Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1. PLN-19-00049 7542 SuvaCityofDowney STAFF REPORT PLANNING DIVISION DATE: TO: SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: LOCATION: ZONING: REPORT SUMMARY AUGUST 21, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION ALDO E. SCHINDLER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN-N � CRYSTAL LANDAVAZO, CITY PLANNER o/ �/ MADALYN WELCH, ASSISTANT PLANNER� PLN-19-00049 (MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION DENYING OPERATION OF A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE (9 TO 14 CHILDREN) WITHIN A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY. 7542 SUVA STREET R-1 6,000 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) Sandra P Castro Magallon (herein after "the Applicant) is requesting an appeal of an administrative decision denying a Minor Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a large family day care on property located at 7542 Suva Street and zoned R-1 6,000 (Single Family Residential}. Pursuant to Downey Municipal Code Section 9814.04(h}, a Minor Conditional Use Permit is required for the operation of a large family daycare in residential zones. In accordance with the Downey Municipal Code, required findings must be met in a positive manner in order for the request to be administratively approved by the City Planner. City staff was not able to make all of the positive findings necessary to recommend approval of the proposed Minor Conditional Use Permit and has prepared the following titled resolution: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY AFFIRMING CITY PLANNER DECISION TO DENY PLN-19-00049 (MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT), A REQUEST FOR THE OPERATION OF A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE (9 TO 14 CHILDREN) LOCATED AT 7542 SUVA STREET, AND ZONED R-1 6,000 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). PC Agenda Page1 BACKGROUND The subject site is a 6,022 square foot rectangular property located on the south side of Suva Street, between Guatemala Avenue and Wiley Burke Avenue. The property is zoned R-1 6,000 (Single Family Residential) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential. The property is developed with a 1,759 square foot home and a two-car garage located at the rear of the property. On April 16, 2019, the Applicant submitted an application for a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a large family day care at the aforementioned property, which had not previously operated with small or large day care activity. Staff completed review of the submitted materials on April 24, 2019 and deemed the application complete. On April 24, 2019, staff mailed a public notice to all property owners within 100 feet of the subject site. Staff received letters of correspondence in opposition to the large family day care from surrounding residences. The concerns raised by neighbors primarily focused on traffic and noise. On May 10, 2019, after final review of the proposed use, staff denied the request because the required findings needed to approve a Minor Conditional Use Permit could not be made in a positive manner. On May 24, 2019 the Applicant submitted an appeal of staff's decision and provided additional information on June 12, 2019. Downey Municipal Code Section 9806 requires an appeal of a decision from the City Planner to be presented to the Planning Commission at a public hearing. The Planning Commission is required to conduct a public hearing then take action to: 1. Affirm the City Planner decision, 2. Modify the City Planner decision, or 3. Reverse original decision. Staff mailed the notice of public hearing to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject site and a notice was also published in the Downey Patriot, on August 8, 2019. DISCUSSION The State of California, through Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 1597.43, identifies that family day care homes constitute accessory uses of residentially zoned properties and do not alter the nature of the underlying residential uses. The intent of these regulations, as set forth in the Health and Safety Code, is to facilitate the establishment of family homes that provide day care to meet a growing need for child day care facilities. Family day care homes are separated into two categories, large family day care and small family day care, each with its own operational standards and approval requirements. In accordance with state regulations, small family day care homes provide care for up to eight children and are permitted by right without a City approval process. A large family day care home however, allows up to fourteen children to be cared for within the provider's dwelling unit and is subject to a review and approval process by local jurisdictions because they have a higher potential for impacting surrounding uses. The Health and Safety Code, Section 1597.46(a)(3), allows a city to require a large family day care home to apply for a permit to use a lot used for single-family dwellings. Permissive language is used in the Health and Safety Code as noted in the following excerpt which describes a city's review authority, "the use permit shall be granted if the large family day care home complies with local ordinances, if any, prescribing reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements concerning the following factors: spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control." Although phrased using permissive language, the regulation indicates that a city can consider these four factors when reviewing an application for a large family day care home and can only grant a use permit if the proposed day care is compliant. 7542 Suva Street-PLN-19-00049 August 21, 2019 -Page 2 PC Agenda Page2 In conjunction with the Health and Safety Code, the Downey Municipal Code has two (2) categories for family day care uses, small which allows up to eight children and large which allows up to fourteen children. Small family day care homes are permitted by right and do not require any City review, permit or license. Large family day care homes are required to submit an application for a Minor Conditional Use permit which is an administrative review process where staff reviews the proposed use. Staff reviews each proposed large family day care on an individual basis to determine whether the proposal satisfies the applicable standards. Compliance with standards concerning the four factors identified in the Health and Safety Code is determined through the findings required for issuance of a Minor Conditional Use permit set out in the Downey Municipal Code. DMC section 9814.08 requires staff to make three findings, in a positive manner, before a Minor Conditional Use Permit can be approved. (a)That the proposed activity or use will be consistent with the objectives, policies, and general land uses and programs specified in the City's General Plan; (b)That the proposed activity or use is consistent with other provisions of this article, on Land Use; and (c)That the proposed activity or use will not result in conditions or circumstances contrary to the public health, safety, and general welfare. The subject site is located within an established single family neighborhood with residential structures fronting the property along with a narrow driveway leading to a detached garage at the rear. The subject site has a typical lot configuration; however, the narrow driveway along the southeast side of the property expands into an approximate 600 sq. ft. concrete area about half way between the northeast and southwest boundaries of the property, directly adjacent to the neighboring habitable structure. The applicant's application indicates the 1,759 sq. ft. residential structure and all outdoor areas, with the exception of the front yard, are to be used for the large family day care use. The initial application requested approval of a large family day care home with fourteen children and a 24 hour operating period. The subject site had not previously been utilized for any family day care use, large or small. Staff sought clarification regarding designated drop off areas, drop­ off and pick-up times, and proposed use of outdoor areas for the proposed large family day care use. No additional information was provided so an assessment of the proposal was completed based on available information and the Minor Conditional Use Permit application was denied because staff could not make the determination that the proposed use met the standards set forth in HSC Section 1597.46(a)(3) as applied through the findings required for approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. After submitting an appeal of the administrative decision, the applicant provided supplemental information. The applicant and a representative, who submitted a letter on June 12, 2013, provided additional information regarding the proposed operation of the large family day care. The proposed operating hours were reduced from 24 hours to 5:00 am through 9:00 pm. The applicant indicated that she will provide after school pick-up and does not intend to provide care for more than six children one the subject site at one time. The applicant also indicated that children will be encouraged to maintain low noise levels while on the property and parents will be encouraged to use the driveway. 7542 Suva Street-PLN-19-00049 August 21, 2019 -Page 3 PC Agenda Page3 After submittal of the appeal, the applicant began operation of a small family day care on the subject property. As previously noted, the site had not previously operated with any day care activity, so staff's review was based on an analysis of a proposed change from no day care activity to day care activity with a maximum of fourteen children. The applicant's indication that no more than six children would be on site at one time is not something that staff would be able to monitor or enforce. The state identifies maximum numbers of children so, if approval is granted to allow up to fourteen children, the City would not be able to restrict this to a lower number such as six at one time. The supplemental information provided to further clarify the applicant's proposed operation addressed some areas of concern; however, due to existing neighborhood constraints, the applicant was not able to show that the proposed use would not impact the surrounding neighborhood. Upon review of any application, staff is tasked with ensuring that the proposed use or development is compliant with applicable state and local regulations as well as consistent with the Downey General Plan. Spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control are the areas analyzed when reviewing a proposed day care use. The subject is separated from similar day care uses by at least 1,000 feet but, the subject site is located on the same street as an elementary school drop off area. The subject site is also located on a street which serves as an entry point into the city. The Rio Hondo River is located to the West of the subject site and roughly serves as the boundary between the city and adjacent communities in this area which results in Suva Street, where the subject site is located, being utilized for pass through traffic. Additionally, the subject site is located in an area where the typical development pattern consists of a residential structure located twenty feet from the front property line next to a narrow driveway that leads to a garage at the rear of the property. This development pattern results in useable open space areas that are located adjacent to neighboring residential structures. In analyzing the proposed large day care on the subject site, staff was unable to determine that the use does not have the potential to increase impacts to an area that is already affected by traffic. Suva Street's location, between an entry point into the City to the west and an elementary school on the east, creates a circumstance that is unique to most other residential streets throughout the City. Most residential properties are served by local streets that see minimal vehicle traffic which is typically generated by surrounding residential uses; the subject site however, sees vehicle traffic that results from pass-through traffic not typical in other residential areas. The applicant proposes to pick-up children from school which reduces some of the anticipated drop-off traffic however, pick-ups would likely be made at the subject site when parents pick-up children after leaving work. The applicant stated that parents are required to pick-up and drop-off children within the residence which requires parents to park in the surrounding neighborhood. Although parents would be encouraged to use the driveway on the subject site, there is still potential for parking in the neighborhood if there is overlap in parent pick-up times. The development pattern of the subject site poses an increased concern as it relates to noise within the residential neighborhood. The Downey Municipal Code requires residential uses to maintain an ambient daytime (1 Oam -7pm) noise level of 55 decibels, and a 45 decibel level at night, while the Downey General Plan identifies that 60 decibels can be an acceptable noise level in residential areas. The Downey General Plan also identifies that acceptable noise levels of playgrounds and neighborhood parks is 70 decibels. When analyzing noise and potential impacts, the closest noise category for an outdoor play area with up to fourteen children is playground or neighborhood parks, which are also typically located within residential neighborhoods. The location of most playgrounds and parks, however, typically provide more 7542 Suva Street-PLN-19-00049 August 21, 2019 -Page 4 PC Agenda Page4 than a five foot separation from the nearest residential structure. The proposed use has a potential of generating a noise level of at least 70 decibels with only a five foot separation from a residential structure. This proximity has a significant potential to raise the ambient noise level in the adjacent residential structure. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE On May 30, 2019, this project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC). The Police Department raised concerns with the noise levels produced by the proposed use along with concern over traffic safety on Suva Street, as it is used as a major arterial. Additionally, the Police Department expressed concern that the absence of crosswalks in the area may make it unsafe for children or a daycare use because drop-off and pick-up would be difficult. The Fire Department stated that the large family day care will require improvements to meet safety codes for large family day care uses. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the proposed use for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Upon completion of this review, staff determined that this request is categorically exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Guideline Section No. 15303 (Class 1, Existing Facilities). Categorical Exemptions are projects, which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and have been exempted from the requirements of CEQA. FINDINGS The purpose of the Minor Conditional Use Permit is to review the location, site development, and/or conduct of certain land uses. These uses generally have unique and distinct operations compared to the areas in which they are located and are capable of creating special problems for adjacent properties. The Planning Commission is currently tasked with reviewing an Appeal of an Administrative Decision. The Planning Commission can reverse or modify the City Planner's decision if it believes the required findings can be made in a positive manner. Conversely, if one or more of the findings cannot be supported, then the Planning Commission must affirm the City Planner decision to deny the Minor Conditional Use Permit. After review of the proposed large family day care, staff was not able to affirm the three findings required for approval of the Minor Conditional Use Permit could be made for the reasons stated below: 1.The proposed activity or use will be consistent with the objectives, policies, and general land uses and programs specified in the City's General Plan. Traffic generated by parents and guardians patronizing the proposed large family daycare can potentially increase to levels outside the norm for single family neighborhoods. This includes both traffic related to pick-up and drop-offs as well as parking necessary for visitors and future staff. As part of the General Plan, there is a focus on maintaining residential properties as residential uses to avoid potential negative impacts to single-family residential neighborhoods. Program 1.4.2. 7 of the General Plan states: Maintain the single-family character of the low density residential areas. The spacing and density within this neighborhood is not conducive for a large family day care as proposed with the outdoor play area for the children being 5 feet away from the neighboring property's habitable structure. Traffic and noise have a high potential to 7542 Suva Street-PLN-19-00049 August 21, 2019 -Page 5 PC Agenda Page5 exceed the typical levels within single-family residential areas. The high potential for increasing traffic impacts to an already impacted area is inconsistent with the General Plan and residential zone's intent of creating stabilized and maintained communities. Parking was another concern raised by surrounding property owners. Parking is limited and the need for potentially multiple drop offs can cause a disruption in the area if parents choose to double park on the busy collector street. Concentration. The General Plan land use designation for this property is Low Density Residential. This designation is identified in the General Plan as a place to allow detached single family residences and is characterized as having a projected population of 25 persons per acre. The addition of 14 children on one property significantly deviates from this land use designation. The concentration of children is particularly problematic at this property because of the configuration of development on the property and the neighboring property to the southeast. The property's 600 square foot concrete pad is proposed to be part of the outdoor play area for children, and sits just 5 feet from the habitable structure on the neighboring property. The small size of the house for the proposed day care facility makes it likely this area would be heavily used by children. This concentration of uses-day care play area and neighboring habitable residence-is inconsistent with the following General Plan Policy 1.3.1: Minimize or eliminate conflicts where incompatible land uses are in proximity to each other. In addition, there is a similar use to the proposed use a quarter mile away, the Maude Price Elementary School. A large family day care use at the property would constitute an excessive concentration of people and uses. Traffic. In response to the public notice prepared for this application by the majority of the people who reside on this portion of Suva Street, staff was made aware that the neighborhood already experiences more traffic than other neighborhoods due to multiple factors. Some of the most impactful factors are the proximity of the Maude Price Elementary School and the perceived use of Suva Street as a secondary arterial by visitors traveling from neighboring communities. Suva Street is the only street to cross the Rio Hondo (a quarter mile northwest of the property), a tributary of the Los Angeles River, between Florence Avenue a half mile to the southwest, and Telegraph Road a mile to the northeast, both of which are major arterials. The portion of Suva Street where the property is situated has been the subject of a number of traffic-related complaints and studies in recent years. Traffic volumes there have increased from about 8,000 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2007 to 11,500 vpd as most recently measured in 2016. The large family day care would further increase traffic volumes and risk creating unsafe roads for a neighborhood in which many children are already present. The proposed large family day care is not consistent with General Plan Policy 2.1.1: Maintain a street system that provides safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Parking. Residents of Suva Street also informed staff that the street is already heavily used for parking and it is difficult to find space to park on the street. The proposed use will increase demand for parking. The need for potentially multiple drop offs can also cause a disruption in the area if parents choose to double park on the busy collector street, exacerbating traffic congestion and creating a safety hazard. This is inconsistent with General Plan goal 2.5, Minimize the impacts from lack of parking, and General Plan policy 2.5.1, Provide for adequate parking supply to meet parking demands. Noise. The proposed large family day care facility promises to add a significant source of noise. The backyard and the 600 square foot concrete pad on the side of the property 7542 Suva Street-PLN-19-00049 August 21, 2019 -Page 6 PC Agenda Page6 immediately adjacent to a habitable structure on the neighboring property are part of the area proposed for use by up to 14 children. Given the small size of the house on the property, it is reasonable to expect that the backyard and concrete pad will experience heavy use by children at play. This use will generate noise. School playgrounds and other playgrounds for children have been the subject of noise studies. Noise attenuates with distance. General Plan Figure 6-1.2 shows that normally accepted (and expected) noise level of playgrounds and neighborhood parks is up to 70 db. The General Plan recognizes that residential uses generally, and low-density residential uses in particular, are noise sensitive uses. Normally accepted noise levels in areas designated for residential-low density is no more than 60 db. In part because of the location of an outdoor play area for up to 14 children 5 feet from a habitable structure on neighboring property, the proposed large family day care facility is inconsistent with the General Plan's provisions on noise. These include Goal 6.3, Minimize noise impacts on noise­ sensitive land uses, Policy 6.3.1, Minimize the amount of noise generated by land uses, and Program 6.3.1.4, Consider noise impacts generated by schools, churches, and other similar noise-sensitive uses. 2.The proposed activity or use is consistent with other provisions of this article. Among other things, the purpose of the City's zoning ordinance is to "prevent undue concentration of population." DMC § 9104(a). The zoning designation for this property is R-1. As provided by DMC section 9312.02(b), the purpose of the R-1 zone is to designate areas for living at designated population densities. The provisions of this zone are intended to ensure that the residential character of such areas will be stabilized and maintained. As indicated above, the proposed use of the property as a large family day care facility for up to 14 children is not consistent with these provisions. This is due in part to the presence of a 600 square foot outdoor play area 5 feet from a habitable structure on a neighboring property and the proximity of a similar use-an elementary school-one-quarter mile away. The proposed large family day care facility would result in an excessive concentration of uses. 3.The proposed activity or use will not result in conditions or circumstances contrary to the public health, safety, and general welfare. The large family daycare (14 children maximum) has the potential to cause a nuisance upon neighboring properties. The proposed use has a high potential of increasing the ambient noise levels through the addition of 14 children, on one property, at varying schedules throughout the day. The Applicant is requesting the hours of operation to be sixteen (16) hours per day from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days per week. The proposed facility is a 1,759 square foot home where activities are expected to expand to outdoor play areas due to the fact that the facility will need to accommodate both indoor and outdoor activity for children of varying ages. Due to existing development standards in the area, the outside play area is located less than five feet away from the adjacent residential properties. One of the proposed outdoor play areas is developed with concrete which may allow the noise from the children to carry over to the neighbors much louder than a grassy area would. The City has adopted noise regulations. DMC §§ 4606 et seq. The City has established standards for noise level limits for various time periods and areas within the City. Id. § 4601.1. Noise in excess of the limits constitute a public nuisance. Id. Section 4606.3 of the municipal code sets daytime maximum noise levels in residential areas at 55 db(A). The proposed large 7542 Suva Street-PLN-19-00049 August 21, 2019 -Page 7 PC Agenda Page7 family day care facility is inconsistent with this standard. In particular, due to the configuration of the outdoor play areas for up to 14 children, including the 600 square foot concrete pad immediately adjacent to a neighbor's habitable living space, the proposed use may be reasonably expected to exceed the maximum noise level. Children's play areas are inherently noisy. A conflict arises as this facility will need to accommodate varying drop-off and pick-up times in close proximity to neighboring habitable structures as well as parking for the staff. The applicant has stated that there will be three (3) helping staff members along with the applicant, herself. A small family day care for up to 8 children is permitted by right, as the State of California has legislation stating that it can be operated in any residential property. However, the State acknowledges that a large family day care has the potential to impact communities so they should be reviewed on an individual basis. The expansion to allow up to 14 children may cause noise, traffic and parking impacts to Suva Street and the general welfare of the neighborhood itself. If the residence had additional space to have a driveway that accommodates for drop-off and pick-up, there would not be as much concern. However, parents dropping off or picking up their children may use the driveway approach which will block the path of travel on the sidewalk and create unsafe or congested areas that of which are already impacted. The operational needs of this proposed facility has a high potential for increasing noise levels and traffic that would exceed the existing ambient noise levels in this single family residential neighborhood. CORRESPONDENCE As of the date that this report was printed, staff received 20 articles of correspondence and one phone call in opposition from surrounding residents of the proposed request. CONCLUSION Based on the analysis provided in the staff report and in the findings above, Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution upholding the City Planner decision to deny Minor Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a large family day care. EXHIBITS A.Maps B.Draft Resolution C.Staff's Decision Letter D.Applicant's Appeal Letter E.Project Plans F.Correspondence G.Public Works Documentation H.Sound Studies 7542 Suva Street-PLN-19-00049 August 21, 2019 -Page 8 PC Agenda Page8 Ej CityofDowne_y EXHIBITS Maps PC Agenda Page9 EXHIBIT 'A' Vicinity Map 7542 Suva Street-PLN-19-00049 August 21, 2019 -Page 9 PC Agenda Page10 Zoning Map Aerial View of Subject Site 7542 Suva Street-PLN-19-00049 August 21, 2019 -Page 10 PC Agenda Page11 Aerial of Subject Site Neighborhood 7542 Suva Street-PLN-19-00049 August 21, 2019 -Page 11 PC Agenda Page12 CityofDowne.Y EXHIBITS Draft Resolution PC Agenda Page13 RESOLUTION NO. 19-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY AFFIRMING THE CITY PLANNER DECISION TO DENY PLN-19-00049 (MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) A REQUEST TO CONDUCT A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE (9-14 CHILDREN), LOCATED AT 7542 SUVA STREET, ZONED R-1 6,000 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey does hereby find, determine and declare that: A.An application was filed by Sandra P Castro Magallon (hereinafter referred to as "the Applicant") on April 16, 2019, requesting approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit (PLN-19-00049) to conduct a large family day care, located at 7542 Suva Street, and zoned R-1 6,000 (Single Family Residential); and, B.Staff deemed the application complete on April 23, 2019; and, notice of the proposed project was sent to all Downey property owners within 100 feet of the subject site; and, C.On May 10, 2019, Staff denied the proposed project; and, on May 24, 2019, the Applicant appealed Staff's decision; and, D.On June 6, 2019, notice of the proposed project was mailed to all Downey property owners within 500 feet of the subject site and the notice was published in the Downey Patriot; and, E.On June 19, 2019, the item was scheduled for a public hearing but was continued to a date uncertain to allow for additional review of subsequent information provided on behalf of the applicant; and, F.On August 8, 2019, notice of the proposed project was mailed to all Downey property owners within 500 feet of the subject site and the notice was published in the Downey Patriot; and, G.The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 21, 2019 and after fully considering all oral and written testimony, facts, and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing adopted this resolution. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares the environmental impact of the proposed development has been reviewed and has been found to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is catego rically exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Guideline Section No. 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities). PC Agenda Page14 Resolution No. 19-__ _ Downey Planning Commission SECTION 3. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearings, the Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that: 1.The proposed activity or use will not be consistent with the objectives, policies, and general land uses and programs specified in the City's General Plan. Traffic generated by parents and guardians patronizing the proposed large family daycare can potentially increase to levels outside the norm for single family neighborhoods. This includes both traffic related to pick-up and drop-offs as well as parking necessary for visitors and future staff. As part of the General Plan, there is a focus on maintaining residential properties as residential uses to avoid potential negative impacts to single-family residential neighborhoods. Program 1.4.2. 