operation will be from 7 :3a as to 5 :3Opm. # V.4, With an in—rease of the number of children I will be caring a: I will employ adEtioral help to supervise the Children in order to keep the no'.se level to a minium. The noise level should even be reduced :ro�z what it currently may :e with additional help. As to traffic , I see no problem as most parents arrive and pick up their children up at different times of the day. :he parents are here and gone . They use extreme caution ir. 4heir driving ;::lore eo than come of the residence of -he neig.:bcrhood) and they respect the neighbors rights and property . :he older children ( lsno. to 4 yr. ) have a separate play/ sleep room and will be completely supervised outside for 1 hour in the morning (a rox. loam to llam. ) and 1 hour in .he afternoon ( aprox . 3i3Opm. to 4 ,30 pm. ) The infants (4 max ium) ages 3 mo . to 19 mo . have a separate play/sleep room i:: the front of the house . This room is set up with port-a-cribs and play pens and the room is set up •;�:th a curriculum with that age Group in mind. All the children fa: tope Cher in nay large family kitchen, They are daily provided with hot nutritious meals. The older children have a child sized table and chairs in the kitchen that will acconodate up to 8 children and the infants are furnished with high chairs. In addi:ion the kit hen is used for arts and crafts and potty training ( the litter up to age 3 yrs then they use the big potty) . The children have am;lt outside space in the play yard which has grassy arias as well as c*m#n t for riding activities. .hey have a playhjuse to encourage dramatic play and a swing got to help promote large and small notor development, just to =me a taw. a ;row vegetables and they have their own dirt area for play. The chi q��heir •, . . (Anabelle) and the cat & do rowily aim to provide far the chit '' MAY 8 SO - MAY d • r.o. r� iN ��a. � «r pads 1 of 2 pales � • � CA Y� I resolve an average of : to 3 phone cans each week from p worts who are lookins for day care for their children in d I have �.o ri se eta because I's a: of currentmam on" capacity. I need the issuance o: a CUP. I have a been caringfor one 1�:tle y , _'r+an for over a year �d and his mother is currently on maternity leave (right now) as Brian has a new baby sis wer. :t would ye a phyyaicsl and emotional hardship on these parents to split up their childr9n or to have to relocate Brian a: this time. I need this ;ncreased ( CUP) licenser in order :o lopIly cane for this new baby also. Sincerely, Barbara Leonard r page 2 of 2 pages I� i I CUP 8b-25 RESEARCH 1NFORMAITON 1. The number of licensed large family day Care homes in a few other cities in Orange County are a• fellows A* Costa Mesa has 12 homes licensed ' b. ft�den Grove has 9 homes licensed c. Anaheim has 18 homes licensed d. In the City of Huntington Seach there are 7 licensed large family day care homes. Are the citizens and children in our city less important then those of other cities in Orange County? 2. The Commission on the Status of Women shows the number of women in the labor force has increased jL11 between 1970 r. and 1984, The commission found that 50 #582 of those working women are mothers of children under six years of age. The need for more large family day Care homes is increasing ; proportionately. 3. There are aproximately ten pre schools in the 92647 zip code area and of those research is as followso A. Openings (as of June 1986 ) 1 . Two schools accept Infants and they are both fall, I 'they have no infant openings and have to turn prople away. 2. Four centers are fulls no openings and three centers j have very few openings for the two to five year olds. �. The directors of these centers state that there Is a need for quality In-home infant care in our area. Home day care is better suited to infant care# Parents like the idea of their infants in a home atmosphire with the intentions of moving thew to a school later (around 3 to 4 yrs. ) . 4, one Co-op school exixta which rsquires parent participation ana they close over the summer months, a. ""tart :p contz, including inventory And supplier to open :A pre-:ichoo]. , even in a closso schoc1: runs from .IC , J0.1 sJn to $r-0 ,040 e00. a Woraation reaounen were •uWtted by the roUowini s 1. Orw4p County So*W Services, Jupervioor of licemIngo Sum n Martinez. 2. A letter to met dated March 12, 1986, fro* State Somtor John 3symour. *Under the Rainbor", 6621 Glen Drop Huntington 8eaoh 92647 f H.B. "Huntington Beach Pro-School",. 17200 Pinehurst St. H. B. " Mantossorio! Huntington Beach", 17200 Pinehurst St. H. Be "A Childs View" , 17200 Pinehurst St. , H. Be "P'lenamt Yiew", P'�•8-2733 , "North Huntington Beach C--misnity Nursery" , Clark St. K. B+ . "Bandbury Crows Pre-School" 16761 Viewpoint Ln. , h. Be "Huntington Beach Pre-School" , 7945 Alderich, H. B. "Der Kinder Garden Prue-School" . 8102 Ellin St. i H. Be "Kinder-Care Learning Can ter" . 19)42 Beach Blvd. # H. B. 9264 I t lb _Pwtsc. VVe neighbors are Not in opposition and feel Barbara Leonard should be issued a conditional Use Permit from the City of Huntington Beach to do child day cars in ._ her hme 0 I forsee no traffic problems no the parents are very cautious in their drLYing and It is rare to noe w era than one car in front of bar house at a time. They are hire a very briar time then gone. /j � r WOW- V /�. L -X r • ` Y l r, APB 7o1C� /-2W hiad_7_ Z2 JOU& A w 0 P, w w F F . c/• • r� Ax MAY q r:o. CA