7 of the General Plan states: Maintain the single-family character of the low density residential areas. The spacing and density within this neighborhood is not conducive for a large family day care as proposed with the outdoor play area for the children being 5 feet away from the neighboring property's habitable structure. Traffic and noise have a high potential to exceed the typical levels within single­ family residential areas. The high potential for increasing traffic impacts to an already impacted area is inconsistent with the General Plan and residential zone's intent of creating stabilized and maintained communities. Parking was another concern raised by surrounding property owners. Parking is limited and the need for potentially multiple drop offs can cause a disruption in the area if parents choose to double park on the busy collector street. Concentration. The General Plan land use designation for this property is Low Density Residential. This designation is identified in the General Plan as a place to allow detached single family residences and is characterized as having a projected population of 25 persons per acre. The addition of 14 children on one property significantly deviates from this land use designation. The concentration of children is particularly problematic at this property because of the configuration of development on the property and the neighboring property to the southeast. The property's 600 square foot concrete pad is proposed to be part of the outdoor play area for children, and sits just 5 feet from the habitable structure on the neighboring property. The small size of the house for the proposed day care facility makes it likely this area would be heavily used by children. This concentration of uses-day care play area and neighboring habitable residence­ is inconsistent with the following General Plan Policy 1.3.1: Minimize or eliminate conflicts where incompatible land uses are in proximity to each other. In addition, there is a similar use to the proposed use a quarter mile away, the Maude Price Elementary School. A large family day care use at the property would constitute an excessive concentration of people and uses. Traffic. In response to the public notice prepared for this application by the majority of the people who reside on this portion of Suva Street, staff was made aware that the neighborhood already experiences more traffic than other neighborhoods due to multiple factors. Some of the most impactful factors are the proximity of the Maude Price Elementary School and the perceived use of Suva Street as a secondary arterial by visitors traveling from neighboring commun ities. Suva Street is the only street to cross the Rio Hondo (a quarter mile northwest of the property), a tributary of the Los Angeles River, between Florence Avenue a half mile to the southwest, and Telegraph Road a mile to the northeast, both of PLN 19-00049 -7542 Suva Street August 21, 2019 -Page 2 PC Agenda Page15 Resolution No. 19-__ _ Downey Planning Commission which are major arterials. The portion of Suva Street where the property is situated has been the subject of a number of traffic-related complaints and studies in recent years. Traffic volumes there have increased from about 8,000 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2007 to 11,500 vpd as most recently measured in 2016. The large family day care would further increase traffic volumes and risk creating unsafe roads for a neighborhood in which many children are already present. The proposed large family day care is not consistent with General Plan Policy 2.1.1: Maintain a street system that provides safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Parking. Residents of Suva Street also informed staff that the street is already heavily used for parking and it is difficult to find space to park on the street. The proposed use will increase demand for parking. The need for potentially multiple drop offs can also cause a disruption in the area if parents choose to double park on the busy collector street, exacerbating traffic congestion and creating a safety hazard. This is inconsistent with General Plan goal 2.5, Minimize the impacts from lack of parking, and General Plan policy 2.5.1, Provide for adequate parking supply to meet parking demands. Noise. The proposed large family day care facility promises to add a significant source of noise. The backyard and the 600 square foot concrete pad on the side of the property immediately adjacent to a habitable structure on the neighboring property are part of the area proposed for use by up to 14 children. Given the small size of the house on the property, it is reasonable to expect that the backyard and concrete pad will experience heavy use by children at play. This use will generate noise. School playgrounds and other playgrounds for children have been the subject of noise studies. Noise attenuates with distance. General Plan Figure 6-1.2 shows that normally accepted (and expected) noise level of playgrounds and neighborhood parks is up to 70 db. The General Plan recognizes that residential uses generally, and low-density residential uses in particular, are noise sensitive uses. Normally accepted noise levels in areas designated for residential-low density is no more than 60 db. In part because of the location of an outdoor play area for up to 14 children 5 feet from a habitable structure on neighboring property, the proposed large family day care facility is inconsistent with the General Plan's provisions on noise. These include Goal 6.3, Minimize noise impacts on noise-sensitive land uses, Policy 6.3.1, Minimize the amount of noise generated by land uses, and Program 6.3.1.4, Consider noise impacts generated by schools, churches, and other similar noise-sensitive uses. 2.The proposed activity or use is not consistent with other provisions of this article. Among other things, the purpose of the City's zoning ordinance is to "prevent undue concentration of population." DMC § 9104(a). The zoning designation for this property is R-1. As provided by DMC section 9312.02(b), the purpose of the R-1 zone is to designate areas for living at designated population densities. The provisions of this zone are intended to ensure that the residential character of such areas will be stabilized and maintained. As indicated above, the proposed use of the property as a large family day care facility for up to 14 children is not consistent with these provisions. This is due in part to the presence of a 600 square foot outdoor play area 5 feet from a habitable structure on a neighboring property and the proximity of a similar use-an elementary PLN 19-00049 -7542 Suva Street August 21, 2019 -Page 3 PC Agenda Page16 Resolution No. 19-__ _ Downey Planning Commission school-one-quarter mile away. The proposed large family day care facility would result in an excessive concentration of uses. 3.The proposed activity or use will result in conditions or circumstances contrary to the public health, safety, and general welfare. The large family daycare (14 children maximum) has the potential to cause a nuisance upon neighboring properties. The proposed use has a high potential of increasing the ambient noise levels through the addition of 14 children, on one property, at varying schedules throughout the day. The Applicant is requesting the hours of operation to be sixteen (16) hours per day from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days per week. The proposed facility is a 1,759 square foot home where activities are expected to expand to outdoor play areas due to the fact that the facility will need to accommodate both indoor and outdoor activity for children of varying ages. Due to existing development standards in the area, the outside play area is located less than five feet away from the adjacent residential properties. One of the proposed outdoor play areas is developed with concrete which may allow the noise from the children to carry over to the neighbors much louder than a grassy area would. The City has adopted noise regulations. DMC §§ 4606 et seq. The City has established standards for noise level limits for various time periods and areas within the City. Id. § 4601.1. Noise in excess of the limits constitute a public nuisance. Id. Section 4606.3 of the municipal code sets daytime maximum noise levels in residential areas at 55 db(A). The proposed large family day care facility is inconsistent with this standard. In particular, due to the configuration of the outdoor play areas for up to 14 children, including the 600 square foot concrete pad immediately adjacent to a neighbor's habitable living space, the proposed use may be reasonably expected to exceed the maximum noise level. Children's play areas are inherently noisy. A conflict arises as this facility will need to accommodate varying drop-off and pick-up times in close proximity to neighboring habitable structures as well as parking for the staff. The applicant has stated that there will be three (3) helping staff members along with the applicant, herself. A small family day care for up to 8 children is permitted by right, as the State of California has legislation stating that it can be operated in any residential property. However, the State acknowledges that a large family day care has the potential to impact communities so they should be reviewed on an individual basis. The expansion to allow up to 14 children may cause noise, traffic and parking impacts to Suva Street and the general welfare of the neighborhood itself. If the residence had additional space to have a driveway that accommodates for drop-off and pick-up, there would not be as much concern. However, parents dropping off or picking up their children may use the driveway approach which will block the path of travel on the sidewalk and create unsafe or congested areas that of which are already impacted. The operational needs of this proposed facility has a high potential for increasing noise levels and traffic that would exceed the existing ambient noise levels in this single family residential neighborhood. PLN 19-00049 - 7542 Suva Street August 21, 2019 -Page 4 PC Agenda Page17 Resolution No. 19-__ _ Downey Planning Commission SECTION 4. Based upon the findings set forth in Section 1 through 3 of this Resolution, the Planning Commission of the City of Downey hereby denies this Minor Conditional Use Permit (PLN-19-00049). SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of August, 2019. Steven Dominguez, Chairman City Planning Commission I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Downey at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21 st day of August, 2019 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Mary Cavanagh, Secretary City Planning Commission PLN 19-00049 -7542 Suva Street August 21, 2019 -Page 5 PC Agenda Page18 CityofDowne.Y EXHIBITS Staff's Decision Letter PC Agenda Page19 CIVIC CENTER 11111 BROOKSHIRE AVE. PO BOX7016 DOWNEY. CALIFORNIA 90241-7016 562-869-7331 www downevca.orq CityofDowney May 10, 2019 Sandra P. Castro Magallon 7542 Suva Street Downey, CA 90240 Subject: Minor Conditional Use Permit (PLN-19-00049) 7542 Suva St. Dear Ms. Magallon, Thank you for submitting a request for a Minor Conditional Use Permit (PLN-19- 00049) to operate a large family daycare (up to 14 children) on a property located at 7542 Suva Street, zoned R-1 6,000 (Single-family Residential). S1aff received your request for operation of a large family daycare in a residential zone on April 16, 2019. On April 24, 2019, staff deemed the application complete and prepared a public notice that was sent to properties within a 100 foot radius of the subject site. Per Downey Municipal Code (DMC) Section 9814.04(h), a minor conditional use permit is required for the operation of a large family daycare in residential zones. In accordance with the DMC, required findings for a minor conditional use permit must be met in a positive manner in order for the request to be approved by the City Planner. Unfortunately, after careful analysis and consideration, the Planning Division is unable to make all the necessary findings for approval thereby denying your request Staff is unable to make the following finding in support of your application: 3)The proposed activity or use wi ll not result in conditions or circumstances contrary to the public health, safety, and general welfare. A large family daycare (14 children maximum) has the potential to cause a nuisance upon neighboring properties. The proposed use has a high potential of increasing the ambient noise levels through the potential addition of 14 children, which is outside of what is normal for a single family neighborhood. The characteristics of the proposed large family day care, with proposed operating hours of 24 hours a day, are more comparable to a commercial zone. The proposed facility is a 1,759 square foot home where activities are expected to expand to an outdoor play area. Due to existing development standards in the area, the outside play area may be located only five feet away to the closest LIBRARY 11121 BROOKSHIRE AVE DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90241-7016 562·904-7360 www.downeylibrary.org Future Unlimited POLICE DEPARTMENT 10911 BROOKSHIRE AVE PO BOX 7016 PARKS a RECREATION 7850 QUILL DR. DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90242 562-904-7238 UTILITIES DIVISION MAINTENANCE SERVICES 9252 STEWART & GRAV RD. 12324 BELLFLOWER BLVD. DOWNEY. CALIFORNIA DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90241-7016 562-904-7202 90242 562-904·7194 DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90241·7016 562-861·0771 PC AGENDA PAGE 13 PC Agenda Page20 Sandra P. Castro Magallon Page2 May 10, 2019 neighboring habitable structure. Specifically, the need to accommodate both indoor and outdoor activity for children of varying ages, along with the need to accommodate varying drop-off and pick-up times in close proximity to neighboring habitable structures has a high potential for causing conditions that would be contrary to the general welfare of surrounding residents. In addition, traffic generated by parents and guardians patronizing the proposed large family daycare can potentially increase to levels outside the norm for single family neighborhoods. This includes both trafflc related to pick-up and drop-offs as well as parking necessary for visitors and future staff. In response to the public notice prepared for this application, staff was made aware that the neighborhood already experiences more traffic than other neigh borhoods due multiple factors including proximity to the Maude Price School. The high potential for impacts contradicts the residential zone's intent and purpose of creating stabilized and maintained communities. The potential impacts from the proposed large family daycare have the potential of depriving neighboring property owners from enjoying their property as others do in other single family neighborhoods. Most large format child care services occur in commercial zones away from the single family properties so that impacts related to these larger format services do not occur directly adjacent to residents. Ultimately, the proposed use has a high potential to increase noise and traffic that can create conditions and circumstances contrary to the public health, safety, and general welfare. Based on the aforementioned finding I am unable to make positive findings in accordance with the Downey Municipal Code, and must hereby deny the Minor Conditional Use Permit (PLN-19-00049). This decision will become final on May 27, 2019, unless the project is appealed to the City's Planning Commission. Please be advised, all appeals shall be filed, in writing, with the City Clerk prior to 5:00 p.m. on May 27, 2019 and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee of $250.00. Please contact me at (562) 904-7154, if you have any questions or comments regarding this matter. Respectfully, �� CIVIC CENTER 11111 BROOKSHIRE AVE. PO BOK 7016 DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90241-7016 S62-869-7331 www.downevca.orQ City Planner CL:MW LIBRARY 11121 BROOKSHIRE AVE DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90241-7016 S62-90-4-7360 www downeylibrary.org Future Unlimited POLICE DEPARTMENT 10911 BROOKSHIRE AVE PO BOX 7016 DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90241-7016 662-861-0771 PARKS a RECREATION 78SO QUILL DR. DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90242 562-904-7238 UTILITIES DIVISION 9252 STEWART & GRAY RD DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90241-7016 562-904-7202 MAINTENANCE SERVICES 12324 BELLFLOWER BLVD DOWNEY. CALIFORNIA 90242 562-904-7194 PC AGENDA PAGE 14 PC Agenda Page21 CityofDowney EXHIBITS Applicant's Appeal Letter PC Agenda Page22 05/20/2019 Attn: Crystal Landavam Department: City of Downey / City's Planning Commission tt·· JV ... fl . 1 ti'1J �­ PL,. J�@; Re: Minor Conditional Use Permit (PLN-1900049) Sandra P. Castro Magallon 7542 Suva Street Downey, CA 90240 Dear Crystal, I'm respectfully appealing your decision of denial and request reconsideration of the above mentioned permit. I strongly believe this permit should be approved for the following reason(s): Primarily, I would like to give you a bit of background of my experience and history in childcare and the operations of it. I currently reside and operate a childcare at 7925 Stewart and Gray Rd, apt 6 Downey CA 90241. I have been operating since 2017, and have over 5 years of experience in childcare facilities. Since then, I have never had a complaint, disagreement or any type of nuisance to our neighbors. It is a 2 bedroom apartment of approximately half the size smaller than the new res idence we are applying for. To confirm for you that my current neighbors have never been disturbed, along this appeal you will fmd letter of recommendations from the apartments next to mine. With that being said I would like to proceed on the day to day operations of the childcare. Children are for the most part picked up by me, meaning we would never create any traffic complications for the local residents. If children are for any reason being dropped off or picked up at my residence, there is a two car garage and driveway that will be entirely available for the parents, hence I enforce the parents drop off their children inside the residence, for theirs and the children safety. Also parents never arrive or depart at the same time; it is extremely rare parent's concede at the same times. The necessity of every parents child care needs vary widely. Also for the most part I care for siblings meaning one parent will pick up a few children at once; as demonstrated traffic will definitely not be generated by the daycare operations. In regards to the play area, there is an indoor and outdoor designated area for the children, the outdoor area is located more than 5ft away within the neighboring habitable structures. Attached you can also find the floor plan, where that play area is being placed I would also like to advise, that since applied I have now reduced the operation hours from a 24 hour facility to an only 16 hour facility. The window of operation will be from 5am to 9pm. I underline that not because the window of operations is 16 hours, it means PC AGENDA PAGE 15 PC Agenda Page23 that there will be children present all 16 hours long. The average hours a single child is cared for are 2-4 hours at a time. While the children are under my care I include activities such as eating, napping, homework and playtime, outdoor playtime in generally average an hour per child. The time spent outdoors is very limited. In the daycare I also have rules and guidelines for the children, were it is highly encouraged to keep noise level at a minimum. As previously mentioned my current residence is a lot smaller that the residence in subject and again, we have never had any noise level complaints from the residents. Please know I appreciate the quietness and tranquility of the neighborhood, and I guarantee to contribute to it entirely. Including myself we are a total of 3 people watching the children, which means I would never at the same time have more than 6 kids, I limit my staff and myself to two children per adult. I emphasize that approving a 14 children permit, does not imply there will be 14 children being cared for 16 hours a day. Additionally on the denial letter it is notified that a large size childcare facility occur in commercial zones, but actually there are more childcare facilities located in residences than commercial zones in the city of Downey. The only daycare facilities that must be in a commercial zone are pre-school facilities, not day cares. Please know that prior to applying for the permit, J along with my Realtor, and a city employee researched extensively on the distance of the already established daycares, the zones, and the locations. I was assured personally establishing a daycare in the residence in subject and obtaining the Minor Conditional Use Permit (PLN-1900049) Would not be problem. I understand the residents in the area, might have not agreed and I respect that. But I would like to express to my future neighbors and the city that this is a house that was purchased with many sacrifices. I purchased this house to continue raising my own daughters and to make of it a home of not only a business. I strongly believe I will bring value to the neighborhood, offering a trustworthy daycare for the parents in need, I offer them peace of mind while they are at work to generating income to provide for their families. I have mothers, current residents of the City of Downey, waiting for me to be approved to help them care for their kids, currently struggling to find the proper care for them. If the possibility of obtaining the Minor Conditional Use Permit (PLN-1900049) for 14 children is not reconsidered and approved. Then what is the most children you are willing to approve. If instead of 14 children you can approve 12 children, by all means know that I'm willing t accommodate to that. PC AGENDA PAGE 16 PC Agenda Page24 CityofDowne.Y EXHIBITS Project Plans PC Agenda Page25 / / / / ' / ,,, / I C"' °" -t e. C \ o..-r"2f e.. foi',')(Yl.,_,,·r&- � r/ ,._oof> I I I I I I \ I )'?y. t> �� ,ti ->- � 1=-a..m,\t 'Do...'f CC\.'fe £yi11e� fll'lc d_ ,,... . �{ I I � ... �k \Loo""----\;,v\"cr �00#1 �1, �--°o .rf\ �?J f o..V"'' \ � T)u..'/lo.,e I I I I -· fi----C..lt\il� l1'\\e ' I. I I ' � \ -�-- -'- -i- _,.('�oO ")( .(. 't·.l' ry $:'Cy �o \ l t i c.1«\c 'Do<> ·Doo "<' PLN -1 9 -8 8 11 9 PC Agenda Page26 CityofDowne_y EXHIBITS Correspondence: in favor of the proposal PC Agenda Page27 �0 OF OIHU.1'\)R 'A Lt A('JC:ER , ur l\t'J�� fdGR :s-\LAu£t!!J."l;!"RT f.'..r.o �.-xrki'i'.'�''11 �w'1:fiiru.M�:u}&*.1.t" ,.,.,.., LLP (R ... , WAYNE i:r RSK\'" ��\·�F. R"iliof�:-u� ... ti.I' n'/t !�o"cttifJR" J r.i..� �; ... ��1Lr l'INSliNf M. OIIHFO Ra�r,.R"IE��i�s, .. No.oRl')lllljS: . 12 2019 �m �CMOCK JUne , l� 1�1�\Y, The nation's largest pro bono law jinn �'\'. 'ctiRK lk'f�i'Ef.t'i.i.{'NER' ��� �1HA ·LLP R�J.e'.: J. COL£ VIA U.S. Mail and e-mail �<;OPELANO 1tS'co11. Crystal Landavazo City Planner �!fi;i."" 1"1b.E iffi ¥· a.. .. 1<k �{ii' ��, 11111 Brookshire A venue J1L1.?·�1s1t,i'.lM·LLP Downey, CA 90241&\c., , .. � U'fflJ\1n!n.ln<. r;u� .. �'Slt'{�p�;AN clandavazo<@.downeyca.org 8X :fifg� Golk, re � lOAD ,..,. t"tlii-1-H.'A�t.P.,/'IG Madalyn Welch , Elin �f�tu r;occnwn & Dii:l.t:.l LU' MA W .1fEARTNEY rr.,, 1"1 •,l,o; .�J·},,i,1,ur f\SSistant City Planner �'H�,c1 �ERM,11orrn:s 11111 Brookshire Avenue t Ii'� .,i�8""'p,i.Lc Downe , CA 90241 .161lfNsoN" Y • ,. mwelch l ,downeyca.org �roh1 ··. ,i, 7.1 �CJ>J,.)"$.1,Jh,W,!�"' & Hamp,a, LLP S5IEA.KOtB. I\ M • Al' • D CMC o"�s�l" LU' ana !Cta uarte, �};�}"" City Clerk �i· �\:iMAIHEws 11111 Brookshire A venue ID,'tii'c'1i�tru�l(u""" Downey CA 90241 �(';;!1:,::• 11£:� l;Q.U"'-• ' t�ki'W\� 0 cllyclerk@downevca.org ��"'ti 9 iYll'"" 'tJ:,'r �.�.R�:@ttli�ir ��!J Wi.t&l-.&'V' f 1ti·m�� I.LI' Nia. , nlt�j"'� LAN .. ���tbll I.:\ .,ri!/-lt0�11""1n,, Re: Appeal to Downey Planning Commission of Denial of Minor Conditional Use Permit for Operation of Large Family Day Care Home at 7542 Suva Street (PLN-19-00049) Dear Members of the Downey Planning Commission: ft�¥�tMIJ �it�,�¥w'i:� /ff<,.,w1!'.l?i�tl!f.�' u.1.�,f�r�veR Public Counsel represents Ms. Sandra P. Castro Magallon in connection ��hA"i:1�1t'r i,rlet· ur ··wat:ri· f'lf,.""'""LLr with her minor conditional use permit ("MCUP'') application to operate a large �.,. "'""if f,' . " I r· n 1cK family day care home for the benefit of 1amilies in the City of Downey ("City"). i;i�S�"" s Fd.J LLP • ur On May 20, 2019, Ms. Magallon appealed the May 10, 2019 City Planner's .. ,, •. " ,decision to deny her a MCUP to operate a large family day care home. We are hLE.'l&t.:tl'R,\tR.'bji:" b • . h' l • f h I d . } • b dd d. kf�R"k?�9.�tr�."il,:, su m1ttmg t 1s ett�r m support o t at appea , an request.mg t 1at tt . ea e mto���.s::.:L.Lf:f., 1.1.r the record along with other documents forwarded to the City by Public Counsel w��t.!f Pi�lft'' and Ms. Magallon . Attached to this letter are a Child Care Law Center publication �������!�To:· entitled "Know the Law For Planners: ls Your City or County Compliant with lit\W;�fi�WE"b'il:)· California Law for Family Child Care Homcs"2 and a Los Angeles County Child��'AA6'.'� !l1iltmum , � c;�., sc,,,.,..,c,.. .. � r.LCare Data Sheet. IJE 'IN OFACERSOFTHEBOARO MICHAEL H STEINBERG Chdirpmon SMllit'dn (I Crmtaudl LLP PHILIP E, COOK ¥i &:::tt.:�fion, P.C IONATHAN H. ANSCHELL imu&i.T(T CBS Tk�1li011 KAREN N. FRF.OERIKSEN �WJr Disney Company MARGARET M, MORROW l'Ye,""'1, and CEO ELIZABETH BLUESTEIN C'1it{O/,Jt1arl!'lt 0/f,ar, Viet Pmidtn1 nndGtncrolCti1out"I TRACY K. RICE Vkt Pirsidtnl, Dtvdollfnt'!II FREDERICK M. f,;ICHOLAS Formd..>r �c.\'si g,.'i'Nlf.r ; ·J:}1�.�.�w��:.·,....1li;-km-,--g-e_f:_a_m-il_y_d_a_y_c_a-rc-ho-,_n_e_m_e_a-ns a home that provides family child care for nine or up to fou1teen children. Cal.,Nrq�,:Sl,IN�lllffcnlth & Safety Code § 1597.465 . fu�'!l'l�� 'EY.��·'rhe publication can also be accessed on line at: httpJ/cl1ildcarclaw.org/, p-coment/upl.oads/20 I 7/02/Know-1he-//} l MIIJl hL TlTLE • • C 1· . I C 1·1· . l � ,� ·1 .�,Et:'1t'.'w�r1�R Law-lo ·-Planner ·-ls-Your-11 -or-o 111 -om mnl-1 1t 1-a I orn1a-...i, -,or-·am1 . �E�lf'l'�"·'r' LLr Rh A1 w1 \'TS�IA 1 l & ha, .LP ��!!!" ·. zom:· "l'.i.)1ChAt'1""f'1t..<tl\ PC Agenda Page28 Public Counsel is the public interest law firm of the Los Angeles County and Beverly Hills Bar Associations. Public Counsel's Early Care & Education ("ECE") Law Unit was established in 1986 to increase access to and the supply of quality child care in Los Angeles County. Due to the critical role that quality child care plays in supporting California's current and future workforce and our economy as a whole, the ECE Law Unit provides free legal assistance to child care providers and helps them maneuver legal barriers they encounter in providing a very valuable service to the community. The ECE Law Unit assists individual child care providers, but also works directly with cities to develop policies that support child care, preserve a variety of child care options for working parents, and comply with state law. Public Counsel welcomes this opportunity to advocate for an increased focus on child care in the City of Downey. I.Facts and Background Ms. Magallon has over five years of experience providing early care & education for young children. Prior to purchasing her current home in April 2019, Ms. Magallon lived in a two-bedroom apartment in Downey, where she operated a small family day care home for up to eight children. Using her life savings, she purchased her current home specifical Iy in order to raise her young children and expand her family day care as she has a substantial waiting list for her services due to high demand for child care by working parents. Before purchasing her current home, Ms. Magallon worked with a realtor and spoke with the City Planning Division regarding her desire to operate a large family day care for up to 14 children from her residence. In order to comply with the Downey Municipal Code, she even made sure to purchase a home that was at least 1,000 feet from the nearest large family day care home. Various staff members of the City Planning Division assured her that operating a large family day care from her new home would not be a problem. On or around April 16, 2019, Ms. Magallon submitted her MCUP application to the City Planning Division along with a fee of $500. After her application was submitted, a City Planning Division representative indicated that the City is not approving MCUP applications for large family day care homes at this time because they do not want any more large family day care homes in the City. Ms. Magallon received a letter dated May 10, 2019 from City Planner Crystal Landavazo stating that her MCUP application was denied and that she had until May 27, 2019 to appeal this decision to the City's Planning Commission (See attached May 10, 2019 letter). On May 20, 2019, Ms. Magallon filed her appeal to the City Planning Commission along with a $250 filing fee and addressed the issues identified in the May 10, 2019 MCUP denial letter (See 2 PC AGENDA PAGE 20 PC Agenda Page29 attached May 20, 2019 letter). The appeal is set to be heard on June 19, 2019 at the City Planning Commission meeting. On June 6, 2019, we called the City's Planning Division and were informed that both small and large family day care providers in Downey must obtain and pay fees for a business license and home occupation permit. We were also told that it will be difficult to obtain a minor conditional use permit for a large family day care and the last few applications have been denied because these facilities are located in homes and will likely increase traffic and impact on the neighborhood. A family day care home is a "home that regularly provides care, protection, and supervision for 14 or fewer children in the provider's own home, for periods of less than 24 hours a day, while the parents or guardians are away."3 Family child care is vital for parents, especially those with infants and toddlers, who work variable, non-traditional hours and need child care close to where they live or work. Family child care is also an essential community service that suppo11s employers and boosts economic development. The shortage of child care is at crisis levels and inhibits economic development. The City of Downey struggles to provide families with children under the age of five adequate access to child care. Just 30.9% of children under age five in Downey have access to licensed child care. For children ages two to four, 32.9% in Downey have access to licensed child care. Finally, licensed child care in Downey is available for only 2% of children ages two and under.4 Further, California has lost almost a third of its supply of family child care homes since 2008.5 As more parents with young children enter the workforce, demand for child care continues to grow. The housing crisis makes it even more difficult for parents to find reliable child care and for family child care providers to open and stay in business. The City's unlawful zoning requirements for family day care homes, as laid out in detail below, further exacerbate this crisis by imposing high costs and unreasonable demands on child care providers whose median income is $23,240 per year.6 These costs and demands dissuade providers from expanding into large family day care homes and result in costs being passed onto working parents in need of child care. II.The Child Day Care Facilities Act Places Strict Limits on Local Regulation of Family Day Care Homes. The California Child Day Care Facilities Act ("the Act"), Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 1596.70 et seq., is the comprehensive law that establishes a 3 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1596. 78(a). 4 L.A.'s Early Care & Education Landscape, available at http://www.ecelandscapela.org/.5 The California Child Care Resource & Referral Network, California Child Care Portfolio (2017), available at hu ://www.rrnetwork.orgLcalifomia child care 0011folio. The California Child Care Portfolio data is also provided to the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health, Kidsdata.org (2017), available at hll ://w, w.kidsdata.or . 6 Statewide annual median income for chi Id care providers is $ $23,240 per year. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2018, h!Jp://ww .bls.gov/()es/currcnl/oes 990 l I .htm. 3 PC AGENDA PAGE 21 PC Agenda Page30 statewide system for licensing child care, and aims to ensure a supply of affordable, quality licensed child care. The Act supersedes local zoning, building, and fire codes and regulations that conflict with its provisions. Through the Act, the Legislature has stated its intent "that family day care homes for children must be situated in normal residential surroundings so as to give children the home environment which is conducive to healthy and safe development. It is the public policy of this state to provide children in a family day care home the same home environment as provided in a traditional home setting."7 Under the Act, family day care homes are considered "accessory uses of residentially zoned and occupied properties and do not fundamentally alter the nature of the underlying uses."8 The Act limits local authority to regulate such homes in order to encourage the establishment of family day care homes in residential communities, to address the lack of child care availability, and to ensure a simplified regulatory process that does not place undue burdens on providers.9 The Legislature has declared "this policy to be of statewide concern with the purpose of occupying the field [ of family day care regulation] to the exclusion of municipal zoning, building and fire codes and regulations governing the use or occupancy of family day care homes for children, except as specifically provided for in this chapter, and to prohibit any restrictions relating to the use of single­ family residences for family day care homes for children except as provided by this chapter."10 The Act, therefore, preempts local zoning ordinances that conflict with its provisions. The Act offers that for the purpose of all local ordinances, small family day care homes, defined as a home that provides family child care for up to six children or for up to eight children if certain criteria are met, are a residential use of property, and it explicitly prohibits local governments from imposing on small family day care homes any business license, fee, or tax.11 The Act allows local governments one of three discrete options for regulating zoning conditions for large family day care homes summarized below: ( 1)Classify the homes as permitted uses of residential properties (treat them like small family day care homes); (2)Grant a nondiscretionary permit to use a lot zoned for a single-family home to any large family day care home that complies with reasonable local standards, restrictions, or requirements relating to spacing and concentration, parking, traffic control, and noise without a hearing; (3)Grant a use permit that may be subject to a requested hearing. A hearing may be held only after a decision is made on the zoning application and if requested by 7 Cal. Health & Safety Code§ 1597.40(a). 8 Id. § 1597.43(a). 9 Id., see also§ 1597.30. 10 Id. § 1597.40 (a). 11 Id.§ 1597.45. 4 PC AGENDA PAGE 22 PC Agenda Page31 the applicant or affected person. The permit must be granted after the hearing if the large family day care home complies with local ordinances, if any, prescribing reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements relating to spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control. Id.§§ 1597.46(a)(l )-(3) (emphasis added). If the city chooses to require a zoning permit for large family day care homes, it can only regulate in four areas: (1) spacing and concentration, (2) traffic control, (3) parking, and (4) noise control ("four factors").12 Noise standards shall be consistent with local noise ordinances implementing the noise element of the general plan and shall take into consideration the noise level generated by children.13 The pennit must be granted if those reasonable standards are met by the family chi ld care provider.14 Regulations that fall outside the four factors arc presumed in excess of local authority to regulate family day care homes, unless they arc applied with equal force to all family rcsidenccs.15 A city ordinance that imposes restrictions beyond those allowed by the Act is invalid and subject to judicial review by writ of rnandate.16 Unless the City's ordinance relating to large family day care homes is applied in a manner which is consistent with the requirements of the Health & Safety Code, it is invalid and will not withstand judicial scrutiny. III.The City Planner's Decision to Deny Ms. Magallon a MCUP to Operate a Large Family Day Care Horne Violates State Law. Article IX, Chapter 3 Section 9312.06 of the DMC contains residential zone use regulations. Table 9.3.2 indicates that large family day care homes for 9 to 14 children in R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-3-0 zones will require a MCUP, and large family day care homes shall not be within 1,000 feet of another large family day care home. Article IX, Chapter 8 Section 9814 of the DMC clarifies the administrative permit, including MCUP, requirements. DMC Section 9814.08 states that the approval of an administrative permit "shall require the following findings by the City Planner: (a) that the proposed activity or use will be consistent with the objectives, policies, and general land uses and programs specified in the City's General Plan; (b) that the proposed activity or use is consistent with other provisions of this article; and (c) that the proposed activity or use will not result in conditions or circumstances contrary to the public health, safety, and general welfare." 12 Id. § t 597.46(a)(2)-(3). 13 Id. § 1597 .46(a)(3). 14 Id.§ 1597.46(a)(2) & (3). 15 Id. §1597.47. 16 See Angelheart v. City of Burbank, 232 Cal.App.3d 460 ( 1991 ). 5 PC AGENDA PAGE 23 PC Agenda Page32 Ms. Magallon currently has a license to operate a small family day care home for up to eight children. A person can operate a small family day care home without a regulatory permit from the City.17 Therefore, the only additional impacts that the City may consider with respect to Ms. Magallon's MCUP application are the impacts from the six additional children for whom Ms. Magallon may potentially provide care for if she operates a large family day care home at full capacity. The City Planner, Crystal Landavazo, denied Ms. Magallon's MCUP application because she was unable to find that the proposed activity or use will not result in conditions or circumstances contrary to the public health, safety, and general welfare due to the following: 1) a large family day care has the potential to cause a nuisance upon neighboring properties due to high potential of increasing the ambient noise levels; 2) the characteristics of the proposed large family day care are more comparable to a commercial zone; 3) accommodating indoor and outdoor activity and varying drop-off and pick-up times in close proximity to neighboring habitable structures has high potential for causing conditions that would be contrary to the general welfare of the surrounding residents; and 4) traffic generated by parents and guardians patronizing the proposed large family day care can potentially increase to levels outside the norm for single family neighborhoods. Ms. Landavazo concluded that "the potential impacts from the proposed large family day care have the potential of depriving neighboring property owners from enjoying their property as others do in other single family neighborhoods." As set forth below, the Act prohibits denial of Ms. Magallon' s MCUP on these grounds. 1)The conclusion that Ms. Magallon's large family day care will cause a nuisance due to high "potential" of noise is unfounded. The City Planner offers no evidence for the conclusion that the proposed use has the "potential" to cause a nuisance upon neighboring properties due to a high "potential" of increasing ambient noise levels through the addition of 14 children. As previously mentioned, Ms. Magallon currently has a license to operate a small family day care home for up to eight children. Therefore, the only additional impacts that the City may consider with respect to Ms. Magallon's MCUP application are the impacts from the six additional children for whom Ms. Magallon may potentially provide care if she operates a large family day care home at full capacity. There is no evidence supporting the assertion that Ms. Magallon's large family day care will produce noise that rises to the level of a nuisance or violates DMC noise standards. Cities can impose reasonable standards, restrictions and requirements concerning noise control under the Act, but noise standards must be 17 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1597.45. 6 PC AGENDA PAGE 24 PC Agenda Page33 consistent with any local noise ordinances implementing the noise element of the general plan and must "take into consideration the noise level generated by children." 18 The DMC does not mention specific noise standards for large family day care homes. Further, as per Article IV, Chapter 6 Section 4606.4 of the DMC, the "unamplified human voice" is exempt (rom standards that apply to unnecessary noises. Ms. Magallon will comply with DMC provisions regulating ambient noise levels of residential land uses. In her previous two years providing child care in Downey, Ms. Magallon has never received any noise complaints from her neighbors. Al so, it is very unlikely that she will be caring for 14 children at any one time as many of the children in Ms. Magallon's day care are with her for only a few hours at a time because she often provides after-school care. Ms. Magallon also plans to stagger when children in her care play outdoors and limit outdoor play hours. 2)The City Planner's suggestion that large family day care homes arc better suited for commercial zones is contrary to public policy and state law. The City Planner's response to MCUP (PLN-19-00049) states that most large format child care programs occur in commercial zones away from residential properties and "contradict the residential zone's intent and purpose." As previously mentioned, the Legislature has stated its intent "that family day care homes for children must be situated in normal residential surroundings so as to give children the home environment which is conducive to healthy and safe development. It is the public policy of this state to provide children in a family day care home the same home environment as provided in a traditional home setting."19 The Legislature has declared the Act's purpose to occupy the field to the "exclusion of municipal zoning ... and to prohibit any restrictions relating to the use of single-family residences for family day care homes for children. "20 Under the Act, family day care homes are considered "accessory uses of property in residentially zoned and occupied properties and do not fundamentally alter the nature of the underlying uses."21 By definition, a family day care home is a residential use of property and is not better suited for operation in a commercial zone. Further, the Act provides that "a city ... shall not prohibit large family day care homes on lots zoned for single-family dwellings."22 By implying that large family day care homes belong in commercial zones, the City is prohibiting large family day care homes on lots zoned for single-family dwellings. This is a 18 Id. § l 597.46(a).19 Id. § l 597.40(a).20 Id.21 Id. § l 597.43(a).22 Id. § l 597.46(a), 7 PC AGENDA PAGE 25 PC Agenda Page34 violation of the provisions of the Act and cannot be a basis for denying Ms. Magallon a MCUP to operate a large family day care at her residence. 3)The City cannot deny a zoning permit for a large family day care based on alleged public health, safety, or general welfare concerns. The City Planner's response to MCUP (PLN-19-00049) states that the proposed large family day care home has a high "potential" to cause conditions contrary to the public health, safety, and general welfare of surrounding residents due to the need to accommodate both indoor and outdoor activity for children of varying ages, as well as varying drop-off and pick-up times in close proximity to other habitable structures. Under the Act, the City is prohibited from considering public health, safety, and general welfare conditions when deciding whether to grant a MCUP to operate a large family day care home. As stated above, the Act promotes family day care homes in normal residential surroundings which are conducive to the healthy and safe development of children. Further, child care is an essential component of equitable and liveable communities. The City may impose reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements regarding only spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise.23 Therefore, the City cannot deny a MCUP on the basis of public health, safety, or general welfare concerns. 4)There is no evidence to support the conclusion that Ms. Magallon 's large family day care has the "potential" to increase traffic. Lastly, the City Planner's response to MCUP (PLN-19-00049) states that the proposed use can "potentially" result in an increase to traffic levels outside of the norm for single family neighborhoods. This is both pertaining to pick-up and drop-offs as well as parking necessary for visitors and any future staff. Ms. Magallon's home is located at 7542 Suva Street in Downey. Suva Street is a regularly traveled collector street that, according to the Downey General Plan, is "designed to provide access to arterial roads and the regional roadway network from local streets." This is in contrast to local streets that are "designed with narrow widths intended to slow traffic speeds." Ms. Magallon has an existing driveway that provides ample off-street parking spaces for drop-off and pick-up and parents tend to arrive and depart at different times of the day. Additionally, Suva Street provides generous curbside parking in front of Ms. Magallon's residence, with little likelihood of affecting curbside parking in front of nearby residences. Thus, unless the City can show otherwise, parkin$ and access issues cannot be a basis for denying Ms. Magallon a MCUP to operate a large family day care home. B Id. § I 597.46(a)(3). 8 PC AGENDA PAGE 26 PC Agenda Page35 Traffic should also not be a concern. First, there is no evidence that traffic is or will be an issue. Second, Ms. Magallon currently cares for eight children, and the City's grant of an MCUP to operate a large family day care home would allow Ms. Magallon to care for no more than 14 children --six more children than she cares for currently. Currently not all families with children enrolled in Ms. Magallon's day care drive to and from Ms. Magallon's residence. For the most part, Ms. Magallon picks up the children she cares for or families carpool to Ms. Magallon's day care. The City appears to assume that if Ms. Magallon operates a large family day care for up to 14 children, six new families will be driving children to and from Ms. Magallon's residence. However, as previously mentioned, Ms. Magallon provides transportation for many of the children in her care, and if families drive to Ms. Magallon's day care, it is likely that they will be transporting more than one child. Further, most children is Ms. Magallon's day care will not be dropped-off or picked-up at the same time. Tn short, traffic is not an issue that justifies denying Ms. Magallon a MCUP to operate a large family day care home. IV.As Applied to Family Day Care Homes, Downey Municipal Code Provisions Violate State Law. The Downey Municipal Code ("DMC") also includes several provisions that are non-compliant with the Act. The below is not an exhaustive analysis of DMC as applied to family day care homes generally, but we are happy to provide one upon request so that the City can fully comply with its obligations under state law. A.Tl,e City's Requireme11t tl,at Large Family Day Care Homes Sl,a/1 Not Be Witltin 1,000 Feet of Each Other Violates State Law. As mentioned in Section II, the Act places strict limits on local regulation of family day care homes. Local jurisdictions are permitted to impose reasonable zoning standards in the areas of spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control. However, the requirement that large family day care homes be located at least 1,000 feet from each other is not reasonable given the shortage of child care in Los Angeles County and cities like Downey. The 1,000 feet requirement unnecessarily limits the supply of family day care homes in contravention of public policy and state law. Many cities have no spacing requirements for large family day care homes, or utilize I 00 to 300 feet spacing requirements. We encourage the City to either eliminate its spacing and concentration rules for large family day care homes, or implement reasonable requirements in this area. B.Tl,e City Ca,mot Impose Any Business License or Zo11ing Permit Requireme11t.v on Small Family Day Care Homes. Article VI, Chapter 2 of the DMC contains the City's business license 9 PC AGENDA PAGE 27 PC Agenda Page36 regulations. Article IX, Chapter 4 Section 9408 of the DMC discusses the City's home occupation permit and conditions imposed on such occupations. There are fees associated with both the business license and home occupation permit. DMC Section 6200. l explains that the business license chapter "shall apply to all persons conducting a business, profession or trade within the City regardless of whether such person maintains a fixed place of business in the City and whether such person may primarily conduct his or her business, profession or trade elsewhere." Section 6200.2 further defines businesses, professions, and trades. Section 6203 states that "[ n ]o person shall transact and carry on any business, trade, professional, calling or occupation in the City without first having procured a license from said City so to do or without complying with any and all applicable provisions of this chapter." DMC Section 9408.06 states that "[n]o person shall commence or carry on a home occupation in any residential zone, or mobile home/manufactured home park regardless of the zone, without first having procured a permit from the City Planner." Section 9408.08 states the home occupation conditions, including, but not limited to the following: "such use shall be conducted solely within the confines of the principal dwelling and shall not exceed ten percent of the floor area; the home occupation shall be conducted by a member or members of the family residing on the property and as an incidental use to the primary residential use. No other person shall be employed; no customer shall be served on the premises, and no pedestrian or vehicular traffic shall be generated beyond that incidental to a residential use." While none of the DMC business license or home occupation provisions specifically mention small family day care homes, we contacted the City's Planning Division on June 6, 2019 for clarification. A representative informed us that both small and large family day care providers residing and doing business in Downey must obtain a business license as well as a home occupation permit. Requiring small family day care providers to obtain and pay fees for a business license and home occupation permit is expressly prohibited by California law.24 We request that the City immediately stop imposing business license and home occupation permit requirements on small family day care homes, and that small family day care homes be explicitly exempted from the DMC business license and home occupation permit provisions in order to ensure compliance with the Act. C.Many of the City's Home Occupation Permit Conditions, as Applied to Large Family Day Care Homes, are Un/awf11/. Additionally, many of the City's home occupation conditions, as applied to large family day care homes, conflict with the Act. Specifically, the home 24 Id.§ 1597.45(a)-(b). 10 PC AGENDA PAGE 28 PC Agenda Page37 occupation conditions related to conducting the home occupation entirely within the confines of the principal dwelling, limits on the area of the home used for the home occupation, prohibition on use of employees, prohibition on serving customers at the premises, and restriction on generating any pedestrian or vehicular traffic beyond that incidental to a residential use are impermissible as they relate to family day care homes. As mentioned above, while the Act prohibits cities and counties from imposing any zoning rules on small family day care homes, it allows cities and counties to impose limited zoning conditions on large family day care homes in the areas of: I) spacing and concentration, 2) traffic control, 3) parking, and 4) noise control.25. The home occupation conditions mentioned above violate the Act as they are unrelated to the four areas that cities are allowed to regulate when it comes to large family day care homes. Authority to regulate child care providers outside of the above four mentioned areas is vested in the Community Care Licensing Di vision of the California Department of Social Services. The above conditions give the City unrestrained discretion with respect to the requirements for large family day care home occupation permits. Such discretion leads to impermissible requirements and increased regulation of family day care homes, contrary to the purpose of the Act. We request that the City exempt large family day care homes from its home occupation requirements or immediately stop imposing illegal home occupation conditions on large family day care homes. V.The City Planning Commission Must Grant Ms. Magallon's MCUP Application. California law clearly states that family day care homes for children should be situated in normal residential surroundings to give children the home environment which is conducive to healthy and safe development. It is the public policy of California to provide children in a family day care home the same home environment as provided in a traditional home setting. In order to advance this important policy, the California legislature has removed most of the discretion that municipalities might otherwise have to regulate family day care homes. Cities must permit the operation of large family day care homes in residential neighborhoods if those homes comply with reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements concerning 1) spacing and concentration, 2) traffic control, 3) parking, and 4) noise control. Ms. Magallon's MCUP application does not pose concerns regarding these four issues. Further, the Act does not permit cities to use these areas as a basis to prohibit large family day care homes. Therefore, we respectfully request that Ms. Magallon's MCUP application be granted. For any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at the number above. 25 Id. § l 597.46(a). 11 PC AGENDA PAGE 29 PC Agenda Page38 Sincerely �ah!T Senior Staff Attorney, Public Counsel Community Development Project/ Early Care & Education Law Unit rmahajan@publiccounsel.org, 213-385-2977, ext. 135. Enclosures (4) CC: City Planning Commissioners, Miguel Duarte, Patrick Owens, Steven Dominguez, Matias Flores, Nolveris Frometa; City Attorney, Yvette M. Abich Garcia; City Council Members, Blanca Pacheco, Sean Ashton, Rick Rodriguez, Claudia Frometa, Alex Saab 12 PC AGENDA PAGE 30 PC Agenda Page39 PC AGENDA PAGE 31 PC Agenda Page40 0 l � ab CHILD CARE LAW (ENTER. KNOW THE LAW FOR PLANNERS I s You r Ci t y o r Co u n t y Co 01 p I i an t w i th Ca I i f o r n i a Law for Fan1ily Child Care Hoines? Many planners are unaware that local requirements imposed on large family child care homes in California are unnecessary and may conflic t with state law. The California Child Day Care Facilities Act ("the Act"), Cal. Health & Safety Code§§ 1596.70 er seq., strictly limits local regulation of family child care homes and preempts (supersedes) local zoning, building, and fire codes and regulations rhar conflict with its provisions. 1 As a planner, you know chat the amounr of staff rime dedicated to evaluating child care zoning applications and administer­ ing public hearings can be quite onerous. Because of the Act, your city or county can make the zoning permit process for large family child care homes cost-effective and less burdensome. This publication will help you understand local governments' obligations under state law and how child care administrative policies can be streamlined. Planners know that ensuring an adequate supply of child care to support working parents, conveniently located in residential areas, is a key component to building healthy, economically vibrant communities. The American Planning Association (APA) states as its policy, "child care is a critical component of livable communities ... and chat local planning policies can play an important role in ensuring adequate child care."2 You are in a unique position co foster che growth of child care by reducing zoning barriers and fees, and simplifying processes.3 CHILD CARE LAW CENTER 445 Church Street I Fourth Floor I San Francisco, CA 94114 I 415. 558. 8005 info@childcarelaw.org I www.childcarelaw.org PC Agenda Page41 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 What is the state law that sets the requirements for family child care in California? 2 What is a family child care home? 3 What is the difference between a small and large family child care home? 4 What state law sets the licensing and health and safety requirements for family child care? 5 What state agency regulates child care? 6 Does the California Child Day Care Facilities Act allow my city or county to impose any requirements on small family child care homes? 7 Can my city or county require a large family child care home to obtain a business license? 8 Does the California Child Day Care Facilities Act allow my city or county to impose zomng requirements on large family child care homes? 9 Can my city or county require a large family child care home to obtain a zoning permit? 10 Which permissible zoning option is the most cost-effective and least burdensome for my city or county? 11 If my city or county selects option (3) in question 9, what kind of notice does state law require regarding the hearing on the zoning application? 12 Who can ask for a hearing on the large family child care zoning application? page 2 13 If my city or county selects option (3) in question 9, can a hearing automatically be part of the zoning application process? 14 What are the zoning cost requirements and what information must be given to large family child care providers? 15 Can local governments require large family child care homes to obtain a building permit? 16 Can my city or county impose fire requirements on family child care homes? 17 Can my planning department require a site plan drawn to scale? 18 Can my city or county apply CEQA requirements to family child care homes? 19 Are family child care homes subject ro local environmental impact standards? 20 Can my city or county require a family child care provider to obtain permission from a landlord to obtain a zoning permit? 21 Can my city or county require a family child care provider to submit a tide report to obtain a zoning permit? 22 How should my planning department handle complaints about family child care homes? 23 Why does California law have special protections for family child care homes? 24 How can my local government streamline the zoning process for large family child care providers? PC AGENDA PAGE 33 PC Agenda Page42 } What is the state law that sets the requirements for family child care in California? 2 What is a family child care home? The California Child Day Care Facilities Act ("the Ace"), Cal. Health & Safety Code§§ 1596.70 et seq., is che comprehensive law chat establishes a statewide system for licensing child care, and aims to ensure a supply of affordable, quality licensed child care, which is critical to the well-being of parents and children in the stare.4 The Act preempts (supersedes) local zoning , building, and fire codes and regulations that conflict with its provisions. A family child care home is "a home chat regularly provides care, protection, and supervision for 14 or fewer children, in the [child care] provider's own home, for periods of less rhan 24 hours a day, while the parents or guardians are away. "5 Family child care homes are considered "accessory uses of property in residentially zoned and occupied properties and do nor fundamentally alter che nature of rhe underlying uses. "6 Family child care homes muse be licensed by the California Depart­ ment of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division ("Licensing").7 Parents with young children typically prefer family child care homes because of their convenient locations, flexible hours, and home-like environment that is conducive to a child's development. 3 What is the difference between a small and large family child care home? A small family child care home usually has only one adult child care provider who is the person living in the licensed home, but some may have an assistant. Small family child care homes may enroll six children, and have the option of enrolling up to two additional children, or a coral of eight, with no additional adult, if four conditions are mec.11 Small family child care homes must "be considered a residential use of property for the purposes of all local ordinances." Therefore, cities and counties cannot require small family child care providers co obtain a zoning permit or business license.9 Local governments cannot apply any requirements to small family child care homes that are not applied to all other single-family residences.10 A large family child care home has two family child care providers, at least one who must be living in the licensed home, and an assistant. Large family child care homes may enroll up to 12 children, and have the option of enrolling one or two additional children, for a total of 14, if the similar four condi­ tions are mec.11 Seate law places strict limits on local aurhoricy to impose requirements on large family child care homes. Cities and counties may nor prohibit the operation of either small or large family child care homes in single-family dwellings.12 4 page 3 What state law sets the licensing and health and safety requirements for family child care? The California Child Day Care Facilities Act ("the Ace"), Cal. Health & Safe ty Code§§ 1596.70 er seq., is also the law that governs state licensing and health and safety requirements of all child care facilities, includ ing family child care homes. The regulatory requirements chat carry out the Act are found in the California Code of Regula­ tions, cit. 22 §§ 101151 er seq. (child care cent ers) & 102351.1 et seq. (family child care homes).PC AGENDA PAGE 34 PC Agenda Page43 5 What state agency regulates child care? The California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division ("Licensing") is responsible for licensing family child care homes and child care centers, and for all aspects of the children's health and safety.13 Licensing is tasked with duties such as, evaluating whether a family child care home meets the state health and safety standards required to be licensed, conducting unannounced inspections of child care facilities, and ensuring child care providers meet the training qualifications to care for children. 14 6 7 Does the California Child Day Care Facilities Act allow my city or county to impose any requirements on small family child care homes? Can my city or county require a large family child care home to obtain a business license? No. Small family child care homes must "be considered a residential use of property for the purposes of all local ordinances." Cities and counties cannot apply any additional requirements to small family child care homes that are not applied to all single-family residences. For example, your local government cannot "impose a busin�ss license, fee, or tax" or a zoning permit on small family child care homes. 15 Yes, local governments may require large family child care homes to obtain a business license, bur they are not required to do so. If your city or county chooses to require a business license, we suggest charging a low, flat fee or basing the cost on net income, rather than gross, which is consistent with federal income tax law. Large family child care providers have a limited income based on child care fees -- from a number of families capped by Licensing. After paying an assistant's wages and workers' com­ pensation insurance, and child care-related expenses to operate the child care, they net very little income. A 2003 Los Angeles survey found that the average annual net income for a large family child care provider (caring up to 14 children) was $19,254, and for a small family child care provider (caring up to 8 children) was $11,968.16 8 Does the California Child Day Care Facilities Act allow my city or county to impose zoning requirements on large family child care homes? Yes, cities and counties may impose limited zoning conditions on large family child care homes, but they are not required to do so. Many cities have found that no or very minimal regulation best serves their community, encouraging the development of this key service for working parents. If your city or county chooses to impose zoning requirements on large family child care homes, it can promulgate reasonable zoning standards in the four limited areas of: (1) spacing and concentration, (2) traffic control, (3)parking, and (4) noise control.17 Further, noise require­ ments must be "consistent with local noise ordinances implementing the noise element of the general plan" and must take into account the noise levels of children. ts See questions 9-21 below for additional detail on per missible regulation of large family child care homes. page4 PC AGENDA PAGE 35 PC Agenda Page44 9 Can my city or county require a large family child care home to obtain a zoning permit? Yes, local governments may require a large family child care home to obtain a zoning permit, but your city and county have Limited flexibility regarding the conditions of the zoning permit. The Act states rhat che operation of small and large family child care homes "constitute accessory uses of residen­ tially zoned and occupied properries and do not fundamen­ tally alter the nature of the Ltnderlying residential use." 19 ··············································································································-············-····· page 5 Below is a summary of the three zoning options your city or county may impose on large family c:hild care homes: 1 Classify these homes as permitted use of residential property (no zoning permit); 2 Grant a nondiscretionary permit to these homes char are zoned for use as a single-family home, without a hearing. The permit must be granted if the home complies with reasonable local standards, restrictions, or requirements related to spacing and concentration, parking, traffic control, and noise. 3 Grant a use permit, subject to a hearing upon request. Notice by mail or deliv­ ery must be given to all owners within a I 00-foot radius from the exterior bound­ ary of the large family child care home, no less than IO days prior to the dace on which the decision will be made on the wning permit application. A hearing may only take place if requested by the applicant or an affected person. The applicant or the affected person may appeal the decision, and the appellant must pay the cost, if any, of the appeal. The permit must be granted after the hearing if the large family day care home complies with local ordinances, if any, prescribing reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements relating to spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise concrol.20 Explanation: The last two options provide for a non-discre tionary grant of the permit so long as the applicant meets those reasonable standards in the four limited areas. Thus, your city or county may, hue is not required, to promulgate reasonable zoning standards in the four limited areas of: ( 1) spacing and concentration, (2) traffic control, (3) parking, and (4) noise concrol.21 Noise requirements must be "consistent with local noise ordinances implementing the noise element of the generaJ plan" and must take into account the noise levels of children. 22 Because your local government can only regulate in these four narrow areas, the zoning permit process should be uncomplicated and easy to administer. For exam­ ple, your city and county may not require a family child care home to prove the home is compatible with existing residential land use in rhe area, because by definition, a family child care home is a residential use of property. Local regulations that fall outside the above four areas are presumed in excess of local authority to regulate family child care homes, unless they are applied with equal force to alt single family residences.u Fees for a zoning permit must be processed as "economically as possible" and cannot "exceed che cosrs of che review and permit process." 24 PC AGENDA PAGE 36 PC Agenda Page45 10 Which permissible zoning option is the most cost-effective and least burdensome for my city or county? Option (1) in question 9 is the most cost-effective and least burdensome for city and county departments. Planners often note that the benefit of encouragit1g the expansion of child care outweighs the time and cost of administering a zoning permit. If your city or county decides to require a zoning permit, option (2) is the next best choice. An administrative use procedure without a hearing minimizes coses and time to process a zoning permit. Option (3) is the most costly and time consuming process for your city administrators and family child care providers. Moreover, option (3), which allows for a hearing, often gives neighbors the mistaken impression chat they may block issuance of a permit when a child care provider meets all the reasonable standards related to the four areas of permissible regulation. When a child care provider meets the reasonable standards related to the four areas of permissible regulation, che permit must be issued. 11 If my city or county selects option (3) in question 9, what kind of notice does state law require regarding the hearing on the zoning application? The Act requires chat notice of rhe proposed use only be mailed or delivered to all real property owners "within a 100-foot radius of the exterior boundaries of the proposed large family day care home" no less than 10 days prior to the dace on which the zoning application decision will be made. 25 The state legislature has balanced the need to notify nearby neighbors who may be affected by the zoning application with the privacy interests of parents who wish to avoid having the general public notified of the location where their young children are being cared for. Consistent with this balancing of interests, Licensing does not publicize the address number or street name of family child care homes on its website.26 12 Who can ask for a hearing on the large family child care zoning application? Only the applicant or another "affected person" may request a hearing on the proposed family child care use. To deter­ mine who is an "affected person," hearing officers and judges will look to the extent to which this person is actually impacted. Given the Legislature's desire that "family child care homes for children should be situated in normal residential surroundings" and the Act's overall goal of expanding child care availability by strictly limiting local governments' authority to regulate family child care, a person would need to give a strong reason why he/she is affected by the large family child care home. 13 page 6 If my city or county selects option (3) in question 9, can a hearing automatically be part of the zoning application process? No. The Act outlines the substantive and procedural � zoning requirements. A hearing on a zoning �application "shall not be held before a decision � is made unless a hearing is requested by the , .....applicant or ocher affected person. The applicant or other affected person may appeal the decision.27 The appellant shall pay the cost, if any, of the appeal." Consequently, a hearing cannot automatically be part of the zoning process and child care provider applicants cannot be charged upfront for hearing costs.PC AGENDA PAGE 37 PC Agenda Page46 14 What are th� zoning cost requirements and what information must be given to large family child care providers? If your city or county requires a zoning permit for large family child care providers, the fees for review of the application cannot exceed the cost of review and the permit process. 28 If a deposit is required for the zoning permit, your city or county must give the family child care provider applicant the estimated final zoning permit cost, and procedures for receiving a refund from the unused portion of the deposit. 29 The zoning application must inform the applicant of her/his right to ask for a written fee verification of the permit.30 Within 45 days of a request, your city or county must give the applicant a "verification of fees" and a "breakdown of any individual fees charged in connection with the issuance of the permit."31 Upon request, your city or county must also give the applicant "a list of the permits and fees chat are required by the city, county, or city and county, including information about other permits that may be required by other departments in the city, county, or city and county, or by other public agencies ... [and] provide information about the anticipated length of time for reviewing and processing the permit application." 32 15 Can my city or county impose fire requirements on family child care homes? Local governments cannot require small family child care homes to undergo a fire inspection , bur your city or county may require large family child care homes to undergo one as pan of the zoning process. 33 Your local fire department may only require large family child care homes to com ply with fire standards adopted by the State Fire Marshal found in the California Code of Regulations Title 24, and the standards must be applied uniformly to these homes throughout the state.34 "No city, county, city and county, or district shall adopt or enforce a building ordinance or local rule or regulation relating to the subject of fire and life safety in large family day care homes that is inconsistent with those standards adopted by the State Fire Marshal, except to the extent the building ordinance or local rule or regulation applies to single-family residences in which day care is not provided. "35 Licensing also requires a fire inspection that must follow the Title 24 regulations. using the STD 850 fire inspection form.36 Consistent with process­ ing the zoning application as economically as possible, planning departments chat require a fire inspec­ tion should coordinate with the fire department to perform only one inspection for both the zoning permit and for Licensing.37 16 Can local governments require large family child care homes to obtain a building permit? No. Large family child care homes are con- sidered an accessory use of residential property and are considered single-family residences for purposes of the State Uniform Building Standard Code and local building ordinances. Use of a single-family dwelling does not constitute a change of occupancy for state housing law or local business codes. 38 For the same reason, an environmental review or engineering permit may not be required. Unless the family child care home undergoes a structural change that neces­ sitates a building permit, your local government cannot require a building permit solely based on a small family child care home expanding to a large family child care home. Additionally, a family child care home provider must notify Licensing of any structural additions or alterations made to a licensed home.-'9 page 7 PC AGENDA PAGE 38 PC Agenda Page47 17 Can my planning department require a site plan drawn to scale? No. Only rhe state or local fire department, and Licensing can approve or disapprove the size of a large family child care home.40 The facility sketch required by Licensing must be drawn "close to scale," and should be sufficient for zoning purposes.41 The facility sketch includes a drawing of the floor plan and yard. The floor plan must label all rooms and "identify areas which will be 'off limits' to children. Door and window exits from the rooms must be shown in case of an emergency." The yard plan must include its "overall size" and "garage and storage building, [ ... ] walks, driveways, play area, fences, gates." It must also show all areas "off limits to children" and "any potential hazardous areas such as pools, garbage storage, animal pens, etc."42 Requiring a professional architectural or engineer site plan in addition to the facility sketch required by Licensing is considered unreasonable and too costly under the Act.43 18 19 Can my city or county apply CEQA requirements to family child care homes? Are family child care homes subject to local environmental impact standards? No. Small and large family child care homes are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).44 Your ciry or councy may apply environmental impacr stan­ dards that arc required in a local ordinance only if the same requirement applies co all single-family dwellings.45 For example, if your city requires a family child care home co conduct an environmental impact study on its ground water, the same requirement must be applied to all single-family dwellings that are not family child care homes. The Act makes clear that neither a small nor a large family child care home is considered a change in occupancy for purposes of state or local building codes.46 20 page 8 Can my city or county require a family child care provider to obtain permission from a landlord to obtain a zoning permit? No. The Act strictly forbids any restriction or prohibition on a condition related to "use or occupancy" of real property, either "directly" or "indirectly. "47 Such restrictions or prohi­ bitions are considered "void" under state law.48 Implement­ ing a condition that allows landlords ro decide whether a family child care provider can obtain a 1.0ning permit ro operate a large family child care violates this provision. Similarly, landlords cannot prevent renters from operating a family child care.49 PC AGENDA PAGE 39 PC Agenda Page48 21 22 23 page 9 Can my city or county require a family child care provider to submit a ti tle report to obtain a zoning permit? How should my planning department handle co mplaints about family child care homes? Why does California law have special protections for family child care homes? No. A title report is not reasonably related to one of the four areas where local governments are permitted to regulate (spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control).50 Moreover, a title report is unnecessary because the Act declares any encumbrance on real property that prohibits or restricts the operation of child care void. 51 A child care provider who rents her/his home must inform, but need not obtain permission from, her/his landlord to operate a family child care. 52 Your city or county may request a copy of Licensing Form 9151, "Property Own­ er/Landlord Notification Family Child Care Home" that must be submitted co Licensing with the family child care home licensing application. 53 If neighbors have concerns about a family child care home, you should encourage them to speak directly with the family child care provider to work out any problems. For health and safety concerns about a child care, such as the supervi­ sion of children in a child care, you should refer neighbors to the local child care resource and referral agency, Child Care Advocate Program, or regional Licensing office. 51 The Act strictly limits city and county regulation of family child care homes in order to address the lack of child care availability, encourage the establishment of family child care homes in residential communities, and to ensure a simpli­ fied regulatory process that does not place undue burdens on providers.55 Despite the high demand for family child care, it remains in very short supply. The scarcity of licensed child care in California is at a crisis level; only 25% of children with working parents who need child care can find it.56 And in some counties, the percentage of child care availability is even lower and continues to decline. 57 A major reason for this scarcity is that in all too many communities, family child care providers wanting to expand their capacity to care for more children are discouraged by onerous, expensive, and lengthy zoning, business, and fire inspection processes imposed by various local government entities.58 The coses of burdensome regulations are passed onto families, who typically pay over 30 percent of their income on child care, and keep children from receiving the care they need.59 Another reason for the lack of child care is poverty-level wages for child care providers. On average, a child care worker in California earns just over $26,000 per year, and even less if the child care is operated in che provider's home.60 PC AGENDA PAGE 40 PC Agenda Page49 24 How can my local government streamline the zoning process for large family child care providers? A Treat large family child care homes the same as small family child care homes -Your city and county should consider large family child care homes to be a residential use of property like small family child care homes. By not requiring a zoning permit for state licensed child care professionals, your local government will encourage small family child care providers to expand to large so that they can serve more children and keep child care costs down for working parents in your com­ munity.61 Cities often acknowledge that the revenue gained from the zoning permit for family child care providers is far outweighed by the financial burden that it places on providers. The next best option is to require an administrative use permit with reasonable standards related to the four permitted factors under state law, without a hear­ ing.62 The price of the permit should be straightforward and low-cost. Moreover, without a public hearing, neighbors will not mistakenly believe they have a right to block final approval of a zoning permit for a child care provider who has complied with all the permit requirements.63 B Encourage neighbors and family child care home providers to work out their differences -Generally, neighbors are very supportive of family child care professionals, working families, and children. However, if a problem arises between neighbors, encourage family child care providers and neighbors to talk about their differences and devise solutions together. Anyone may contact the local child care resource and referral agency to help problem solve page 10 concerns or issues about a child care home. The Child Care Advocate Program (CCAP), a depart­ ment of the California Department of Social Services, also provides "a link between child care licensing and the community." The child care advocate plays many roles, including educating the public about licensed child care and speaking with community members about any complaints or concerns about a child care, "the CCAP tailors its activities to fir the needs of the local community."64 C If your city or county requires a zoning permit, notify the child care provider upfront of all costs, anticipated time to obtain the zoning permit, and other require­ ments at the beginning of the zoning process -To ensure family child care providers comply with all local standards, your city or county should give zoning permit applicants information regarding all zoning costs, anticipated rime to obtain the zoning permit and ocher requirements at the beginning of the zoning process. Many of these notice require­ ments are required by the Act, including a statement about an applicant's right to request a written fee verification on the zoning application.65 Moreover, if your city or county requires a deposit for the permit, the family child care provider must be given the estimated final zoning permit cost, and procedures for receiving a refund from the unused portion of the deposit.(,(' Family child care providers and plan­ ning departments also find it helpful to have an easy-to-read zoning permit requirement and fee checklist chat child care providers and planners can use when processing a zoning application. See question 14 for more information. D Create a zoning permit and process specifically for large family child care homes -Creating a zoning ordinance and application specifically for family child care homes will save your planning department time and money, and ensures that the requirements outside the Act's permitted four factors (spacing and concentration, parking, traffic control, and noise) are not being applied to family child care providers. 67 PC AGENDA PAGE 41 PC Agenda Page50 This publication was wrinen br Laurie Furstcnfeld, Staff Attorney a, rhe Child C•re Law Center, with research and assisrance hr: Miles H. lmwalle, Land Use Parmer, Morrison & Focrscer LLP Patti Prunhuber, Staff Attorney, Child Care Law Center Julia Frudden, Associate Project Man•ger, Child Care Law Center Special ,hanks to: Andrew Mogensen, AICP. Planning Manager, Ciry of San Leandro Kristin Pollot, AICP, Pl•nning Manager, Ci,y of Pimburg, Planning Division Paul A. Jensen, AICP. Communiry Development Director, City of San Rafael This publication was produced with financial supporc from Legal Services Trusc Fund, State Bar of California. © 2017 Child Care Law Cemer Permission co reproduce, transmit or disseminate chis information is granted. This publication is intended to provide general information about che topic covered. It is made available with che understanding char the Child Care Law Center is not cngagc:d in rendering legal or ocher professional advice. We believe it is currenc as of December 2016, but the law changes often. If you need legal advice or technical assistance, e-mail Laurie Fumenfeld, l.rurstenfcld@childcarelaw.org. 1 I kahb & Sa(c1y Code§ I S97,10 (;I} (The California Legislature has declared "Ir is rhe intent of the Legislarnrc that family daycare homes for children should be si111a1ed in nornrnl re&idcmi�I mrroundings so as to give children the home environment which is conducive to healthy and safe development. It is the publi policy or this st.lie to provide children in a fumily day care home 1hc same home cnvironmcnr as provided in a 1111di1ion:il home cuing ... this polic)• [is] of smrcwidc concern whh the purpose of occupying rhe field lof family day Clrc n:gularion] to rhe exclusion of municipal zoning, building and lire codes and rc,gulation$ governing 1hc use or oc up:1ncy of fomily da)' c:irc humcs for children. except as �ccilically provided for in this d1ap1cr, and ro prohibit any restriction-rcl:1ring t�) rhc use of single-family r idcnces for fumily d11)' (';Ire homes for children e�i:cpt as provided hy this cl,�pter.") (emph:,sis added). 1 /\mcric;,n Planning i\smci,.11io11, C/111d <..,ir, mu/ S11,rni11nbl, Co1111111111i1y Development I (2011), nMilnbk 111 h«ps://www.plan11i11g.org/(m-arch/fomi1)'{hricungpapm/chjldcarc.h11n. 'Ame,i �n Planning Asmci�tion, Child Cnre mu/ S1111ai11ablr Comm1111i,y Dtvelopmmt 4, 7 (2011 ), availabk nt lmps:/lwww.plannjng,mg/rc�cnrch/fiunily/bri¢fingpa12mkhi1sk.:1re.h1m. 'Cal. He,ilib & . 3fcty Code§§ I S26.ZO: I 596 73 lel: .l.5.2ZAQ. 'Cal. I k•l1h & Snfcay Code§ 15'>6 711/al. Family child c:irc homes are also referred to as "family day care homes." The law and many child care advocJtC. pr.,fcr chc rerm family child c:icc home, "T he ccrm "ramily Child Care" supersedes che cerm "Family Day Care'' as used in previous reguh11ions. C;1L Codr o[ Rct•N ii1. 22, § 1(123�2 (00}. "Cal Hs:aJtb & Safc1yCmk§ 1597.4�( ). 'Cal Ht;tl1h & Safccy C,odc §§ 1597.5 \, 1596.80: Types of child care rhar are exempt from stace licensing are lisrcd under Cal, Hc:;1lrh & SafCI)' Code§ I 596.7'>2. Cal. Hghh & Saf,;t)• Code§ 1597 44 ( ondhion. in lude "(:1) J\t lc:iu one child is enrolled in and •11cnding kindcrg:inen or elemcncary �chool and a second child is ar k':1. c siJ< years of ag<·. (b) No mon: d,an two inf.int are cared for during ,Ill)' iimc when m re ch.an six childr�n are cared for. (c) The licensee norifies each p:m:111 tlm ,he focilit)' i caring for two addi1io11nl sd,oolagc hildren and chac cherc rnar he up to seven or eight children in the home Jt one time. (d) The license ob1ains 1·hc wri11cn coMcnt of 1he propcrry owner when the f:.mily day care home is opcra1ed on property 1har is leased or rcnicd."J. 'Cnl. Hralrb & S;1[c1y Code:§ I 5?7.4Slal-kl. '"C'.al. Health & Safocy Code § I S97.47. 11 Cal Heahh & S;ifcay Code § 1522 465. " C;il. l-k;,hh & Sn.(m Code; § 1592,10. U"'l11c hil,I 'arc Li cosing Prlli;rnm license and monitor Family Chit,! Care Homes �n<l Child C1rc Ccmcrs. The con: mi ion of 1hc Child • re l.ic<?n ing Progrnm rs m ensure the health and s�fcty of children in care. The ChilJ Care Licensing Program is m:rndatcd b}' lnw to provide preventive, protective. n.nd qun.li ty services ro children in c.urc by ensuring 1h:11 licensed facilities mc:c1 cst2blishcd health 2nd sifcty stanclards through monicoring facilities, providing 1cchnic;,I a5�is1:tncc, and ,·srabli,hing partnerships wich providers, p:1rcnts, and chc child c.irc community." al. Dcp'r of Soc. Scrv .. Community Cllre Licensing Division, Child Care l.imising, 111HJi/11blt "' b1iv:l/www.ccld.q.gov/rcslpdf1CCr-aciH1rC.mgmi(.SfoccSbcc1.1,1d((lm visited De 13.2016). '' See Cal. Dcp'c of Soc. Serv., "Welcome to che California Child Care Licensing Program" ar hcrp:l/www.ccld,cn,110v/p1'.111 lum. (Im vi sired Dec. 13, 2016). "Cal. I l e.11th & Safc1y (pds; § I s•>Z.45 !bl. Ser Cal. I lc:ahb & Safcn• Code § I S97 15 Cal. •• Ali,·e Burcon, UCLA Center for l mproving Child Care Qualic)' Research Team, et al .. A />rojile ofrht Family Child Carr \Ylorkj�,w i11 1hr C01tll(J' �r /.(IS A11grlr ' Cili(t,n1i11, Fi11di11gs from 1hr 20(/3 ""'(J of l·imu�y Child Cttt' lnromr and \\�rkmg ."o11d11iom. 7 (O�,. 200131 (,11111il.1blr ,11 bw>·//cro.lac:mmn· �o,•lci;p/p<l(/F•mily%20Child'in20Cuc%10Work(nrcc%l0Survs;y%20Rs;p<>n·Jin;,l pJC) page 11 PC AGENDA PAGE 42 PC Agenda Page51 "�lib & S;,ti:rr Cock§ 1 S97.4<,t,,H I H }l. "Cal H1-i1hb & Satc,y O,dc § f 597.46faH2H3l. ,., C.11 l-leald1 & Sri �1y Cmlc § 152Z.43Cal. '°C�I. Health & Safct)' Cnsle § I 597.46/;\ll I ).(j). "Cal. licalrh & .Sak1i· Code§ I 597.16folC I H�l. "C1L Mcalrb & S0fc1r Code � 1597,17. 1 J<:al. Hcal1h & Safc1r Cndl' § I 597.4<i(a}C3l. ''Cal, Hcnlth & Safcu• Code: §J 59716falf3l. h Cal. I kahh & Safer)' Code § 1597 16fa)/3).1'·C•I. Dep't of Soc. Serv., Community Care Licensing Division Facility Search, bups;//secmc.d�.c;i.goy/C rc;l'acilj1ySeorch/home/jndcx (last visited Dec. 13, 2016). "C,L H¢ahh & S;1fr1r Code§ 1597.4Gfol(3l (emphasis added). "C,I. Healili & SafeJ)' ode§ I �97A6foH3l. ,., c�1. Health & Sn[m Code§ t 597,16(1,)('1). '"C;1I. Hcahb &S11fo1r Code §l5271J!al{3). •11 C1JI. li�·ahh & Safety Code§ 15 n16Cbl!ll. 11 C.11. Healrh & Safcir Code § I S97.4<,lbH I). 1'Cal. Heahh & Snf<:J)' Code§ 1597.45/sll (small family child c.irc homes arc not subjeci co flre inspections, but Licensing must ensure they hnv� :1 fire exringuifher, 111okc dciector, and carbon monoxiJc de tector that meet the State Fire Marshal standards): CilL lfolth & Wery Cock-§ I 527,16Cn)(2l-C3l. 11 Cul. Health & Safco· Co<lc;. § I 5'>7.4S{dl; State regulations chat the fire marshal enforces arc found in Cal. Code Regs .• Tit. 24, under the building, residential and fire codes. "C:qL Henlch & , afrir Cod,;§ J 527.46 en. '"GI Hc;ilch & S:1fc1y Cods;§) 597.46<0, Cal. ode of Reg .. 1i1. 22. § I 02371; C1l. Dep'c of Forestry and Fire Prmection, Fire Safety Inspection Request STD 850. (April 2000). n1111il11blr 111 lmpS'//www.documenu.dgs.q.gov/de,5/fmc/pdf/scd8SO.pdf. J: Su Cal. Hc;ihh & Sak\)' Cos!c § 1597 1G/al{3) (roning applications must be processed as economically as possible.). "C.1I. H1-.1lch & Safc:rr Co<lt; § I 527.46fdl. lfl. '''Ca). Code ufRcgs .. tit. 22. § I 024 l 6, 3. •1'SrrCnL Buildioi: Code§ 1004 I 2 'fable; Dcp'1 <JfSoc. Scrv .. :omniunit)' Care Liccn Ing, Forni I.I ')')')A, (Fcli. 2005), nvailnble11t hup;l/www dss cahwuc1.govfrd swd,lc111n;.1lfonnr/English/LJC999A.PDF: Su C,il. Co1k of Rci;s .. th. 22. § I 02369(al. ·• s�r�:al. Code of Reg .. th. 22. § 10236%1): Dc:p'1 o(, oc. Sen•.. ommunity Care Licensing, Form I.IC 999A, (Feb. 2005), 111,ailable "' hrw:/lwww.Jss.cnhwnc1,gov/c<lmvcblcnu·c. /fonnslEngfohll lC999A PDE •1 Dcp't· of Soc. Scrv .. Comrmmi,y C:in: I .iccruing, Form LI • 9')9J\, (Feb. 2005), f11111ilabk 111 h11v:l/www.,l�srnbwoe1.gov/e<Jsswrblencrcs/formslc11gli�btl.lC222A,PPI'. ;; See Cal H�:1lih & S:i ny Code§ I 5')7.46Ca)(3)(Zoning permits requirements must be "reasonable" and the zoning application must he processed as "economically as possible."). "Cal Hralrh & Snfct)' Code§ 1$97.16/d. "LJ.I, Hcolib & Safco• Code§ 1597.47. "'Col. Hrohh & $ati;cy Code§§ I 597.45Ccl(small family child care homes); 1597.46Cd)(largc family child care homes). "c�J. Hralth & Safety Code§ i 597AO{cl. Su a/s() § l 597.40(b}. "C.11 Health & s,,fei>, Code§ 15')Z,1Q(d. ·'" Cal. Health & Safcry Code§ I S97.40Cill...(rcquiring ih�, liunily hild re provider, only 11ml w not if)• 3 landlord of intent to operate a family child Qre home). S1a1111ory l.1ngu,1ge, legislative hi�tory, and public poli y ,:onsidcrations all supp11rc chc view thac chc Health �nd Safety Code prorcc1s 1cnants who opcr:uc famil)' child c�rc humc in borh single-family houses 3nd mulli-unit dwellings. cc Moai101111. Viuo·11rd Creek L.R (l al. 193 Cal.1\pp.4th 1254 (2011); Ct)ntd t ilw Child Cn.rc Lmv encer for details u( rht s ·ulemcm. page 12 PC AGENDA PAGE 43PC Agenda Page52 1 • Sre Cul . Heilkh & Safo1y Code § l S97.46CuH2l -rn . "C"I. Heahh & $•let )' C.,lde §§ I 5')7 40(cl (" · ccp ( a� provided in subdivision (,!). every re triction or prohibi 1ion cnrercd inro. whc1her by way of coven ant, tc ondi1ion upon use or occn1,ancy. or upon transfer of ride m rcnl prnt�rty, which rc stricu or pwhibi,s directly. or indirecdy limi1., ,he aa111isirio11, use. or occnpa.ncy of s1,ch propmr for , fumily day care home fo r children is void."). I 597.40(dl (requiring that fo mil)' child care providers only need 10 nmify J l,111dlord of imcn1 rn npcracc a (:uni!)' child care hnme). Srt' q/so Cal. l)ep't of oc., trv .• Com mnnity Care Licensing l)ivi ion. Fa mily hild Care Self-Assess­ment Guide Te nant Righrs 6-7 (2000) avnilablr ,u hnp://www.cclcl.ca.gov/res/pdf/l'amilyChildCarcSdfAsscssGuideTenamRights.pdf (las1 visited November 8, I 4, 20 16). 'The 'alifornia Child Jre Rcsom�c & Referral Nc,work, C1 1/ijn 1·11i11 Child Cm· l'f lrtfo lio (2015), t1Vt1 ila ble al hup:1/www I rnmvor k.org!.::11i(omja d1ild c.,rr ponf olj o, The California ·hil,1 Care Pon folio data is also provided ro rite Lucile: Packard Foumla1ion for .hildrcn's Hcalih. KidJdnr,,.m;'?, (20 14), 111•,iil11blr 111 lmp;/fwww.kjdsslau.org . ''C.11. Ocp'1 Soc. Scrv .. f'ropcrty 01Vncr/L«ndlord Nnrilic:u ion UC 9151. (August 20 1 4). ,w11i/11 bk ,11 l11rp://www.cds.,cn gov/cd1ru,cb /tm rcsfform,/Englis h/UC9 I 5 I ,pJf. "'Anyone may cCinca t 1hc loc:il child care resou rce . nd refcrrnl ngcncy 10 help 1>roblcm solve concerns or im,cs abCJut 3 child C.1rc. The Child Core Advoca,c Progr.1m is :.1 dep:m mcnr uf the nli fornia Depanmcn t of ocial crvicc .. The child c;ire . Jvocnr,· phtys mall)' roles. including c<lucnting rhc public about licensed child care and speaking with ommunity m.:ml,crs nbo111 hilJ care complai nts M concerns. lnfom1:uion on the Child arc Advocace Program i.� ava ilable ar Cal. Dep't nf oc. Services. Child Co.re Advocacc Program, bup;l/www.ccld .ca,gnv/f>C,12 I .lum. The list of regional Community Cuc l.iccnsini; Division Child Care omccs can be found is :,vnilab!c ar lmp://www,ccl1l.ca.go,•/rcs/pdf/ccl isdng Ma. n;r.pdf. 11 Cil. Htuhh & Saf�ir Code § I 522.30. Wf"hc c.,liforni� hild Care Resuur�e & Rcfcrr:il Nmv6 rk. Ca lifomin Ch ild Co re l'ortjolio (2015), ,wa ila blr al h11p://www.rmc1wcuk 11rg/<.,1lifornja d1Hd cure ponfo!jo . The California Child Care Portfolio data is also provided to 1hc Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Heald,, Kidsdm11.01-g (2014). m111i/11blr 01 lmp;//www kic:bdaca.o rg. '7 Thc California hilcl ;uc: Rcsnurcc: & Rcfcrr:il Ncrwnrk . C11 /ifami11 l'luld Ca re Portfolio (201 5), nl'llilnblr 111 lmp;llwww.rrnmvor k.org/cnljfornja child care ponfoljo . The California Child Care Po rtfolio daca is also provided to rhc Lucile Packard Foundacion for :hildren:, Health, Kid1d,1 111 .org (20 14), 11w1i/nl,lr 111 hnp://www.kjdsdatn .org. "Su Low lncume lnvc:sr mcnr Fund, Responding 10 Child Care Facililics: A Pracrical Guide for Cicy & County Planners 4-5 (2007). avai/abk 01 hnp:1/ww­ w.l ijfond,org/wp-momu/up)onc,I; /20 I I /03/3-R,;spond ing rn Child Care f;lcjlicie<.pdf. "Ma ·a Sugarman, 89.3 Kl' 'C, Chi/,1 rorr-,-ost1 111orc 1/111 11 roll,g c rui1io11 i11 C,1/ifami11 (20 1 5). �11r:nrg/11ews/20 I 6/01/ I 3/S2177/chilckar:c·rns1s-mo rc-rhan-c:0Us:gc:-rui1ion-i1nalif/. 00 US Dcp,. of Labor. llurc.111 of Labo r Smr istics. Orrupmio 1111/ Empfopnmr S1 ,11ir1irs . Orr11p111io1111 / £111pfoJ•lllm1 1111d \�tg<'s, 39·90 I I Clu'fdm rc Wlorkm, (May 20 I�). 11V11ilublc III hup://www,hh .i;ov/ocs/qu r,·m/uc.;1122011,btm: Alice Burcon, Cl.A :cmc1 for Improving 'h ild Care Qualicy Re�car h Te am. c, al.. A Pi-ofilr of rhr f·im,i(, Ch ild ti1rr \Ylor�for.-, in 1hr C1 111111y fl( I.Of Angeles, Ctlifami,1. Fi ndings Ji-0111 the-2003 S11r/l(I' uf l·i,mi{t Child Ca rr ln.-omr 1111d Wo rking Co nditiom, 7 (D� . 2003) flv,1i/11 ble 111 h11p;//ccn.l ncounl)· pcw/cs;11ipdflfomi1y%20Cl,i ld%20Cnrc%20W,,rkfom:%20Survcy%20Rcpor1 -0onl,1'df. ''' S1a1ewidc annual median income for child care providers is $26,050. Bureau of Labor Sratisrics, Occupational Employment and Wa ges, May 20 15, hn p://www.bls.gov/nr</currc:m/o1:s399o I I .hu11 . '•1 Tht four pcrmirrcd ,uea� of loa1I rcg1Lla1ion arc: (I) spacing and concen 1raiion, (2) rraffic control, (3) parking, and (4) noise control . C.n l. Hcahh & Safety Code § I 597 46falC2H3l. "'A 20n ing permit mU$1 be gramcd if ,he child care provider meets the standards of the permit, which musr be reasonable and rclntcd ro sp:tcing nnd c:oncc111r:1tion, rraffic onrrol, porking, or noise comrnl. irmpecrive of n neighbor's oppo itinn. Srud. .§ I S97,16(a)(3). M Cal. Dep'1 of Soc. Serv., Child Care Advocace Program, hnp;//www.ccld c,1 .gov/PG4'>Lhcm (last visi red Dec. 13, 20 16). 1,1 C;iL Hnhh & S,1fc1y Code §§ l 527.46(;.)rn. I 597.46Cbl . G6Cal. Hrnhh & Safety Code;§ I 597.46(b)C l ):(3) (Applicanrs muse also be given a list of all required permits and fe es requi red by all dty and count)' depMtmcnr$ :ind ocher public agencies, a brCllkdnwn of all zoning permit fe es. and rhe amicipaccd time to review and process rhe permir application, upon the applicant's rc�ucsc.). '•' Su Low Income lnvestmen1 Fune\, Responding 10 Chile\ Care Facilicies: A Pracr ical Guide for Ci!)' & County Planners 9 (2007). 11vnil,1b/e 111 l111p;lfww w.lii(11ml.org/wp-concrnt/upJoads/20) l/03/'\-&,1pondio1i m Child Cms: facilities pdf. page 13 j/! CHILD CARE LAW CENTER. 445 Church Street I Fourth Floor I San Francisco, CA 94114 I 415.558.8005 info@ childcarelaw.org I www.childcare�'torAGENDA PAG E 44PC Agenda Page53 .. PC AGENDA PAGE 45 PC Agenda Page54 Los Angeles County Child Care Data Los Angeles County only has enough licensed child care for 22% of young children with working parents 22% Children for Whom Child Care is Available Los Angeles County 78% Unmet Need Los Angeles County has lost 37% of its supply of Famil Child Care Homes since 20081 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 Number of Family Child Care Homes in Los Angeles County 5,933 2008 2010 2012 2014 2017 ' The California Child Care Resource & Referral Network, California Child Care Portfolio (2017), available at https:llrmetwork.org/researchlchlld­ care-portfolio. The California Child Care Portfolio data is also provided to the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health. Kklsdata.org (2017). available at http://www.kidsdata.org. PC AGENDA PAGE 46 PC Agenda Page55 In 63% percent of families with pre-school age children, all parents work (includes 2-parent and 1-parent homes) 2 Los Angeles County 2017 Total number of parents with children under 725,915 age 6 Number of families with children under age 6 454,048 with all parents in the labor force The cost of child care has risen significantly since 2009 for all licensed child care, while family child care homes remain the least expensive choice. 3 Cost of Child Care in Los Anaeles Countv Increase In Percent of household cost of child income for child care Facility Age 2009 2017 costs (1 infant and 1 care preschooler) Family Infants $7,768 $9,251 19% • Child 30% Care Preschoolers $7,209 $8,749 21% •Home Child Infants $11,499 $15,351 33% t Care 43% Center Preschoolers $8,140 $10,858 33% t 2 United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Selected Economic Characteristics 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates for Los Angeles County available at https:llfactfinder.census.gov/facesltableservices4sf/pages/produclview.xhtml?pid=ACS_ 17 _ 5YR_DP03&prodType=table (2017). 3 Los Angeles County median household income $61,015. United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Selected Economic Characteristics 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates.for Los Angeles County CA available at https.J/factfincier.census.govlfacesltableservices4sflpages/productv iew.xhtml?pid=A CS_ 17 _ 5YR _ DP03&prodType =table (2017). The California Child Care Resource & Referral Network, California Child Care Portfolio (2017), available at https:llrmetworlc.orglresearchlchild-care-portfolio. The California Child Care Portfolio data is also provided to the Lucile Packa rd Foundation for Children's Health. Kidsdata.org (2017), available at http:!Avww.kidsdata.org. PC AGENDA PAGE 47 2 PC Agenda Page56 PC AGENDA PAGE 48 PC Agenda Page57 IVICCENTER Ill BAOOkSHIR!: AVE ) B()J( 7016 J\vNE''r'. CALl�ORNIA 1141-7018 J 1169·7331 lfv-o downevca.orQ c· y o fDoVl?ney May 10, 2019 Sandra P. Castro Magallon 7542 Suva Street Downey, CA 90240 Subject: Minor Conditional Use Pennit (PLN-19-00049) 7542 Suva St. Dear Ms. Magallon, Thank you for submitting a request for a Minor Conditional Use Pennlt (PLN-19- 00049) to operate a large family daycare (up to 1:4 children) �n a property located at 7542 Suva Street, zoned R-1 6,000 (Single-family Residential). Staff received your request for operation of a large family dayca� In. a residential zone on April 16, 2019. On April 24, 2019, staff dee,:ned �he apphcat1on co�lete and prepared a public notice that was sent to properties within a 100 foot radius of the subject site. Per Downey Municipal Code (DMC) Section 9814.04(h), a minor conditional use permit is required for the operation of a large family daycare in residential zones. In accordance with the DMC, required findings for a minor conditional use permit must be met in a positive manner in order for the request to be approved by the City Planner. Unfortunately, after careful analysis and consideration, the Planning Division is unable to make all the necessary findings for approval thereby denying your request. Staff is unable to make the foUowlng finding in support of your applieatlon: 3)The proposed activity or use will not result in conditions or circumstances contrary to the public health, safety, and general welfare. A large family daycare (14 children maximum) has the potential to cause a nuisance upon neighboring properties. The proposed use has a high potential of increasing the ambient noise levels through the potential addition of 14 children, which is outside of what is normal for a single family neighborhood. The characteristics of the proposed large family day care, with proposed operating hours of 24 hours a day, are more comparable to a commercial zone. The proposed facility is a 1,759 square foot home where ac::tivitles are expected to expand to an outdoor play area. Due to existing developmeht standards in the area, the outside play area may be located only five feet away to the closest LIBRARY 11121 BROOKSHIRE AVE DOWNEY. CALIFORNIA • 90241-7016 562-904-7l60 "'"'*,diwtne:,tibta.rt.or; Future Unlimited POLICE DEPARTMENT 10911 BROOKSHIRE AVE Po eox 101& OOWNEV. CALIFORNIA 90241•7016 562·861•0771 PARKS I RECREATION 7850 OUIU DR. DOWNEY, CAllfORNIA 90242 562-904-7238 UTILITIU DIYIIION 1!4AINHNANCI HRVICl!S 9252 f.TEWART I GRAV RO. 1824 &El!LFI.OWER 8.L\JD , DOWNE'(, CALIFORNIA DOWNEY CALIFORNIA 902-41-7016 ' 562-904•7202 90242 PC AGENDA PA"'3Pti9 PC Agenda Page58 CIVIC CEl<TeA lllll 8ROOl<�HIRE AVE PO BOX 7016 DOWNEY, CAtJFORNIA 90241·7016 S62•B69•73JI WWw_oow11evca- o,q S.-mdra P Castro Magallon Page2 May 10, 2019 ne1ghbonng habitable structure. Spe<:lflcally, the need to accommodate bQth indoor and outdoor actJvlty (or children of varying �ea. along with the need to accommodate varying drop-off and plok·UP tunes ln dose proxlmity to neighboring habitable struetutes has a high potential for caualng conditions that would be contrary 10 the general welfare of surround ng fUEJldents. In addition, ttafflc generated by parents and guardians p�tronizlng the proposed large family daycare can potenUally Increase to levels outside the norm for single fem ly neighborhoods. Thls Includes both traffic related to pick-up and drop-offs as well as parkihg necessary for visitors and future staff In response to the public notice prepared for this application, staff was made aware that the neighborhood already experiences more traffic th�n otJ:ier neighborhoods due multiple ·factors including proximity to the Maude Price School. The high potential for impacts contradicts the residential zone's Intent and purpose of creating stabilized and maintained communities. The potential impacts from the proposed large family daycare have the potential of depriving n·e ghboring property owners from enjoying their property as others do In other s ogle family neighborhoods. Most large format child care services occur In commercial zones away from the single family properties so that impacts related to these larger format services do not occur directly adjacent to residents. Ultimately, the proposed use has a high potential to increase noise and traffic that can create conditions and circumstances contrary to the public health, safety, and general welfare. Based on the aforementioned finding I am unable to make positive findings in acoor�ance with the Downey Municipal Code, and must hereby deny the Minor Conditional Use Pennit (PLN-19-00049). This ��ision wi_ll become _final on May 27, 2019, unless the project is appealed to th � _City s �lanmng �mission. Please be advised, all appeals shall be filed in wnting, wr�h the Crty Clerk prior to 5:00 p.m. on May 27, 2019 and shall 'be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee of $250.00. Plea 5E: con�ct me at (562) 904-7154, if you have any questions or comme ts regarding this matter. n Respectfully, �� City Planner CL:MW UIIRARY 11121 9R00KS1l1RE AVE DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90241•701& 562·904-7360 www downeyubra:.ry org Future Unlimited POLICE Pl:PAIITMENT 10911 BROOKSHIRE AVE PO BOX 7016 DOWNEV, CALll'ORNIA 90241-7016 562•8&1-0771 PARKS J RECRl!A TION 7850 QUILL DR OOWNi-V, CALIFORNIA 90242 S62·904•7238 UllUTIEt DIVISION 9l6� l!i.TEWART a GRAV RD D9WNEY. CALIFORNIA 9.0�41•7016 !il$2·904-no2 tilAIMTl!NANCI 11.AYICH l2l:U 8ELLPl.OWER 8lVO DOWNEY . CALIFORNIA 90242 562·904·7194 PC Agenda Page59 PC AGENDA PAGE 51 PC Agenda Page60 05/20/2019 Attn: Crystal Landavozo Departmen1: City of Downey/ City's Plan11iug ('om mission Re: Minor Conditional Use Permit (PLN-1900049) Sandra P. Castro Magallon 7542 Suva Street Downey, Ct\ 90240 Dear Crystal, 1 'm respectfulJy appealing your decision of denial and request reconsideration of the above mentioned permit. l strongly believe this permit should be approved for the following reason(s); Primarily, I wouJd like to give you a bit of background of my experience and history in childcare and the operations of it. I currently reside and operate a childcare at 7925 Stewart and Gray Rd, apt 6 Downey CA 90241. I have been operating since 2017, and have over 5 years of experience in childcare facilities. Since then, I have never had a complaint, disagreement or any type of nuisance to our neighbors. It is a 2 bedroom apartment of approximately half the siz.e smaller than the new residence we are applying for. To confirm for you that my current neighbors have never been disturbed, along this appeal you will fmd letter of recommendations from the apartments next to mine. With that being said I would like to proceed on the day to day operations of the childcare. Children are for the most part picked up by me, meaning we would never create any traffic complications for the local residents. If children are for any reason being dropped off or picked up at my residence, there is a two car garage and driveway that will be entirely available for the parents, hence I enforce the parents drop off their children inside the residence, for theirs and the children safety. Also parents never arrive or depart at the same time; it is extremely rare parent's concede at the same times. The necessity of every parents child care needs vary widely. Also for the most part I care for siblings meaning one parent will pick up a few children at once; as demonstrated traffic will definitely not be generated by the daycare operations. Jn regards to the play area, there is an indoor and outdoor designated area for the children, the outdoor area is located more than 5ft away within the neighboring habitable structures. Attached you can also find the floor plan, where that play area is being placed I would also like to advise, that since applied I have now reduced the operation hours from a 24 hour facility to an only 16 hour facility. The window of operation will be from 5am to 9pm. I underline that not because the window of operations is 16 hours, it means PC AGENDA PAGE 52 PC Agenda Page61 that there will be childrl!n present all 16 hours long. The average hours a single child is cared for arc 2- 4 hours at a time. White the children ore under my care I include activities such as eating, napping, homework and playtime, outdoor playtime in generally average an hour per child. 'The time spent outdoors is very limited. In the daycare I also have rules w1d guidelines for the children, were it is highly encouraged to keep noise level at a minimum. As previously mentioned my current residence is a lot smaller that the residence in subject and again, we have never had any noise level complaints from the residents. Plt!&Se know I appreciate the quietness and tranquility of the neighborhood, and I guarantee to contribute to it entirely. Including myself we are a total of 3 people watching the children, which means 1 would never at the same time have more than 6 kids, I limit my staff and myself to two children per adult. r emphasize that approving a 14 children permit, does not imply there will be 14 children being cared for J 6 hours a day. Additionally on the denial letter it is notified that a large size childcare facility occur in commercial zones. but actually there are more childcare facilities located in residences than commercial z.ones in the city of Downey. The only daycare facilities that must be in a commercial zone are pre-school facilities, not day cares. Please know that prior to applying for the permit, I along with my Realtor, and a city employee researched extensively on the distance of the already established daycares, the zones, and the locations. 1 was assured personally establishing a daycare in the residence in subject and obtaining the Minor Conditional Use Permit (PLN-1900049) Would not be problem. I understand the residents in the area, might have not agreed and I respect that. But I would Jike to express to my future neighbors and the city that this is a house that was purchased with many sacrifices. I purchased this house to continue raising my own daughters and to make of it a home of not only a business. I strongly believe I will bring value to the neighborhood, offering a trustworthy daycare for the parents in need, I offer them peace of mind while they are at work to generating income to provide for their families. I have mothers, current residents of the City of Downey, waiting for me to be approved to help them care for their kids, currently struggling to find the proper care for them. ff the possibility of obtaining the Minor Conditional Use Pennit (PLN-1900049) for 14 children is not reconsidered and approved. Then what is the most children you are willing to approve. If instead of 14 children you can approve 12 children, by all means know that f'm willing accommodate Lo that. PC AGENDA PAGE 53 PC Agenda Page62 Mayo 20, 2019 A QUIEN INTERESE Cesar Ramos residente de 7925 Stewart and Gray Rd, doy fe que nunca he tenido ning(m inconveniente tal como ruido,trafico,escandalo o invasion de espacios comunes ni privados con las personas que residen en el apartamento 6 ni con el Daycare que funciona alli desde hace 2 anos. Gracias por la atenci6n prestada. Cesar Ramos 562 2794399 PC AGENDA PAGE 54 PC Agenda Page63 Mayo 20, 2019 A QUIEN INTERESE William Bazua y Gabriela Bazua residente de 7925 Stewart and Gray Rd, doy fe que nunca he tenido ning(m inconveniente tal como ruido,trafico,escandalo o invasion de espacios comunes ni privados con las personas que residen en el apartamento 6 ni con el Daycare que funciona am desde hace 2 anos. Gracias por la atenci6n prestada. William Bazua Gabriela Bazua 562 585 5515 PC AGENDA PAGE 55 PC Agenda Page64 Mayo 20, 2019 A QUIEN CORRESPONDA Yo Brigitte Canon Lopera que vivo en 7925 Stewart and Gray Rd puedo dar fe que no he tenido ning(m inconveniente de cualquier indole con los residentes del apartamento 6 ni con el Daycare que funciona alli desde hace dos anos. Agradezco de ante mano la atenci6n prestada. a1=11a111:1:·e Canon Lopera 2 469 0985 PC AGENDA PAGE 56 PC Agenda Page65 Mayo 20, 2019 A QUIEN INTERESE SIivia Corona residente de 7925 Stewart and Gray Rd, doy fe que nunca he tenido ning(m inconveniente tal como ruido,trafico,esclmdalo o invasion de espacios comunes ni privados con las personas que residen en el apartamento 6 ni con el Daycare que funciona allf desde hace 2 af\os. Gracias por la atenci6n prestada. Silvia Corona 323 812 9992 PC AGENDA PAGE 57 PC Agenda Page66 Mayo 20, 2019 A QUIEN INTERESE Adrian Dominguez residente de 7925 Stewart and Gray Rd, doy fe que nunca he tenido ning(m inconveniente tal como ruido,trafico,escandalo o invasion de espacios comunes ni privados con las personas que residen en el apartamento 6 ni con el Daycare que funciona alU desde hace 2 atios. Gracias por la atenci6n prestada. drian Dominguez 3234824607 PC AGENDA PAGE 58 PC Agenda Page67 , CityofDowne.Y EXHIBITS Correspondence: in opposition of the proposal PC Agenda Page68 Madalyn Welch From: Sent: To: Subject: Victor & Cristina Pelayo <vicncris@msn.com> Tuesday, August 13, 2019 12:25 PM Madalyn Welch Fwd: Permit Minor Conditional Use Permit for 7542 Suva Street Re-sending due to improperly spelled email address below. --------Forwarded Message-------- Subject:Permit Minor Conditional Use Permit for 7542 Suva Street Date:Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:00:43 -0700 From:Victor & Cristina Pelayo <vicncris@msn.com> To:mwelch@downeca.org <mwelch@downeca.org> Dear Ms. Welch, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the issuance of this permit. I would like for you to know that I am very much against it. I purchased my home in December of 1998 and I am very happy with my neighborhood as it is. I feel the introduction of a business regardless of the nature would have a negative impact. I feel traffic would increase and jeopardize the feel of our quiet neighborhood. Suva is busy enough and I feel that the addition of a business among homes would be very disruptive to current traffic flow. Secondly, I feel that the parking situation would be impacted as well and thus create a ripple effect for the rest of us. One of the things I love about my street and neighborhood is the luxury of parking right in front of my home after a long day at work. Also, I fear that the issuance of this permit would open the door to similar requests and I would find my peaceful and quiet neighborhood ruined. Lastly, I feel that home values would be negatively affected by a day care center or any business being located among our homes. There are plenty of spaces available around our beautiful city for any business to operate. Please do not allow our neighborhoods to be invaded with businesses. Please do not approve ANY business to operate in a residential area! Concerned resident, Cristina Pelayo (310) 283-6129 9602 Wiley Burke Ave Downey, Ca 90240 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 PC Agenda Page69 Madalyn Welch From: Sent: To: Subject: To whom it may concern: MARIA M ROJAS <angelfamily2@aol.com> Monday, August 12, 2019 7:43 PM Madalyn Welch Minor Conditional use Permit (PLN-19-00049) I Maria M. Rojas reside at: 7511 Suva St, Downey Ca 90240, I am requesting to Deny the request for a Minor Conditional Use of Permit to allow the operation of a large family daycare, on property: 7542 Suva St, Downey ca 90240 I have lived at my resident for the pass 23 years, as time has gone by, Suva Street has become very very busy street. We have a lot of traffic coming from Bell Gardens, I have a hard time getting out of my own driveway and some days can not find any parking, a lot of vehicles drive over the speed limit on Suva St, theres at least 1 accident per month on Suva St. If you allow the permit, it will cause for people to double park, block private driveways ... This street is NOT a good area for a business (daycare). Renters should not be allow to put a business. Pleases Deny the Permit, if approved it will cause a lot of TRAFFIC AND COMMOTION, PROBLEMS WITH THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD, the whole street (neighbors are against it.!! Any questions: 562-884-8776 Owner: MARIA M. ROJAS 7511 Suva St Downey Ca 90240 1 PC Agenda Page70 Madalyn Welch From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Ms. Welch and Mr. Livas, yanderi <yanderisemail@gmail.com> Tuesday, April 30, 2019 4:11 PM Madalyn Welch; Gilbert A. Livas Opposition to day care on Suva st. My name is Yanderi Sandoval-Martinez. My husband and I are the owners of 7514 Suva st. Downey Ca. 90240. I am emailing to oppose the day care that is being considered on our street. Although Suva St appears to be a residential street, per city code it is considered a Gateway street, which means drivers drive faster. In addition, Our street parallels Florence and serves as a short cut for drivers (to avoid the traffic and lights on Florence) from Bell gardens to the 5 freeway. A few years ago our neighbors band together and asked the city to help reduce drivers speed and accidents.The city recognized our concerns and responded by adding a stop sign and having Downey Police department patrol more often. Prior to the stop sign parked cars in front of my home had been hit 4 times.Thanks Downey officials solution of a stop sign we no longer get accidents. But due to phone apps like Waze the traffic flow has increased and constant honking has become a norm. Also drivers do not make full stops, which makes it difficult to drive out ofmy drive way. In addition, big semi-trucks constantly drive through our neighborhood. I do not want children to be put at RISK of getting hit by the reckless drivers that already drive down down our street. I drop my son off at his day care Creative Beginnings on New st. in Downey. I am understand the morning drop off rush and pick up chaos. Thankfully his school and Downey Methodist day care(which is located right across the street) have big parking lots and do not require children crossing the street. Please do not additional stress to an already frustrated neighborhood. I am also requesting a public hearing open to the city of Downey residents in regards to the day care. Yanderi Sandoval-Martinez 1 PC AGENDA PAGE 60 PC Agenda Page71 May 3, 2019 Planning Division I Downey City Hall Attention: Madalyn Welch, Assistant Plann�r 11111 Brookshire Avenue I Downey, CA. 90241 Ms. Welch, RECEIVED MA'( 0 3 20i9 PLANNING My name is Ursula McWllliams and have been a resident at 7548 Suva Street in Downey California since 1994. I am writing you today regarding the proposed conditional Use Permit (PLN-19-00049) to allow a "large family daycare" at 7542 Suva Street In Downey California. I have spoken to many of my neighbors (who are also writing you) and we all share the same opposition to this CUP. Some of the reasons for this are: •Concern regarding property values declining •Existing parking Issues •Existing traffic Issues •Existing noise issues In the 25 years I have lived at this location, I have never allowed my now grown children to play In the front yard due to the excessive high speed traffic on this street. Now I have grandchildren that are In even more danger to be out front than my kids were. Years ago, some of my neighbors and I approached City Hall to ask for speed bumps on the street because people drive so fast. Not only did that not happen, but the speed limit was raised to 30mph and the stop sign that Is near my house Is not obeyed causing a very dangerous situation for children to be out front playing. Adding a business to this street will only increase the traffic and the amount of children In danger. Also, street parking ls at a premium these days. If you need to park on the street many times there Is not space available in front of the property you either live at or are visiting. Dropping off and picking up kids under these circumstances will only aggravate the parking situation for residents of this neighborhood and potentially endanger the children at the daycare. Getting to and from the car if there is no parking on a highly traveled street is dangerous. This neighborhood Is zoned residential and should be kept residential. There Is plenty of commercial property available nearby with suitable parking lots (not the street) and a business should be on a commercial property. The neighborhood is already struggling with overcrowding issues (parking and traffic) and a business would only compound the situation. When you move into a home you should be part of a neighborhood community, not a business development. My neighbors and I have worked to keep this street safe for our families and each other. Adding a business to this equation only makes that more difficult and should not be a burden on us. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me {562) 291-4149 Thank you for your time regarding this issue, Ursula McWilllams PC AGENDA PAGE 61 PC Agenda Page72 Madalyn Welch From: Sent: To: Juan S <jrsaenz0l@hotmail.com> Wednesday, May 01, 201910:41 AM Madalyn Welch; Gilbert A. Livas Subject: Permit for LARGE family daycare on Suva ST. Downey To Madelyn Welch, Gilbert Livas and whom it may concern: My name is Juan Saenz and I reside at the address of 7555 Suva St., Downey, Ca. where I am the owner of the property and have lived here for over 20 years. I'm emailing you in regards to a letter I received from the City Of Downey for an application for a minor conditional use permit for a LARGE family daycare at the address of 7542 Suva St. Downey owned by Sandra P Castro Magallon. I have some concerns and am opposed to this application for a LARGE FAMILY daycare. We already have way too much traffic from people from Bell Gardens cutting through out street to avoiding the Main streets. Is this area even properly zoned for a LARGE child care location? What measure has the city done to see how the added traffic would affect our neighborhood? And how do they plan to address them. I fear with the added traffic do to this planned LARGE day care center will only add more congestion and scarce parking on days of trash pickup and street cleaning as well as double parking from parents dropping off or picking up there kids on this two lane street with no regards for residents on Suva St. There have been several accidents on our street. Parked cars have been hit, my neighbors to the right of my house had a car drive up his lawn and hit his house, not to mention my son was once hit by a car that wasn't paying attention as we walked across the street. My own person vehicle was struck by a driver coming in from Bell Garden who fell asleep in the middle of the night who ended up not having insurance and cost me $1000 out of pocket to repair. So you can't tell me I have no right to have complain or have concerns about this added traffic this daycare will bring. We have long been complaining to the city of Downey to put speed bumps on our streets as cars race down our street day and night in and out the city of Bell Gardens. This has not been address or has fallen on deft ears. We've called the police to have this area patrolled and they have come and they seem to ticket many people. But just as the police start to patrol, they leave and don't come back unless we call again and complain. Our neighborhood Is also victim to theft from people coming over from Bell Garden and steeling items from people's front yards and fleeing back into Bell Garden via the bridge. The added traffic of none residents would cause concern as to why unknown faces, people, and cars are on our streets and what business do they have doing here. Once again, it seems the City of Downey is not looking out for its residents. I am requesting a public hearing open to the City of Downey residents in regards to this day care. Public official are needed in office that look out for the residents of Downey and if they don't we should and will vote them out of office. Residents of Suva ST. are united in this. Thank you for time and hope to hear from you. 1 PC AGENDA PAGE 62 PC Agenda Page73 Juan Saenz You can contact me via email atirsaenz01@hotmail.com regarding property on 7542 Suva Street for request to operate a LARGE family daycare. PC AGENDA PAGE 63 PC Agenda Page74 April 30, 2019 Alberto Martinez 7514 Suva Street Downey, CA 90240 562-659-6718 To whom it may concern, I received word from a neighbor that they received a letter regarding a request for city permit to operate a Child Day Care at 7542 Suva Street yesterday, with a deadline for neighbors to respond by May 6, 2019. I did not receive this letter and I live 3 houses down. First, what is the radius that the City Letter is sent to from the home requesting this type of permit? Secondly, I would like to express my concerns and hope that this city permit is not approved. I have lived at this address since 1994 when my parents purchased this home. Just recently, in March 2019, I purchased this home from my parents. I have lived on this street a long time. That being said, this street has changed and for the worst. The traffic on Suva is horrible. The neighbors all got together to express this concern to the city a few years back: we got a yellow line and some trees and a stop sign out of it (thank you). Even still, It's very difficult to enter or exit ones driveway at any time of day. Furthermore, the noise of cars is not the only concern, we do not need the noise of children running around playing and crying and yelling, we have Maude Price for that. And finally, this street and neighborhood has a really horrible dog problem. Neighbors are so negligent and apparently deaf, that their dogs bark (and howl) endlessly day and night. I have young kids and another baby on the way, nap times are hard enough. These dogs do not need additional fuel, like strangers coming and going to pick up their kids, for barking. Finally, why can't this neighbor file for a City Permit to rent a proper place of business zoned for kids to run around? This is a neighborhood, not a business center. Yes I realize it's not unheard of to have homes become make shift daycares, but I'd like my street to not follow that pattern. I realized I have used this platform to voice some personal grievances regarding Suva and the City of Downey, but the point is I would very much like my request that a City Permit for Child Day Care on Suva be denied. It'd be nice to have this street return to a nice quiet neighborhood. Thank you Alberto Martinez Resident of The City of Downey since 1994 PC AGENDA PAGE 64 PC Agenda Page75 Madalyn Welch From: Sent: To: Subject: floresglth@aol.com Thursday, May 02, 2019 1:24 PM Madalyn Welch Permit to operate a family daycere I am requesting a public hearing open to the city of Downey residents in regards to this permit to open this day care on (Single Family Residential Zone). I oppose to the plan for many reasons 1.-Suva St. is a heavy traffic St...As it is, we have enough problems to park on the Street.. 2.-Suva St. is on a residential zone, and a day care center is a business, if I waned to live in a business district I would have bought my home inside a shopping moll. My name is Ramon Flores and I live on 7561 Suva St.Downey Ca. 90240. Thank you. 1 PC AGENDA PAGE 65 PC Agenda Page76 Madalyn Welch From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: To whom it may concern: Jenifer Flores <floresjen@me.com> Friday, May 03, 2019 8:25 AM Madalyn Welch; Gilbert A. Livas Victor To whom it may concern: My name is Jenifer Flores. My husband, Victor Coria, and I received a letter regarding a request to open a large family day care at 7542 Suva St. We live on the street behind this address. We have a few concerns regarding this: Traffic & Safety Suva is highly congested during commute hours. People use it as a detour to Telegraph Rd. and Florence Ave. A Jot of people don't adhere to the speed limit and ignore stop signs. This is dangerous for anyone in the area especially small children. Our street is also used as a detour to Suva during high volume traffic periods. The day care traffic jam will result in more people taking Noren as a detour as well. This concerns us as a parents, we don't want people rushing down the street. This portion of Suva St is always full of parked cars. There isn't any parking on that street as it stands, adding a business on that street will result in double parking and blocking residents driveways. Family members that live near schools always experience these issues. Feral Cats The area is also experiencing a high volume of feral cats. These cats are known to carry diseases and other mites in addition to fleas. When we bought our house it was vacant and the cats made themselves at homes in our backyard. We had fleas and had to get the area treated. Once our dogs moved in they have not been in our yard but still walk on the cinderblock walls. The cats still linger in our front yard and defecate and urinate as they please. It is a real nuisance. Noise We are also concerned about the noise. The address in question is already generating lots of noise as they are constructing on site. Also, my husband works nights sometimes and must sleep during the day. He works in law enforcement and his sleep is an important factor in his performance at work. Other neighbors work nights as well. They cannot perform without sleep. The noise of 14 children at a large family day care would be extensive. I work in the education field and know how loud kids can be. We have two small children as well. Children are loud most of the time. They are learning new things daily and are full of excitement. The extra noise in the area would take away from the quiet and peaceful community of northwest Downey, something that enticed us to buy in this area. Thank you for taking our concerns into consideration. 1 PC AGENDA PAGE 66 PC Agenda Page77 Sincerely, Jenifer Flores & Victor Coria 7535 Noren St Downey, CA 90240 562-480-5660 Sent from my iPhone PC AGENDA PAGE 67 PC Agenda Page78 Madalyn Welch From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Ruben Macias <carpediem2@earthlink.net> Sunday, May 05, 2019 8:09 PM Madalyn Welch; Gilbert A. Livas; Rick Rodriguez jennifer@thedowneypatriot.com; The Downey Patriot Eric Large Daycare Facility Protest Letter This letter in my protest to the proposed large family day care facility at 7542 Suva Street, Downey, Ca, 90240 Before, I address my concerns regarding the said day care facility, I wish to address of non-notification to all impacted and involved residents. I did not receive any notification. I personally surveyed my neighbors and was surprised that to discover that NO Suva Street resident beyond a two home radius were notified of the proposed facility. To add insult to injury, I was perturb and surprised to discover that my neighbors on Noren Street (south of Suva Steet) were notified of this proposed facility, and I and other Suva residents were not. I live three doors down from the proposed facility and this directly impacts me and my neighors beyond a two home radius. I am hereby requesting any extension for input for any party that was not given any opportunity for input. This lacks of notification suggest that the City of Downey is attempting to fast track this facility, limit community input and disregard residential concerns for the convenience of profit or political convenience. This simple act sows distrust and shows disrespect between the City of Downey and its residents whom it is supposed to serve. I am honestly trying to understand the logic behind the decision not to notify all affect parties and encourage community input. I and my fellow neighbors are confused and severely angry that the City of Downey's City Planners failed notify all involved parties. I am truly trying to understand your procedural requirements and your decision procedures. If the City of Downey is following a state statue or code specifying a specific home radius then please provide me with copy of said statue statue or code. If this is a City of Downey policy, then please specify what city employee developed and implemented this policy, and why it is still in practice. I believe that the Downy City Council, state legislators and Downey city residents need to be notify of this policy and the notification be brought before the city council for review as it affects all city residents. If the lack of notification was an oversight on the part of a city employee, then please provide the name and position of said city employees, as I and my my neighbors would like to file an official public written complaint before the city council. Due to the lack of notification, I am therefore: Under the California Public Records Act § 6250 et seq., I am requesting an opportunity to inspect or obtain copies of public records that pertaining to the legal notification process to city residents, as well as information cited above. If there are any fees for searching or copying these records, please inform me if the cost will exceed $100. However, I would also like to request a waiver of all fees in that the disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest and will contribute significantly to the public's understanding of community harmony This information is not being sought for commercial purposes. The California Public Records Act requires a response within ten business days. If access to the records I am requesting will take longer, please contact me with information about when I might expect copies or the ability to inspect the requested records. If you deny any or all of this request, please cite each specific exemption you feel justifies the refusal to release the information and notify me of the appeal procedures available to me under the law. Now to address on to my concerns: TRAFFIC VOLUME AND SAFETY-Suva Street has a historical record of consistent and high traffic volume. Drivers from the adjacent cities west of Downey utilize the Suva Street to bypass and avoid traffic on Florence Ave and/or utilize Suva Street as a shortcut to access the Interstate 5 Freeway north of Suva Street and Paramount. This has resultea in multiple injuries, property damage, and personal inconvenience to Suva Street residents and adjacent street residents. In addition, due to the increase in traffic along Suva Street in recent years, traffic has overflowed to the adjacent streets of PC AGENDA PAGE 68 PC Agenda Page79 Guatemala, Wiley Burke, and Noren. Drivers have begun to utilize Guatemala, Wiley Burke, and Noren Streets to avoid the bottle necking between Suva Street and Wiley Burke. This Is a further reason to notify to all affected residents. The City of Downey is aware that Suva Street is throughway into the City of Downey and the high volume of traffic Suva Street residents experience. Approximately 10 years ago, Suva Street residents were notified of this fact at a city council meeting, when we as a collective petitioned the city council for relief from high traffic volume, and requested a stop sign on the corner of Suva and Guatemala after multiple and numerous traffic accidents, personal injuries, and property damage on Suva Street. As a means to diminish property damage, then Director of Public Works, Desi Alvarez, planted trees all along Suva Street curb, as a safety measure. The City of Downey has conducted multiple traffic studies over the years to measure traffic volume and flow on Suva Street. I officially request that these traffic studies be officially made part of the record, as this proposed daycare facility with increase traffic bottlenecks along this corridor of Suva Streets. If this is approved, I and my neighbors WILL be requesting a copy of your final report justifying your actions, therefore I am officially requesting elude all Suva Street traffic studies and police speeding citations cited along Suva Street. Again, if the daycare facility is approved, we review the documentation for inclusion of these studies. If the studies are not included, then we will take action against the city and its approving employee for failure to do so. The increase traffic flow and bottle necking wouldresult in delays to schedules to the Downey Transit traveling along Suva Street during peak hour. This would impact all Downey Transit routes as it is my understanding that route wait on other buses for potential transfers to other routes at the layover, south of Firestone. This has a direct impact not just on the Northwest Route, but all city residents relying on the Downey Transit during peak hours. The proposed facility has a maximum child capacity of 14 children. Parents of said children will be dropping off and picking up their children during peak traffic hours of 7-Bm and 4-6pm hours. There is very little parking on this stretch of Suva Street. If is extremely difficult to cross the street during these time frames. Parents securing temporary parking will attempt to cross Suva Street along with their children in tow. This result in an increase chance of personal property damage, increase traffic and personal injury. If this facility is approved, the city becomes party in any potential lawsuit, as they approved the said facility in a residential neighborhood and were aware of its potential impact and existing and historical traffic flow, problems and community and residential concerns. I am sure that residents of the Downey Island would disapprove of the city's actions, as the increase bottle necking would increase the delay of arriving home and the arrival of emergency services to their homes. The only entrance to Downey Island is through the Suva Street bridge. I am planning to the talk to the Downey Island Association and request they protest this facility and show their disapproval. PROPERTY VALUE -The proposed facility lowers lowers property values to any homes within 600 radius. No potential buyer will wish to purchase any property in close proximity to a large child care facility. This is a residential neighborhood, HOW is a large daycare even being considered? This is a commercial establishment being proposed in highly trafficked street in a residential neighborhood. If the said facility is approved, this would increase the likelihood or possibility for commercial expansion of any sort in the surrounding area. This would severely diminish property values. I am sure all residents on Suva Street or on adjacent streets would disapprove of this and should be informed of this, and/or any parties failing to properly notify them of such a possibility. PARKING -There is very little parking along this stretch of Suva Street. Many households are multiple vehicle households. The existing practices of Suva residents is to street park with a home or two, for several reasons. One such reason for street parking is that due to heavy traffic flow, they can exit their driveways without difficulty. This has resulted many residents enacting the practice of placing their trash bins out on Saturday morning due to lacking of availability parking. Parking has become an issue. I and several residents place our trash bins out on Saturday morning or afternoon due to the fact we will be unable do so if we wait until Sunday morning or afternoon due to the lack of available parking. Keep in mind, that trash day is Monday. This is beyond the city's control, however, if the city approves the said facility in question, this severely compounds the issue or any resolution of said problem. Establishing said facility will result in double parking, personal injury, property damage do to lack of parking. Due to the lack of available parking space, the day care facilities would be prone to partial blocking our drive ways, parking in drive ways, or moving our trash bins on Mondays to secure parking. I personally have experience my trash bins being moved and placed on my lawn in order to secure parking. It is not a pleasant experience. Furthermore, some of us do not have sidewalks in front of our homes. There is the potential of the facility's customers tramping over our property and lawns to reach the facility due to lack of available parking. Will the city enforced these violations. Then there is also the additional issue of employee parking. The facility has a maximum capacity of 14 children. Depending on the age of children, the ratios for daycare centers in the State of California vary. Where will these 2 PC AGENDA PAGE 69 PC Agenda Page80 employees park? Employees would take premium parking space during business hours and after business hours due late child pick up and facility clean up. Commercial business employee parking practices would disrupt already fragile and limited residential parking. Assuming that the child care facility is open until 6pm and that the facility's employees parked on the street, residents returning from work would have little or no parking available to them. I do not believe that this is not a message that the City of Downey wishes to endorse or advocate for. ENFORCEMENT -The City of Downey does not enforce any speeding or parking violations along Suva Street. The speed limit along this corridor of Suva Street is 30 MPH, yet speeding exceeding the speed limit occurred throughout the day. As previously noted, there are parking violations. What assurances do Suva residents have the City of Downey would enforce parking and speeding violators dropping off their children during peak hours? If the said facility is approved, what status would the city convey to them? Residential or commercial? Who would be responsible to enforce any disturbances the facility, its customers or employees violate or infractions? Would residents raise their concerns to the State of California or the City of Downey. I can assure you that the Suva Street residents would closely monitor this facility for any potential violations. On that note, I would additionally request under Under the California Public Records Act§ 6250 et seq., how many residential large day care facilities has the approved? Where are the located at? What issues have they raised? In regards to enforcement, I want to convey that I and other Suva Street residents I surveyed consider ourselves second class residents. We feel we do not receive the same legal speeding enforcement or overall enforcement in comparison to adjacent streets or say Northeast Downey. The City of Downey does not want to address its residential traffic problem on Suva Street. Maybe if the City of Downey wants to generate revenue streams, then maybe it should install video cameras along Suva Street, photographing violators who fail to stop or property stop at the stop signs along Suva street, and then issue issue citations. If monitoring residents discover that the facility exceeds 14 children, observe excessive discipline or observe inadequate supervision, what governing agency would the resident report the violation to the state or city? Or Both? PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT --It appears that the City of Downey provides new commercial residents preferential and priority treatment over existing residents. The home has recently been sold and is now becoming a large daycare facility! Since this daycare facility is a commercial establishment in a residential neighborhood, who will the city side with? The customary practice is side with commercial establishment in commercial zoned locales, but since this is a commercial establish in a residential zoned locale, some clarification is needed on this matter. Will the surrounding homeowners relinquished some of their rights or need to conform due to this the aforementioned business establishment? Will the establishment be treated as a commercial property or residential property? THEFT --Having additional facility customers or employees increases the likelihood of theft or property damage. This is already a problem. Residents are aware of their neighbors, we do not know these people nor are they residents of our community. NOISE LEVEL -Existing noise levels would increase due to customers dropping off and picking up their children. I do not want hear car horns sounding due to the facility's customers double parking or increased bottle necking disrupting traffic flow due to the daycare's or their customers practices. Some Suva residents worked from home. The increase noise level from a large day care facility would disrupt our work flow and livelihoods. There are plenty of retirees who live next door or adjacent to the proposed facility. Retirees who enjoy their quiet time. This a public nuisance to all involved parties. HEAL TH ISSUES -Fourteen children and any additional employees generate a large amount of trash. What assurances would existing residents have that the facility would dispose of and managed their waste in orderly and timely manner. Would they have a commercial trash bin or a residential bin? Please help me to understand your logic and why the city is making this important decision without all impacted parties input? THANK YOU.for your consideration in this matter. Ruben Macias 3 PC AGENDA PAGE 70 PC Agenda Page81 Madalyn Welch From: Sent: To: Subject: To Whom It May Concern: NA REY_ VALERIE < Narey_ Valerie@smc.edu > Monday, May 06, 2019 7:43 AM Madalyn Welch; Gilbert A. Livas Opposition to application for a large family daycare at 7542 Suva Street My name is Valerie Narey. My husband Tom Narey and I are the current owners and currently reside at 7558 Suva St., Downey CA 90240 with our three children. This email is in regard to a letler received April 26 1h, 2019 which states that a request to operate a large family daycare on property zoned area. We, along with our neighbors, have many concerns regarding this application submitted to the city of Downey by Sandra P. Castro Magallon. We oppose the plan for any type of business to be operated in a property zoned area, specifically this proposed large family daycare. Our reasons are as follows: I.SAFETY: Suva Street is an incredibly busy street especially for a residential area as it is used as an alternative route to Florence. We are lucky enough to have a comer house so we can park and unload our own children on Wiley Burke as Suva poses a very real risk to their safety. The proposed location for this large family daycare is midway between Guatemala Ave. and Wiley Burke Ave. There are no near side streets nor near crosswalks. It is likely parents of small children would park either at 7542 Suva or across the street then brave the traffic. Is there a plan for the city to provide safety measures for these children as are in place at Maude Price Elementary further down Suva Street such as parking zone or crossing guards? 2.CONGESTION AND PARKING ENFORCEMENT: Any parent to avoid the aforementioned safety issue to their children will most likely opt to park in nearby neighbor's driveways or double park on the street. This is already an issue when there are sporting events or holidays and friends and family of neighbors are looking for parking. Instead of only being an occasional nuisance, with an established large family daycare it will be a weekly daily occurrence and adversely impact near neighbors of the daycare. ls there a plan in place for the city of Downey to ensure proper parking enforcement on a daily basis for the day care? 3.HIGH NOISE LEVELS (NUISANCE): We have three children and can personally attest to their ability to make noise and be disruptive. As parents we do our best to not annoy our neighbors with our high energy children. However a daycare environment is a completely different beast. The noise potenti al of twelve young children is staggering. There is a reason why homes near schools are hard to sell and/or rent. The nuisance of children just being themselves multiplies the more children that are present,: We live in a community of retiredresidents as well as working families that want to be at their home resting peacefuHy, stress free and quietly. As 1 PC AGENDA PAGE 71 PC Agenda Page82 neighbors do construction projects, high noise levels are expected and tolerated as we as neighbors know there will be an end in sight when the construction is completed. This hope of an end in sight will not be the case with a large family daycare. It will be an ongoing thing as children are making developmentally appropriate noise as they explore their environment, run, yell, play, cry as all children do. It is unreasonable to put this burden of noise on near neighbors that chose to settle in Downey specifically for its peaceful and quiet residential zoning. Is there a plan in place by the city to manage and/or cite ongoing nuisance noise? 4.ADVERTISEMENT: It is not uncommon for large family daycares to advertise their business with big banners outside their homes. We do not feel this is appropriate in a residential zoned home. We live on a busy street, not a highway and prefer not to see billboards on our way to our homes. We are requesting a public hearing open to the city of downey residents in regards to this day care if the request is not denied. Respectfully, Tom and Valerie Narey 7558 Suva Street Downey, CA 90240 2 PC AGENDA PAGE 72 PC Agenda Page83 Madalyn Welch From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Madalyn Welch, Maria Garcia <marluicor35@gmail.com> Wednesday, May 01, 2019 11:01 PM Madalyn Welch 7542 Suva Street (Large Family Daycare) Our names are Jose A. Garcia and Maria Coronel. We are the homeowners at 7541 Noren Street. Our home is directly behind the residence where the proposed "large family daycare" would be opened. We would be one of the closest and most immediately impacted by the proposed "large family daycare." Its outdoor play area is directly behind my outdoor area. In addition to this, I (Jose A Garcia) work nights and sleep during the day. The noise level would be unbearable if children are in the backyard during the day when I am trying to sleep. We oppose our neighbors running a commercial business of this magnitude on our residential street. Furthermore, we moved to Downey in hopes of having a home with a lower noise level than our previous home. Attentively, Jose A Garcia Maria L Coronel 1 PC AGENDA PAGE 73 PC Agenda Page84 Madalyn Welch From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Madalyn, Edgar Ramirez <edgarregal@gmail.com> Tuesday, April 30, 2019 7:52 PM Madalyn Welch Gilbert A. Livas Day care permit Sandra P. Castro Magallon I have received a notice of a request for a day care, next to my house. I would like to be clear and I hope the city of Downey understands that my neighbors and I oppose to this day care. Having a day care in this street is the last thing that we need, we already have a lot of traffic as it is, a day care is only going to bring more traffic and congestion in the street of Suva st. On the notice that I received it says that there won't be a public hearing, however I do demand for one since myself and my neighbors want to express what we feel. One of the reasons why I own a house in this neighborhood is for the reason that is quite and peaceful, if there was to be a day care my neighbors and I won't have that anymore. This is a residential area, not a business area and that's how we want to keep it. Also my house will lose value and I don't want that. Please keep me updated, also is there someone else that I should be getting a hold ofto talk about this matter. Please advise. 1 PC AGENDA PAGE 74 PC Agenda Page85 Madalyn Welch From: Sent: To: Subject: Yvonne <ysavala90240@yahoo.com> Tuesday, April 30, 2019 11:24 AM Madalyn Welch Family daycare center To whom is really interested in the children's safety: I am Mrs. Savala I live across the street of the proposed family day care center. I am opposed to having a day care center at this location because I am very concerned for the safety of the children and their parents. I have lived here over 45 years. This is a very highly traveled street. People who live in Bell and Huntington Park use this street a lot I know, also when there is a problem on the fwy or Florence we get excess traffic. We have had many animals and parked cars hit right in this area. We have stop signs at each comer but, we are right in the middle of the block and this is where most accidents happen. I hope you will consider this safety issue. Mrs. Savala 1 PC AGENDA PAGE 75 PC Agenda Page86 Madalyn Welch From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: To Whom It May Concern: Marisol Ramirez <mhramirez08@gmail.com> Monday, April 29, 2019 7:27 PM Madalyn Welch Gilbert A. Livas DAYCARE on residential zone (7542 Suva St) My name is Marisol Ramirez. I am the owner and currently reside on the 7532 Suva St, Downey, Ca 90240 property with my Family. This email is regards the letter received on April 26, 2019 in which states that a request to operate a large day care on property zoned area I have many concerns in regards to this application submitled 10 the city or Downey by Sandra P Castro Magallon I am wondering if this is a residential zone violation? I oppose 10 the plan for any type of business to be operated in a residential property zoned area. specially II d11y care which will be in a busy street The Following are the reasons why I oppose for a day care to be in business in a residential area: I SAFETY First and foremost, safoty is a concern Suva SI is highly transit al all times of the day It is used as an alternative route to Florence As a resident I have a difficulty time turning into my home's driveway as well as crossing the street rrom one sidewalk to the other Vehicles speed exceeds the limit I couldn't imagine small children crosing the street in a busy street with no cross guard. It's a high risk for injury and possible death Will the city provide parking zone for daycare clients, employees and cross guard? 2. CO NGESTION AND PARKING ENFORCEMENT: Downey has become heavily populated and parking is scarce. This will impact current property owners ( Downey residents and taK payers). As an example, I lived in front ore school. Parents have no regards and parked in front ofmy drive way making it difficult for me to leave to work on time. Police doesn't come and ticket these people. There are more important things in the city than to ticket a car that is my way to leave to work I do not want anyone to park on my driveway or double park on the street causing more traffic and making the street less safe for residents, commuters as well as children. Furthermore, a daycare of 14 requires additional employees which requires parking for the employees on our residential parking used for family and guest. How would the city manage proper parking and parking enforcement on a daily basis for the day care ad its residents? 3 HIGH NOISE LEVELS (NUISANCE): I work at a school with children 3-5 year old Children are loud-they cry, they scream, they laugh, they sing, they play Saying all that, I am sure our elderly and working population wants to be et their home resting peacefully, stress free. and quietly. This will not happen if our neighbors have a day care with children running around playing with toys, loud instrument, and music from 6AM and 6PM II is not fair for any taK paying resident and owner to bear high noise levels al all times orthe day I moved to this area because of its peaceful and quiet neighborhood Otherwise we wouldn't of consider Downey Children-Developmentally children are curious and high energy at all limes or day During outside time, students r run, yell, scream. and play They also fall and cry This happens consistently and throughout the day Drop olrlpick up lime: Again, parents dropping of students have no regards for residents. They will make noise. slam doors, have music on cars, talk on their phones At this time, residents (adult, senior, babies) may be asleep. People may be having difficulty sleeping at night. deal with different diseases that require for them to sleep How would the city ordowney manage/cite nuisance? 4. ADVERTISEMENT: These type of daycares advertise their business by putting a big banner outside their home. We are already having issues with this adver1isements on properties. In conclusion, I don't agree with a day care being approved in my area. For these and many reasons more I strongly believe application should be denied. II is nol rair that reside11ts are going to be paying the price and sacrificing our peace of mind. Everyone has the right to be in a quiet zone in their own home comfortable, resting, without any disturbance This is not a business zone. I do not want any daycare business to open in my street If there is any meeting in regards to this application please let the residents know ahead of time in order for residents to have time lo make it to meeting t 11m r,'lm,·,Uln& n p11llllc h�.11rlne open 10 1he dl)' or dow11n mldcnb In rcggrd� to lhl� dny rnrJ-rr thr rroul':'it ,� not ilenltd. Sincerely. Marisol Ramirez 1 PC AGENDA PAGE 76 PC Agenda Page87 CityofDowne.Y EXHIBITS Public Works Documentation PC Agenda Page88 CITY OF DOWNEY ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC Sl JRVEY STREET: Suva Street Horley Avenue DIRECTION: Eastbound/Westbound FROM: TO: Paramount Boulevard TRAFFIC FAgORS Avera1e Dally Traffic Volume: 10026 lane Conflsuratlon: 2LANES Year Counted: Traffic Control: Crosswalks: SIGNAL AT PARAMOUNT; STOP AT TWEEDY, HOR LEY YES AT PARAMOUNT, TWEEDY, HORLEV Pedestrians: LIGHT Truck Traffic: LIGHT On-Street Parkln1: YES Other (Specify): SCHOOL (W/0 TWEEDY SOUTH SIDE) ROADWAY FACTORS Length of Segment (Miles): Vertical Curve: 0.35 NONE Horizontal Curve: Lateral VlslbUlty: YES (W/0 PARAMOUNT, E/0 SAMOLINE) GOOD Road Surface Condition: GOOD Sidewalks and Driveways: YES/YES Street Lighting: Width (Curb to Curb, Feet): ALL INTERSECTIONS, SOME MIDBLOCK (NORTH SIDE) 40, 36 (W/0 PARAMOUNT, E/0 TWEEDY) Adjacent Land Use: RESIDENTIAL, MAUDE PRICE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SPEED FACTORS Date of Speed Survey: Time of Speed Survey: 50111 Percentile: 5/5/2016 12:35 PM 32 851h Percentile: 36 10 M.P.H. Pace Speeds: 28-37 Percentage of Vehicles In Pace: 81 Posted Speed Umlt: 30 Rec. Speed Umlt: 30 REMARKS: SAFETY HISTORY No. of Yrs In Studied Period: Speed Related Colllslons: Total Collisions: Avg. # of Accidents/Yr: Colllslons Per MIi. Veh. MIies: 85th Percentile speed reduced due to high colllslon rate and presence of school within segment. Field Study By: RAS Seg No.: 128 2016 3 0 4 1.33 CERTIFICATION: I, Edwin 1. Norris, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Downey w,.� ---.;;;;;;=,;;:;---­ perfonned under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the State of California as a Professional Engineer. C!3oa�� Date Stale RcgillraliDD N•mbcr PC Agenda Page89 DATE: 616/2018 DAY: Thuniday IIPNd .... ca10 11 n 13 ,. 15 Ill 17 18 111 20 21 22 23 2'I 26 20 27 211 29 00 " 33 :5'I M 30 37 38 311 40 41 <Cl 4:1 "' 4b 48 47 48 49 .:,0 o! 52 M Doi l!6 DO &1 OIi 611 UI 112 83 64 � 1111 ... ,o ALL...._ " " --- ;:;;; .,,. d � ==" I 1 • I • 11 11 • • T 1D , I 1 • 1 1 _..,. = l -= -".,._�·ii =-=' ... = s ::, 11111 10 12 14 111 111 211 22 24 28 -- 211 30 a:, 34 ]: 311 CL 38 -:::E I 1: -- (I) .. 411 48 15D 112 64 li8 1111 11D 112 1M 1111 Ill 70 0 Spot Speed Study Pl8parld by: Nallonll Data & Survevtng Sarvlcel City of Downey Location: Suv a St Bet Hor1ey A1111 & Paramount Blvd POltad 8pNd: 30 MPH PftljKI-= 1MZ7MS8 Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 2 4 6 8 Number of Vehicles Paanl In ....... ... 10 12 ,, ......... _ %I PC Agenda Page90 CI'TY OF DOWNEY ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC Sl JRVEY STREET: Suva Street West City limit!> DIRECTION: E,uthound/Westbound FROM: TRAFFIC FACTORS Average Dally Traffic Volume: 11589 lane Configuration: 2 LANES TO: Horley Avenue Year Counted: 2016 Traffic Control: Crosswalks: SIGNAL AT BLUFF; STOP AT HORLEY, WILEY BURKE, GUATEMALA YES AT BLUFF, HORLEY Pedestrians: UGtfT Truck Traffic: LIGHT On-Street Parting: YES (EXCEPT ON BRIDGE) Other (Specify): BRIDGE (E/0 BLUFF, W/0 GUATEMALA) ROADWAY FACTORS Length of Segment (MIies): 0.46 Vertical curve: Horlzontal Curve: YES (AT BOTH ENDS OF BRIDGE) NONE Lateral Vlsfblllty: GOOD Road Surface Condition: GOOD Sidewalks and Driveways: YES/YES Street Ughtlng: AT INTERSECTIONS Width (Curb to Curb, Feet): 40, 27 (ON BRIDGE) Adjacent Land Use: RESIDENTIAL, CHURCH AT BLUFF SPEED FACTORS Date of Speed Survey: Time of Speed Survey: 50111 Percentile: 7/5/2016 12:08PM 26 85111 Percentile: 30 10 M.P.H. Pace Speeds: 22-31 Percentage of Vehicles In Pace: 93 Posted Speed Umlt: 25 Rec. Speed limit: 25 REMARKS: SAFm HISTORY No. of Yrs In Studied Period: Speed Related Colllslons: Total Collisions: Avg. # of Accidents/Yr: Colllslons Per Mil. Veh. MIies: 3 0 1 85th Percentlle speed reduced due to presence of school in adjacent segment and proximity to residential ar Field Study By: RAS Checked By: JBF Seg No.: 127 CERTIFICATION: I, Edwin J. Norris, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Downey was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the State of California as a Professional Engineer. c5031p,g Date State RegistnfiH Namber PC Agenda Page91 DATE: 7/512011 DAY: Tueld1y lime 12:0II • 12:30 llpNd ML lMIIIClla mph 010 - 11 - 12 --1:, .!"-:Z C: ,. � 111 ,,....-..... 111 ::::II ,-17 18 111 2 20 21 I 2) :I 24 •• ,111 ti 211 11 'H 11 28 •• 211 f 30 1:a Zit :a 32 1 33 , 3t t 3S 311 'ST -� 38 I r--311 =-• 40 41 - '62 = 43 '- 44 ?-� � "8 ___,, 47 �= 48 4V ,..__,. IIO 151 ... M 118 61 - 118 - !IQ IIO -111 112 � 83 M 116 B8 D7 � 00 >•,u 10 10 12 14 111 18 20 22 24 211 211 30 u 34 .... I 31 311 I 1: 44 "8 "8 ISO 152 64 &e 158 eo 112 1M 1111 88 70 0 Spot Speed Study Prepal'8d by: Nllllonal Data & SU,veylng s.vtce1 City of Downey Locltlon: Suva st Bel Waat City Llmlte & Horlay Ava POlt8d 8l)Nd: 26 MPH Project#: 11-MIM11 2 Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 4 8 8 10 Number of Vehicles 12 16 18 13 PC Agenda Page92 Day: Tuesday Date: 5/22/2018 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 U:00 12:00 PM U:00 14:00 15:00 1&:00 17:00 18:00 19:GO 20:00 21:00 0 0 0 l I 2 I 3 0 l J s 6 3 4 0 5 g s a 6 s 2 7 3 6 1 11 2 3 s JB 4 7 '14 13 S3 43 27 ti8 22 64 21 84 13 7 1.4 74 15 4 15 48 44 15th 26 _.,......,.._. __SPEED Guatemala Ave Bet. Suva St & Lubec St 65 ss S5 ., 67 56 80 108 97 129 101 " 12% 17 42 43 50th 32 I I 8 � 37 59 26 0 19 22 23 .34 39 4S 43 39 43 34 Volume 331 0 0 1 10 u ll 8 5 11 8 9 13 14 u 10 10 4 6 s ,. 31 ] 1 0 0 s a 2 2 2 2 0 I 0 3 0 2 0 0 Volume 543 l 2 0 0 0 I 0 1 0 2 ] 0 2 0 0 0 37 PM4-6 " 17% 41 City: Downey Project II: CA18_5356_005 Off Peak Volumes Volu""' 1949 3223 5 t 22 .. , 121 n, 164 132 131 ue 113 158 �o 261 269 274 251 w 135 117 77 43 PC Agenda Page93 $ Day: Thursday Date: 7/12/2018 ,.,.. .. br ftdlliNI Dim ........... "'" .. SPEED Guatemala Ave Bet. Suva St & Coolgrove Dr City: Downey Pra/ect#: C"18_5476_003 T1m1.. 15 15 19 lCI 24 25 2� .Hl 3J JS 3Q 40 4lJ J r, ...J� 5() Stl 'iS S't 60 · b4 65 b9 70 • Tctill 00:00AM 01:00 02:00 09:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 PM 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 ZZ:00 23:00 AMPul< Volume PMVolumtt "PM PMPHkHour 07: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,m 0 0 0 J 0 0 2 6 1 l 1 s 4 s s 0 6 4 2 Volumt 5 6 Dlrattlonal Peak Periods All Speeds 1 1 " 7 5 IS 7 14 12 3 7 13 17 ' 17 \S 13 u l9 Vok.lm, 309 25 6 z l 4 l 1 16 32 27 2J 28 21 28 3a 33 l/1 .a 4ll 30 " 14% B 3 3 s 14 26 49 18 2.9 ZS 3l 43 4t 61 66 91 50th 32 4 I 0 7 12 18 37 2 14 22 17 27 u 29 34 53 s, 42 l-9 10 u 11 59 Volume 224 0 J I l 2 3 " 7 ll 7 s s 7 6 I 14 14 10 9 g 14 NOONU-2 32 " 109' 0 0 0 0 I 2 Volume 412 0 0 I I 0 0 0 0 I 15th 38 " 111% 0 95th 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Off Peak Volumes Volume 1309 ..._. 2254 19 • 6 JO 20 so 7J 117 122 15 94 19 1.01 123 139 1'1 192 220 119 107 " 58% PC Agenda Page94 Location:Suva w/o Tweedy Downey AM Period EB WB 12:00-12:15 8 7 12:15-12:30 7 13 12:30-12:45 6 11 12:45-1:00 11 32 5 36 68 l:00-1:15 4 7 1 :15-1 :30 I 7 l:30-1:45 4 3 1:45-2:00 4 13 5 22 35 2:00-2:15 6 12 2:15-2:30 6 9 2:30-2:45 2 8 2:45-3:00 5 19 3 32 51 3:00-3:15 5 5 3:15-3:30 2 9 3:30-3:45 5 2 3:45.:.4:00 3 15 3 19 34 4:00-4:15 6 2 4:15-4:30 11 7 4:30-4:45 15 10 4:45-5:00 14 46 14 33 79 5:00-5:15 14 9 5:15-5:30 25 17 5:30-5:45 24 19 5:45-6:00 29 92 27 72 164 6:00-6:15 38 25 6:15-6:30 39 27 6:30-6:45 60 55 6:45-7:00 58 195 56 163 358 7:00-7:15 64 41 7:15-7:30 65 59 7:30-7:45 77 77 7:45-8:00 71 277 81 258 535 8:00-8:15 85 49 8:15-8:30 75 44 8:30-8:45 76 49 8:45-9:00 74 310 50 192 502 9:00-9:15 53 39 9:15-9:30 54 49 9:30-9:45 66 47 9:45-10:00 62 235 37 172 407 10:00-10:15 56 30 10: 15-10:30 60 35 10:30-10:45 65 40 10:45-11 :00 74 255 35 140 395 11:00-11: 15 55 34 11:15-11:30 60 40 11 :30-11 :45 56 28 11:45-12:00 60 231 30 132 363 Total Vol 1720 1271 2991 Daily Totals Volumes for Wed. 7/26/00 PM Period 12:00-12: 15 12: 15-12:30 12:30-12:45 12:45-1:00 I :00-1 : 15 1: 15-1 :30 I :30-1 :45 1:45-2:00 2:00-2:15 2:15-2:30 2:30-2:45 2:45-3:00 3:00-3:15 3:15-3:30 3:30-3:45 3:45-4:00 4:00-4:15 4:15-4:30 4:30-4:45 4:45-5:00 5:00-5:15 5:15-5:30 5:30-5:45 5:45-6:00 6:00-6:15 6:15-6:30 6:30-6:45 6:45-7:00 7:00-7:15 7:15-7:30 7:30-7:45 7:45-8:00 8:00-8:15 8:15-8:30 8:30-8:45 8:45-9:00 9:00-9:15 9:15-9:30 9:30-9:45 9:45-10:00 10:00-10:15 10: 15-10:30 10:30-10:45 10:45-11:00 11 :00-11: 15 11:15-11:30 11:30-11:45 11:45-12:00 EB 60 56 40 65 221 66 80 78 67 291 60 64 70 76 270 82 89 95 85 351 93 109 118 111 431 130 130 124 101 485 73 88 83 77 321 91 68 82 73 314 68 56 34 50 208 63 45 41 44 193 31 31 22 20 104 22 21 10 9 62 3251 4971 06960005 WB 67 65 66 80 278 499 78 65 60 55 258 549 65 60 70 69 264 534 75 78 78 79 310 661 69 96 80 89 334 765 95 103 95 100 393 878 96 83 81 81 341 662 69 69 72 77 287 601 64 66 52 60 242 450 78 61 42 36 217 410 51 39 29 36 155 259 28 19 12 17 76 138 3155 6406 4426 93971 PC Agenda Page95 Volumes for: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 City: Downey Project#: 06-2443-002 Location: Suva St. E/0 Guatemala Ave AM rw;og NB SB EB ws PM Period NB SB EB WB 00:00 7 8 12:00 46 44 00:15 5 4 12:15 49 42 00:30 3 8 12:30 57 52 00:4S 6 21 4 24 45 12:45 70 222 so 188 410 01:00 7 4 13:00 49 59 01:15 1 3 13:15 44 65 01:30 3 6 13:30 54 63 01:45 3 14 5 18 32 13:45 75 222 63 250 472 02:00 1 3 14:00 64 65 02:15 2 4 14:15 56 73 02:30 4 4 14:30 83 50 02:45 1 8 2 13 21 14:15 73 276 58 246 522 03:00 2 6 15:00 95 60 03:15 5 5 15:15 78 92 03:30 6 5 15:30 89 83 03:45 4 17 5 21 38 15:45 96 358 78 313 671 04:00 1 5 16:00 104 92 04:15 7 8 16:15 98 107 04:30 3 8 16:30 117 102 04:45 13 24 14 35 59 16:45 122 441 102 403 844 05:00 13 8 17:00 109 85 05:15 15 13 17:15 115 93 05:30 22 23 17:30 143 115 05:45 42 92 26 70 162 17:45 123 490 84 377 867 06:00 37 24 18:00 113 106 06:15 13 31 18:15 78 113 06:30 30 33 18:30 91 85 06:45 37 U7 37 125 242 18:45 73 355 67 371 726 07:00 44 so 19:00 88 62 07:15 54 62 19:15 75 62 07:30 69 89 19:30 71 55 07:45 73 240 69 270 510 19:45 57 291 SD 229 520 08:00 72 88 20:00 42 29 08:15 65 76 20:15 39 45 08:30 64 82 20:30 36 35 08:45 70 271 61 307 578 20:45 30 147 45 154 301 09:00 47 48 21:00 35 33 09:15 48 30 21:15 40 42 09:30 so 59 21:30 26 34 09:45 60 205 35 1n 377 21:45 21 122 32 141 263 10:00 51 51 22:00 20 27 10:15 40 47 22:15 14 24 10:30 45 49 22:30 16 25 10:45 53 189 43 190 379 22:45 16 66 22 98 164 11:00 42 38 23:00 9 22 11:15 49 49 23:15 24 15 11:30 51 30 23:30 3 16 11:45 56 198 45 162 360 23:45 11 47 12 65 112 Tot.al Vol. 1396 1407 2803 3037 2835 5872 Dally Totals NB SB EB we Combined 4433 4242 8675 AM PM SplltO/o 49.8% 50.2% 32.3% 51.7% 48.3% 67.70/o Peak Hour 07:30 07:30 07:30 17:15 17:30 17:15 Volume 279 322 601 "l9't 418 892 P.H.F. 0.96 0.90 0,94 0.86 0.91 0.86 PC Agenda Page96 DISCUSSION: REPORT TO TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MARCH 5, 1998 SUVA STREET AT GUATEMALA AVENUE REQUEST FOR STOP SIGNS A request has been received from Ms. Mabel Perez, a local resident, for an four-way stop at the intersection of Suva Street and Guatemala Avenue. She also recommended street lights or "NO PARKING" on the south side of Suva Street. She states that she hears at least one accident a year and sees people speeding. Suva Street is a two-lane collector street between the West City Limits and Paramount Boulevard. Guatemala Avenue is a local residential street along the Rio Hondo Chann el. There are stop signs on Guatemala Avenue at the intersection. The Rio Hondo Channel is approximately 100 feet to the west. A stop sign warrant worksheet (attached) has been prepared for the intersection. The warrants have been established by the State of California, and are the guidelines used by City staff. Traffic count data· has been collected and is detailed on the worksheet. The guidelines are met for stop signs on Guatemala Avenue, but are not met for all-way stop signs. A speed survey was taken on Suva Street at Guatemala Avenue on February 13.The speed limit is 25 MPH. 206 vehicles were observed in a one-hour period. This indicated an average speed of 32 MPH, an 85th percentile speed of 36 MPH, and a 10 MPH pace of 27 to 36 MPH. This is somewhat high for a collector street. There have been NO accidents in the past six years. There have been no pedestrian accidents. This accident rate does not meet the minimum guideline of five correctable accidents within a 12-month period. As part of the stop sign warrant analysis, an intersection visibility study was conducted. There is adequate sight distance on the minor street. RECOMMENDATION Based on the lower traffic volume and no significant delay on Guatemala Avenue, a four-way stop sign is no recommended on Suva Street at Guatemala Avenue. EHZ/ Attachments M:\PUBWORKS\TRAFFIC\TRAFFCOM\TCSTSUVA.RPT PC Agenda Page97 CITY OF DOWNEY STOP SIGN WARRANTS (Based on Caltrans Standard Guidelines) DESCRIPTI -SvvG\ est--' G��� tv1�. WARRANT 1.On a less important roa at its intersectionwhere normal right-of-way rules are hazardousas evidenced by accidents correctable by a stop. 2.At the intersection of two main highways. 3.On a street entering a legally establishedthrough street. 4.On a minor street where the minor street approachspeed is less than 10 miles per hour. 5.Where a combination of high speed, restricted viewand ac cident record indicates a need for a control 6.At an unsignalized intersection in a signalizedarea. MULTIWAY STOP SIGNS1.Where traffic signals are warranted and urgentlyneeded, while arranging for signal installation 2.An acc ident problem of five or more reportedaccidents in a 12 month period correctable bya multiway stop sign. 3.Minimum traffic volumes (All criteria must be met) A. B. c. D. 500 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours daily for all approaches 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours for minor street (vehicles and pedestrians) Average vehicular delay of minor street traffic of 30 seconds per vehicle or more If the 85th percentile approach speed of the major street exceeds 40 MPH, the minimum Vehicular volumes are 70 percent of above ACCIDENT WORKSHEET DIRECTION < hour DATE OF VEHICLES COMMENTS PC Agenda Page98 March 5, 1998 City of Downey Public Works Department Engineering Division Post Off ice Box 7016 Downey CA 90241-7016 Attention: Erik Zandvliet MAR 1 1 1990 ENGINEERING DIV. Thank you for allowing me to attend your Traffic Committee meeting today. I appreciate the research you and your staff did regarding my request to place a 4-way stop sign at the intersection of Suva Street and Guatemala Avenue. Although the request was denied, I just want to thank you for your time and consideration. I hope you do follow-up on increasing the lighting on Suva Street, specifically between Wiley-Burke and Guatemala. As I had mentioned in the meeting, most of the accidents and hit & runs occur in the evening. Many may not have been reported, but the residents know they have occurred. As your survey has found, Suva Street is a busy thoroughfare in the daytime. As the residents have found, Suva Street is also a busy thoroughfare at night as well. Thanks again for all that you have done and all that you can do. Sincerely, �u� Maybe.I Af Perez / '. 7527 Suva. Street · [)owney CA 90240 · .... .. , . . .. ,·,, .. I . ' ..... • 1•· •• -.; :: �,..,...tJ PC Agenda Page99 AGENDA MEMO TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Office of the City Manager By: Desi Alvarez, Director of Public Works DATE: September 25, 2007 SUBJECT: PROPOSAL FOR AN ALL-WAY STOP AT THE INTERSECTION OF SUVA STREET AT GUATEMALA AVENUE RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY ESTABLISHING AN ALL-WAY "STOP" AT THE INTERSECTION OF SUVA STREET AT GUATEMALA AVENUE INTRODUCTION: In response to resident concerns regarding high vehicle speeds and volumes along Suva Street, between Paramount Boulevard and the westerly City limit, a number of actions have been undertaken to address this issue in conjunction with an ongoing traffic study of the roadway conditions. These include increased speed enforcement, the modification of the traffic signal timing at Bluff/Dos Rios Road at Suva Street, the installation of additional speed limit signage, and various pavement markings. The result has been an observed reduction in volume of approximately 25% since what was measured just 9 months ago as well as a noticeable reduction in speeding. Among the public suggestions that are being considered is an all-way STOP at the intersection of Suva Street and Guatemala Avenue. The City has subsequently performed an analysis using the guidelines described within the Federal/State Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2006 MUTCD). Said analysis took into consideration the existing travel speeds, accident history, roadway geometry, pedestrian and vehicular volumes, as well as pedestrian-vehicular conflicts. A vicinity map and visual appearance of this location are provided in Exhibit "A" and "B", respectively. The subject portion of Suva Street is a two-lane collector with a traffic volume of about 8,000 vehicles per day (vpd). Guatemala Avenue is a local road that serves nearly 3000 vpd. On-street parking is generally allowed on both sides, except during street sweeping on Tuesdays and Wednesdays from 1 PM to 4 PM. The adjoining land use is single family residential. The warrant for minimum traffic volumes entering into the intersection was met for the current roadway conditions, and thus it is desirable to install the All-way STOP, which is anticipated to further compliment the recent efforts performed to enhance public safety in the neighborhood . .___ ____________ CITY OF DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA --------------' PC Agenda Page100 Mayor and Members of City Council Paramount Parking Prohibition/Restriction August 28, 2007 Page2 FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed resolution requires two new sign installations, as well as the corresponding pavement markings. The estimated cost for implementing said changes is $500.00. Sufficient funds exist in the Public Works Department Account 10-3145 (Traffic and Street Maintenance Program.) Attachments: Exhibit A Exhibit B Resolution S:\Agendas & Memos 2007\agda092507\Suva-Guat STOP PC Agenda Page101 EXHIBIT "A" Vicinity Map EXHIBIT "8" Suva Street at Guatemala Avenue Westbound direction PC Agenda Page102 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY ESTABLISHING AN ALL-WAY .. STOP" AT THE INTERSECTION OF DOWNEY AVENUE AND SIXTH STREET WHEREAS, Suva Street is presently designated as a through street at its intersection with Guatemala Avenue, under the provisions of Sections 3131 and 3132 of the Downey Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Downey desires to establish an All-Way usrop• at said intersection; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the authority of Sections 3131 and 3132 of the Downey Municipal Code, it is hereby declared that all vehicles traveling on Suva Street and Guatemala Avenue shall be required to stop at said intersection. SECTION 2. That the Department of Public Works is hereby authorized to install all necessary signs and markings to cause traffic to stop on all approaches to the intersection of Suva Street and Guatemala Avenue. SECTION 3, The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and forward one copy to the Traffic Engineering Division. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2007. RICK TREJO, Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Downey at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members: NOES: Council Members: ABSENT: Council Members: ABSTAIN: Council Members: KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk PC Agenda Page103 CityofDowne.Y EXHIBITS Staff's Decision Letter PC Agenda Page104 EJ CityofDowney EXHIBITS Applicant's Appeal Letter PC Agenda Page105 E CityofDowne_y EXHIBITS Project Plans PC Agenda Page106 CityofDowne.Y EXHIBITS Correspondence: in favor of the proposal PC Agenda Page107 CityofDowne.Y EXHIBITS Correspondence: in opposition of the proposal PC Agenda Page108 CityofDowne.Y EXHIBITS Sound Studies PC Agenda Page109 1111 lntc1•noi1c 1009 innovations in practical noise control 2009 August 23-26 Ottawa, Canada Acoustical analysis methodology for urban rooftop playgrounds in New York City Benjamin H. Sachwalda Dan Abatemarcob AKRF, Inc. 440 Park Avenue South, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 USA ABSTRACT School playgrounds are a significant source of noise. In New York City chool playgrounds are often located in proximity to noise-sensitive locations (i.e. residences hospitals etc.) and typically contain a large amount of students simultaneously using the playground. As a result of space limitations in urban areas, rooftop playgrounds are common in New York City. These rooftop playgrounds are often located immediately adjacent to taller buildings that contain noise-sensitive uses. Consequently, it is necessary to examine the potential adverse noise effects associated with rooftop playgrounds. This paper presents a methodology developed by AKRF, Inc. for the acoustical analysis of urban rooftop playgrounds. The methodology includes noise measurements at an existing rooftop playground, street-level and rooftop measurements at the site of a proposed playground, and computer modeling using CadnaA. Where potential impacts are predicted, the analysis results are used to develop and design mitigation solutions. Specific case studies using this methodology and the New York City impact evaluation criteria are also presented in this paper. 1.INTRODUCTION Numerous groups of students simultaneously utilize school playgrounds for active recreation before, during, and after the school day, and inherently generate noise. In New York City, a combination of the population density, variety of land use types, and urban architecture results in school playgrounds located adjacent to or in proximity to noise-sensitive land uses (i.e., residences, hospitals, etc.). As a result of space limitations in urban areas, it is common for a New York City school to locate their playground on the building rooftop. When a school is immediately adjacent to taller buildings with noise-sensitive uses, not only is there typically a small distance between the rooftop playground and the adjacent buildings but there is also a direct line-of-site from the rooftop playground to the adjacent buildings' • Email address: bsachwald@akrf.com b Email address: dabatemarco@akrf.com PC Agenda Page110 windows. Adjacent building facades also generate sound reflections increasing playground noise levels at the noise-sensitive uses. Consequently, it is important to analyze the noise effects of school rooftop playgrounds in New York City. A.The New York City Environmental Quality Review Process In New York City, when a project requires discretionary action it must go through the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) process. The CEQR process examines a project's potential for adverse environmental impacts including vehicular traffic and public transportation, air quality, hazardous materials, historic preservation, natural resources, shadows, economics and noise among other areas. Some examples of a discretionary action that may require CEQR approval would be the use of City, State, or Federal funds, the purchase or leasing of city-owned property, or when a proposed project does not conform to existing zoning regulations. New York City schools often require CEQR approval since they are commonly funded by the New York City School Construction Authority (SCA). The SCA provides funding and manages all NYC Department of Education capital projects. This includes the construction of new schools, renovation of existing schools, and the conversion of existing buildings into schools. All SCA projects undergo CEQR environmental review. In New York City, private schools not funded or managed by the SCA often undergo CEQR environmental review for zoning nonconformity or other reasons. B.Impact Criteria for School Evaluations SCA projects are typically subject to their own noise impact criteria, and non-SCA projects are subject to the noise criteria set forth in the CEQR Technical Manual. The SCA criteria considers project-related noise increases to be an impact, when comparing the future with the proposed project to the future without the proposed project, greater than or equal to a 5 dBA Leq(l)· The 5 dBA relative impact criteria correlates well with the average human ability to perceive changes in sound levels (see Table 1) and community response to changes in sound levels (see Table 2). Table 1: Average Abilitv to Perceive Changes in Sound Levels Change (dBA) Human Perception of Sound 2-3 Barelv perceptible 5 Readily noticeable 10 A doubling or halving of the loudness of sound 20 A "dramatic change" 40 Difference between a faintly audible sound and a verv loud sound 13olt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway traffic Noise,Reoort No. PB-222-703. Preoared for Federal Hiahwav Admlnislratlon, June 1973. Table 2: Community Response to Increases in Noise Levels Change (dBA) Cateaorv Description 0 None No observed reaction 5 Little Sporadic comPlaints 10 Medium Widespread complaints 15 Stronq Threats of community action 20 Verv strong Viaorous community action International Standards Organization. Noise Assessment with Respect to Community Responses, ISO/TC 43 (New York: United Nations, November 1969). PC Agenda Page111 CEQR noise impact criteria are based on No Build noise levels and are shown in Table 3. Table 3: CEQR Noise Level Impact Thresholds (io dBA) Time Period No Build Leam Impact Threshold Leam Less than or equal to 60 No Build+ 5 7AM-10PM 61 -62 65 Greater than 62 No Build+ 3 10PM-7AM Anvthina No Build+ 3 Source: New York Citv CEQR Technical Manual To uniformly analyze the noise effects of school rooftop playgrounds, AKRF has developed a methodology to predict rooftop playground generated noise levels in a complex urban environment, identify locations with the potential for significant noise impacts, and evaluate various mitigation measures. This methodology involves sound measurements of playground users at an existing rooftop playground and ambient noise levels at the proposed project site, and modeling with CadnaA to assess a project's noise effects. This paper details the AKRF methodology, provides three case studies that use the AKRF methodology, presents some analysis results, and concludes with summary and closing remarks. 2.AKRF ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The AKRF methodology has several steps: 1) perform sound measurements at an comparable existing facility to determine the average sound power level per playground user (when feasible), 2) perform sound measurements at the proposed project study area to determine an appropriate base of ambient noise levels, 3) computer modeling using the CadnaA, and 4) analyze the results for impacts. For projects where an impact is predicted to occur, the AKRF methodology can also be used to evaluate the acoustical effectiveness of mitigation options. A.Determination of Playground User Source Levels Sound measurements were performed to determine an average sound power level per playground user. This involved continuous measurements at an existing rooftop playground during its hours of operation on two separate days. The specifics of the sound measurement program are discussed later in this paper as Case Study 1. The measurement data was reviewed and atypical events (ex: ambulance siren, etc.) were identified using the Lmax values. Hourly Leq(J) values were adjusted to not include any atypical events. Using these average Leq(I) values, the worst case Leq(l) scenario was selected, which was 74.0 dBA, in order to determine an average sound power level per playground user. During these sound measurements, the number of children simultaneously using the playground and the average distance between the microphone and the center of the rooftop playground area was recorded. A literature search determined that 80 dBA at 5 feet (1.52 meters) was an appropriate sound pressure level to assume for one child shouting. This information was used along with sound measurement data collected to determine that each playground user spent approximately 30% of the time shouting. This assumption seemed reasonable based on qualitative observations that were made during the measurements. B.Determination of Proposed Project Site Ambient Noise Levels At the site of a proposed school rooftop playground, ambient sound levels are measured throughout the day. When feasible, elevated measurements are performed. When elevated PC Agenda Page112 measurements are not feasible, ground level measurements, acoustical fundamentals, and the CadnaA model are used to determine an appropriate base of ambient noise levels. An appropriate base of ambient noise levels is important for the assessment since noise levels associated with the proposed rooftop playground are compared to a "no rooftop playground" condition for impact assessment purposes. In many cases, the existing baseline noise level is used in place of a calculated future noise level without the rooftop playground. This results in a lower baseline level and therefore a conservative analysis. However, if substantial changes to the noise levels, unrelated to the proposed project, are predicted in the project study area, future baseline noise level may need to be calculated. C.Computer Acoustical Modeling with CadnaA The CadnaA model is used to predict the sound generated by the proposed rooftop playgrounds. The CadnaA model is a computerized model developed by DataKustik for sound prediction and assessment. The model takes into account the sound power levels of the noise sources, attenuation with distance, ground contours, reflections from barriers and structures, attenuation due to shielding, etc. The CadnaA model is based on the acoustic propagation standards promulgated in International Standard ISO 9613-2. This standard is currently under review for adoption by the American National Standards Institute as an American standard. The CadnaA model is a state-of-the-art tool for acoustical analysis. In a complex environment such as New York City, an important advantage of using CadnaA is that Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data can be directly imported creating a three-dimensional model with detailed geometry including ground contours, roadways, building locations, building footprints, and building heights. With this type of detailed model, the effects of shielding, reflections and distance attenuation are more accurately accounted for which results in a more accurate analysis. CadnaA allows the user to model several different sound source types, including point sources, line sources, and area sources. The AKRF methodology uses an area source made of moving point sources to model a rooftop playground. The area source is geographically located where the proposed playground's active recreation would occur. The number of moving point sources is determined by the maximum number of users expected to be simultaneously using the proposed rooftop playground at any given time. D.Determining Sound Power Level for Each Playground User The sound power level for an average playground user was determined in CadnaA by modeling the rooftop playground, where the sound measurements discussed above in "A. Determination of Playground User Source Levels" were performed, as an area source. A receiver point was created in CadnaA where the measurement microphone position was located. The average number of simultaneous playground users during the measurements was 30 children, and consequently the CadnaA area source was programmed to contain 30 moving point sources. The sound power level for each of the moving point sources (i.e., each playground user) was adjusted until the sound pressure level at the receiver point corresponded with the measurement results. A sound power level of 86.7 dBA for each playground user replicated the measurement results. E.Modeling Proposed Playgrounds In CadnaA it is easy to create an area source of any size or shape. Using the area source that contains the moving point sources, a proposed playground with any number of users can be PC Agenda Page113 modeled using the AKRF methodology. To create a proposed project's geometry into CadnaA, AKRF uses the architect's CAD files which can be imported directly into CadnaA. Using CAD files results in the most precise CadnaA model. Information regarding playground usage is also provided to determine the worst-case playground scenario and a conservative analysis. Receivers are created in CadnaA at window and balcony locations of nearby noise-sensitive uses. Receivers are located at multiple elevations for each building to determine the variation of playground noise levels above and below the elevation of the proposed playground. Using CadnaA, noise levels generated by a proposed rooftop playground are calculated at each receiver. These worst-case noise levels are combined with the measured ambient noise levels to determine the "future with the proposed project" noise level at each receiver location. To examine the temporal distribution of the proposed playground noise effects, the analysis examines several time periods through the day, typically including the AM, midday (MD), and PM. The calculated "future with the proposed project" noise levels are compared to existing noise levels to identify potential noise level increases caused by the proposed playground. The SCA or CEQR impact criteria are used to determine the significance of the predicted noise level increases. If the analysis indicates the potential for a noise impact, CadnaA is used to examine the acoustical effectiveness of mitigation measures. Mitigation measures may include a noise barrier, playground/building reconfiguration, or time of day restrictions for playground use. The CadnaA model is a fast and ergonomic tool to examine multiple scenarios and evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation options. 3.CASE STUDIES Detailed below are three case studies that utilized the acoustical analysis methodology for rooftop playgrounds developed by AKRF. Due to real life limitations, compromises are often required regarding the AKRF methodology. Each of the three examples discussed below exemplifies a key point of the AKRF methodology. A.Case Study 1-Determination of Source Sound Power Level As previously discussed, the sound power level data used to model a rooftop playground was determined through measurements at an existing elementary school in New York City. Specifically, a continuous sound measurement was performed at the school's rooftop playground. The sound monitoring location was at the northern boundary of the rooftop playground which was located approximately 90 feet (27.43 meters) above street level. The microphone was secured along the perimeter fence approximately 30 feet (9 .14 meters) from the center of playground activities. Measurements were performed on March 29 and April 18, 2007 from approximately 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM on both days. The continuous sound measurements were used to identify the temporal distribution of the playground noise levels throughout a typical school day. Observations and field notes, such as the number of children utilizing the rooftop playground at a single time, were recorded. The sound level monitoring system consisted of a Brliel & Kjrer Sound Level Meter Type 2260, a BrUel & Kjrer Sound Level Calibrator Type 4231, and a BrUel & Kjrer Yz-inch microphone Type 4189. The microphone was mounted at a height of 6 feet ( 1.82 meters) above the playground surface to make it less accessible to playground users (i.e., harder for the children to tamper with the microphone) and the remaining instrumentation was located in a locked and secure Storm Case. The B&K 2260 was calibrated before and after readings with a Brliel & Kjrer Type 4231 sound level calibrator using the appropriate adaptor. The data were digitally recorded by the sound meter and displayed at the end of the measurement PC Agenda Page114 period in units of dBA. Measured quantities included Leq, L1, L10, Lso, L90, Lmin, and Lmax· A windscreen was used during all sound measurements except for calibration. Weather conditions were noted to ensure a true reading as follows: wind speed under 12 mph; relative humidity under 90 percent; and temperature above 14°F and below 122°F. All measurement procedures were based on the guidelines outlined in ANSI Standard Sl.13-2005. The sound measurement results are shown below in Table 4; the dominant source of noise was attributable to activity at the rooftop playground. Ta Date 3/29/07 3/29/07 3/29/07 3/29/07 3/29/07 3/29/07 3/29/07 3/29/07 4/18/07 4/18/07 4/18/07 4/18/07 4/18/07 4/18/07 4/18/07 4/18/07 bl E . . L V I 9 h Fl R ti Pl d e 4: XJStme,. ,..,,m a ues t oor oo to) aygroun Start Time 8:30AM 9:00AM 10:00AM 11:00AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 8:30AM 9:00AM 10:00AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM Note: Field measurements were performed bv ARKF, Inc. on March 29 and Aoril 18, 2007. L..n (dBA) 67.9 69.0 70.0 74.0 67.7 69.3 72.3 67.9 66.6 67.9 70.2 72.3 71.4 71.6 71.1 69.3 Examination of the temporal distribution and statistical descriptors of the sound data collected identified the worst case scenario: Leq(l-hour) of 74.0 dBA. This occurred on March 29, 2007 from 11 AM to noon. The worst case Leq(l-hour) of 74.0 dBA was used to calculate, as was described earlier in the methodology section, the representative sound power level for one rooftop playground user. This provided a basis for a conservative approach for modeling a rooftop playground and assessing the noise effects at adjacent noise-sensitive uses. 8.Case Study 2 -Extensive Elevated/Rooftop Ambient Measurements for Impact Assessment This proposed school would be constructed on a site that currently contains a four story parking garage for a utility company. The proposed school would use the parking garage's building shell and add a fifth story expansion. The rooftop playground would be located at an elevation of approximately 72 feet (21.94 meters) and would be designed to accommodate up to 30 children simultaneously using the playground. There are several noise-sensitive uses immediately adjacent to the proposed rooftop playground. Since access to the parking garage's rooftop was obtainable, ambient sound measurements were performed in several locations as part of the rooftop playground acoustical analysis. In total six locations at the project site were selected for noise monitoring. Site 1 was located on the sidewalk immediately in front of the proposed school. Sites 2 through 5 were located on the northeast, southeast, southwest, and northwest comer of the parking garage roof, respectively. Site 6 was located on the southern side of the parking garage roof. Figure 1 shows the receptor site locations. Short-term (i.e., 20-minute) spot measurements were performed at Sites 1 through 5 during the weekday AM, midday, and PM peak periods. A continuous long-term PC Agenda Page115 measurement was performed at Site 6 during the hours that the proposed rooftop playground would be in use (i.e., weekday daytime hours). The results of the sound measurements at Site 1 were used to determine current ambient noise level conditions at street level. Sites 1 through 5 were used to determine how ambient sound levels varied at different locations on the parking garage's rooftop. Site 6 was used to determine the temporal distribution of the ambient sound levels at elevations similar to that of the parking garage rooftop. 51 u //SJ w :) z w EAST Figure 1: Noise Monitoring Locations NINETY The Site 1 measurement results were used for the window/wall attenuation analysis and the measurement results all six sites were used to assess potential impacts related to the proposed rooftop playground at noise-sensitive uses located adjacent and in close proximity to the proposed rooftop playground. Using the results of the extensive rooftop measurements resulted in a more refined impact analysis since this measurement data was more representative of the ambient sound levels at adjacent elevated noise-sensitive locations. C.Case Study 3 -Rooftop Noise Barriers and Window/Wall Attenuation Measures Case Study 3 was for a multi-tier school building with a rooftop playground to be located on the lower section of the building approximately 40 feet (12.19 meters) above street level. The adjacent section of the school is taller at eight stories and has classrooms that overlook the rooftop playground. Additionally, there were several residential locations immediately adjacent to the proposed rooftop playground. Figure 2 is a 3D screenshot of the CadnaA model (the blue rectangle is the rooftop playground area source; the white and black spheres are receiver locations) that was set up to assess the noise effects of the proposed rooftop playground at adjacent residential locations and at the school's classrooms that would have a direct line of site to the rooftop playground. Due to the high source levels and short distances between the proposed rooftop playground and adjacent noise-sensitive locations, initial review of the architectural plans lead to concern about the noise effects of the proposed rooftop playground on both the adjacent residential buildings and the proposed school's classrooms that overlook the proposed rooftop playground. Preliminary CadnaA modeling confirmed these concerns. Consequently, the CadnaA model was used to design a Lucite/Plexiglas-type perimeter noise barrier. The perimeter noise barrier would be approximately 8 feet (2.44 meters) tall and surround the rooftop playground on three sides (see Figure 2). The CadnaA model is a valuable tool for calculating reflections and shielding due to adjacent/intervening buildings in PC Agenda Page116 a geometrically complex urban environment such as New York City. Using the CadnaA model, AKRF was able to quickly analyze the noise levels due to playground activities at multiple window elevations of all the adjacent buildings. The results of the acoustical analysis using the final design of the Lucite/Plexiglass-type perimeter noise barrier demonstrated that at adjacent residential locations, which have a direct line-of-sight to the proposed rooftop playground and are at approximately the same or higher elevations than the rooftop playground, exterior noise levels at the building facades would increase by less than 3 dBA during the hours when the proposed rooftop playground is producing its maximum expected noise levels. Consequently, noise from the proposed rooftop playground would not be expected to result in significant noise impacts at adjacent noise-sensitive receptor locations. Figure 2: 3D Screenshot ofCadnaA Model The New York City CEQR Technical Manual has set window/wall attenuation quantities for buildings, based on exterior Lio(!) noise levels, and in order to maintain interior noise levels of 45 dBA Lio(!) or lower for school uses. Based on the results of the street level noise monitoring program and the CadnaA modeling, the proposed school's building facades were designed to achieve desirable interior noise levels. The south fayade of the proposed school would require 26 dBA of attenuation and the east fayade of the propose school would require 31 dBA of attenuation. AKRF worked with the architect on the design of the proposed school such that the composite Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) of the south and east facades meets these attenuation requirements. Additionally, for the fayade of the proposed building that is immediately adjacent to the proposed rooftop play area, the building design would include windows that have an OITC sufficient enough to achieve at least 39 dBA of composite window/wall attenuation for the fifth floor (there are no classrooms with windows adjacent to the rooftop play area on the fourth floor). With these architectural design measures, noise levels within the proposed building would satisfy CEQR interior noise level requirements and result in interior ambient noise levels that are conducive to a desirable learning environment. 4.CONCLUSIONS A.Confidence in Rooftop Playground Noise Level Predications The AKRF study determined that a sound power level of 86. 7 dBA per child could be used to conservatively assess the noise effects of a rooftop playground. This determination of source PC Agenda Page117 sound power level agreed well with a previous study called, "Noise Emission of Sporting Facilities and Quantification for Noise Prediction" by Wolfgang Probst 1• The Probst study determined that the sound power level of one child shouting in a schoolyard or in a crowded swimming pool was 87 dBA. Both the AKRF study and the Probst study conclude that the accurate modeling of a school playground can be done using an area source, containing N number of children, with the following equation: Sound Power Level of Area Source (dBA) = [PWL of one child+ lO*LOG (N)] (1) B.Advantages to the AKRF Developed Approach The AKRF developed approach using the CadnaA for modeling a rooftop playground and examining the noise effects has several advantages:•The CadnaA model is a valuable tool for calculating reflections and shielding due to adjacent/intervening buildings in a geometrically complex urban environment such as New York City;•Sound level predictions can be made quickly at a large number of analysis locations;•Allows the user to quickly and ergonomically explore the acoustical effectiveness of various mitigation options; and•Helps with communicating analysis results to the public since CadnaA is a visual tool (i.e., 30 view, colorful contour maps, etc.). C.Next Steps The AKRF methodology described in this paper is a good foundation for creating a guideline method for assessing the noise effects of a rooftop playground in an urban environment such as New York City. Currently, the areas where further refinement is desired are:•Perform additional measurements at existing rooftop playgrounds to further refine the sound power level used to represent each child. Based on previous AKRF acoustical studies for outdoor school playgrounds (Wu, Weixiong, Development of Noise Assessment Method for School Playground Noise, INTER-NOISE, 2006), the playground user sound power level may differ depending on the age of the children utilizing the playground (i.e., early education, elementary school, middle school, etc.). Additional measurements would also aid in establishing average octave band sound power levels for a playground user;•Validation of CadnaA results. As the proposed schools that AKRF used the methodology outlined above to analyze the noise effects of their rooftop playgrounds are built and the playgrounds become active, it would be a wonderful opportunity for AKRF to perform on­ site sound measurements to examine the agreement between the actual sound levels and the predicated sound levels. Currently, AKRF's methodology for analyzing rooftop playgrounds in New York City is a good foundation for creating a guideline for assessing the noise effects of a rooftop playground in an urban environment. We look forward to work that will allow us to further develop and refine our methodology and we welcome input from our fellow acousticians. REFERENCES 1 Probst, W.: "Gerauschentwicklung von Sportanlagen immissionsschutztechnische Prognosen", Annex 4, page fur Sportwissenschaft, ISBN 3-921896-84-3 und deren 70, Report Quantifizierung fur B2/94, Bundesinstitut PC Agenda Page118 KIDDIE ACADEMY DAY CARE 16601 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY, SAN JOSE ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE STUDY K1001E--=i AcADEMYf)i EDUCATIONAL CHILD CARE TICO Construction, Inc. January 20, 2016 CSDA DESIGN GROUP PC Agenda Page119 Kiddie Academy Day Care 16601 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA Environmental Noise Study January 20, 2016 Prepared for: Ken Ravizza TICO Construction, Inc. Prepared by: Randy Waldeck, PE Greg Baker CSDA Design Group 475 Sansome Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 CSDA Project No. 1520.01 PC Agenda Page120 CSDAI DESIGN GROUP Kiddie Academy -Environmental Noise Study January 20, 2016 CSDA Project No. 1520.01 Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Project Description ............................................................................................................................ 3 3.0 Acoustical Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 3 3.1 EC-1.1: Community Noise Levels and Land Use Compatibility ............................................. 3 3.2 EC-1.2: Project Generated Noise .......................................................................................... 4 3.3 EC-1.3: Project Generated Noise .......................................................................................... 5 3.4 EC-1.6: Project Generated Noise .......................................................................................... 5 3.5 CALGreen .............................................................................................................................. 5 4.0 Noise Measurement Results ............................................................................................................. 5 4.1 Weather ................................................................................................................................ 5 4.2 General Noise Conditions ..................................................................................................... 5 4.3 Noise Measurement Results ................................................................................................. 5 5.0 Findings and Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 7 5.1 EC-1.1: Community Noise Levels and Land Use Compatibility ............................................. 7 5.2 EC-1.2: Project Generated Noise .......................................................................................... 8 5.3 EC-1.3: Project Generated Noise .......................................................................................... 9 5.4 EC-1.6: Project Generated Noise .......................................................................................... 9 5.5 CALGreen .............................................................................................................................. 9 5.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 10 6.0 Appendix A-Noise Measurement Data ......................................................................................... 11 7.0 Appendix B -Preparer Credentials ................................................................................................. 12 List of Figures Figure 1-Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Schools .......................................................... 4 Figure 2 -Long-Term (LT) and Short-Term (ST) Measurement Locations .................................................... 6 Figure 3 -Project Site Plan ........................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4 -Calculated Future DNL Noise Levels ............................................................................................. 8 List of Tables Table 1-Calculated Noise Measurement Results ........................................................................................ 7 Table 2 -Calculated Future Noise Levels ..................................................................................................... 7 Table 3 -Project-Generated DNL Noise Levels ............................................................................................ 9 Table 4 -Project-Generated Maximum Noise Level .................................................................................... 9 Table 5 -Recommended Window, Door, and Exterior Wall STC Ratings .................................................. 10 Page 2 of 12 PC Agenda Page121 CSDA DESIGN 1GROUP Kiddie Academy -Environmental Noise Study January 20, 2016 CSDA Project No. 1520.01 1.0 Executive Summary An environmental noise study was conducted at 16601 Almaden Expressway, in San Jose, California. This is to be the future site of the Kiddie Academy Educational Day Care (the Day Care). Based on our findings, noise reduction measures are needed at the proposed buildings to meet San Jose (the City) and State (CALGreen) noise criteria. The following summarizes our findings: •Existing noise levels vary from DNL1 62 to 73 dBA at the site. •The future noise level at the planned playground open space meets the City's "Normally Acceptable" goal, since the DNL at the playground will be below 60 dBA. •Sound-rated windows and doors are needed at the proposed new buildings to adequately reduce noise generated by traffic on Almaden Expressway. For spaces with windows or doors facing the streets, STC 28 windows and STC 26 doors will meet the noise criteria. •The noise from project traffic and the kids at the playground exceeds the City's Zoning Ordinance requirement (55 dB) at the residential property lines. The issuance and compliance with the appropriate permit which outlines the findings to allow this exceedance should be obtained from the City as soon as feasible. 2.0 Project Description The Kiddie Academy Day Care facility will be located at the southwest corner of Almaden Expressway and Redmond Avenue intersection in San Jose, California. The Day Care plans to operate from 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM on weekdays, and will have a playground area near the rear property line adjacent to nearby residences. There will be up to 88 children outside at a time, for 30-45 minute recesses two times per day. The closest residences are 58'-9" from the nearest edge of the west play area, and 76' -7" from the nearest corner of the east play area. CSDA conducted an environmental noise study to quantify the existing environmental noise levels, calculate noise generated by the children and project traffic, and compare the results to the acoustical criteria contained in the San Jose General Plan2 and Municipal Code, as well as CALGreen.3 This report summarizes our findings and recommendations. 3.0 Acoustical Criteria The San Jose General Plan contains the following policies that are applicable to this project: 3.1 EC-1.1: Community Noise Levels and Land Use Compatibility The General Plan stipulates the following requirement for land use compatibility: "Locate new development in areas where noise levels are appropriate for the proposed uses. Consider federal, state 1 Day/Night Average Sound Level (Ldn or DNL): A descriptor established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to describe the average day-night level with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise occurring during the nighttime hours (10 pm to 7 am) to account for the increased sensitivity of people during sleeping hours. A 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived by people to be twice as loud. 2 Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan, Chapter 3, Section EC-1. 3 2013 California Green Building Standards Code, Section 5.507. Page 3 of 12 PC Agenda Page122 CSDA I DESIGN !GROUP Kiddie Academy-Environmental Noise Study January 20, 2016 CSDA Project No. 1520.01 and City noise standards and guidelines as a part of new development review. Applicable standards and guidelines for land uses in San Jose include:" •Interior Noise Levels: The standard applies applies to residential, hotel, motel, residentical care facilities, and hospital land uses. •Exterior Noise Levels: "The City's acceptable exterior noise level objective is 60 dBA DNL or less for residential and most institutional land uses (Table EC-1, reprinted as Figure 1 below). The acceptable exterior noise level objective is established for the City, except in the environs of the San Jose International Airport and the Downtown ... " Figure 1 shows an abbreviated version of the City's noise and land use compatibility guidelines for the appropriate land use category for daycare uses: 1No,:,e rnitigatoon to reduce ml�l'oor r,c,isf! levets ptir�uant to Policy rc-1 1 1s required Normally Acceptable: le__ ____ _., Sf, �1f11HI luiul llli ,,. sa11:.radury. hasi!if up(II' 1, as�ump1101, that a11y ou,ldmgs ,nvol�ed iire <;f 11()rrnal corwentional construction, w1lhuu1 .iny .fl C1,1l 11CllhU tnb•i�· t1<>11 rl'41J11i<n e111s Conditionally Acceptable: �I -----� $pcc1J1,,d l<1nd ,100 may be pcrrn,ttod only after· dct<1il<:d analysr� of the no,,;.c rc,ductio11 rcqu,rcrncr;tt. <ind ncC'dcd 11<11sc ins,1l.it1ot, fc<1t,.ircs incl1JdGd it, ttw design Unacceptable: New c·ir1 1nrc111m or development $ho11l1J generall.y not be 11ndertaken beca•Jl'-e m,t1gation i� U!>llally not feasible to cornply with noise element policies. Figure 1 -Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Schools The values obtained from the site survey are subject to the above goals for projects involving new construction. As shown in Figure 1, the exterior noise exposure threshold value for the land use category which includes daycare uses such as this project is 60 dBA DNL. 3.2 EC-1.2: Project Generated Noise "Minimize the noise impacts of new development on land uses sensitive to increased noise levels (Categories 1, 2, 3 and 6) by limiting noise generation and by requiring use of noise attenuation measures such as acoustical enclosures and sound barriers, where feasible. The City considers significant noise impacts to occur if a project would: •Cause the DNL at noise sensitive receptors to increase by five dBA DNL or more where the noise levels would remain 'Normally Acceptable'; or •Cause the DNL at noise sensitive receptors to increase by three dBA DNL or more where noise levels would equal or exceed the 'Normally Acceptable' level." Page 4 of 12 PC Agenda Page123 CSDA DESIGN GROUP 3.3 EC-1.3: Project Generated Noise Kiddie Academy -Environmental Noise Study January 20, 2016 CSDA Project No. 1520.01 "Mitigate noise generation of new non-residential land uses to 55 dBA DNL at the property line when located adjacent to existing or planned noise sensitive residential and public/quasi-public land uses." 3.4 EC-1.6: Project Generated Noise "Regulate the effects of operational noise from existing and new industrial and commercial development on adjacent uses through noise standards in the City's Municipal Code." Part 7 § 20.40.600 (Table 20-105) of the Code limits noise levels to a maximum of 55 dB at the property line. 3.5 CALGreen In addition to the General Plan criteria, CALGreen4 stipulates that, for sites with noise levels above 65 dBA, interior noise levels must be no greater than 50 dBA during the noisiest hour of operation (Performance Method). 4.0 Noise Measurement Results 4.1 Weather We measured the existing noise levels from July 7 to 10, 2015. During the measurements, the maximum wind speed was 22 miles per hour (mph); wind noise did not affect the measurement. The temperature ranged from a low of 60°F to a high of 77°F, and the humidity level ranged from a low of 53% to a high of 84% with no precipitation. 4.2 General Noise Conditions The noise environment is dominated by traffic on Almaden Expressway. Minor sources include vehicle traffic on Redmond Avenue and retail activity at the corner opposite from the site. 4.3 Noise Measurement Results Two long-term (48 hour) measurements were conducted, one along Almaden Expressway (LT-1) and the other along Redmond Avenue (LT-2), near the southeast and northwest corners of the Day Care site from July 7 to 10, 2015. The long term measurements were taken in secured lock boxes 12 feet above the ground on lampposts. One short-term (15 minute) measurement (ST-1) was conducted at the southwest corner to supplement the long-term measurements. This measurement was taken with a tripod, 5 feet from any reflecting surfaces, at the planned playground area. The numeric difference between the short-and long-term measured levels provides us with an offset value that is used to determine the DNL at the short-term location. The equipment was calibrated immediately before and after the measurements with no significant drift in response. Figure 2 shows the measurement locations; Figure 3 shows a site plan. 4 2013 California Green Building Standards Code, Section 5.507. Page 5 of 12 PC Agenda Page124 CSDA1 DESIGN GROUP Kiddie Academy -Environmental Noise Study January 20, 2016 CSDA Project No. 1520.01 Figure 2-Long-Term (LT) and Short-Term (ST) Measurement Locations Figure 3 -Project Site Plan Page 6 of12 PC Agenda Page125 CSD,A ; DESIGN :t"\iGROUP Kiddie Academy -Environmental Noise Study January 20, 2016 CSDA Project No. 1520.01 Table 1 summarizes the noise measurement results; Appendix A contains detailed noise measurement data. Table 1 -Calculated Noise Measurement Results Measurement LT-1 (Almaden) LT-2 (Redmond) ST-1 (Playground) DNL(dBA) 73 68 62 Loudest Lealhr (dBA) 74@4 PM 69@ 5 PM 62@4 PM Table 2 uses predicted traffic volume increases from the project traffic study to calculate future noise levels.5 Please note that the future increases are due to general traffic growth and other planned projects, and are not due to this project. Table 2 -Calculated Future Noise Levels Measurement Future Increase (dBA) DNL (dBA) LT-1 (Almaden) 0 73 LT-2 (Redmond) 1 69 ST-1 (Playground) 1 63 5.0 Findings and Recommendations Loudest Lea1hr (dBA) 74@4PM 70@ 5 PM 63 @4 PM 5.1 EC-1.l: Community Noise Levels and Land Use Compatibility The noise level at the facade facing Almaden Expressway and Redmond Avenue is in the "Conditionally Acceptable" noise zone (see Figure 1). Per the land-use guidelines chart (see Figure 1), noise reduction measures need to be incorporated at building facades facing Almaden Expressway and Redmond Avenue (Section 5.5 provides details). Noise levels at interior portions (i.e., the playground areas) of the site will be within the "Normally Acceptable" noise zone, since the new building will shield/block noise coming from Almaden Expressway. Based on the building layout (see Figure 3), the future noise level due to non-project sources at the playgrounds will be DNL 56 dBA; this was calculated with 3D computer modeling software, CadnaA, which utilizes the ISO 9613-2 calculation methodology.6 The computer model incorporates the noise measurement data discussed in Section 4, future noise levels (Table 2 above), and the shielding/blocking of road noise provided by the daycare building. The model also takes into account any noise reflected off of the existing residences behind the daycare site. Figure 4 graphically shows the outdoor noise levels. 5 "Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Day Care Center, 16601 Almaden Expressway Daycare Center, San Jose, CA" prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants on November 17, 2015. 6 International Organization for Standardization, 9613-2:1996 "Acoustics -Attenuation of Sound during Propagation Outdoors." Page 7 of 12 PC Agenda Page126 CSDA DESIGN GROUP Kiddie Academy - Environmental Noise Study January 20, 2016 CSDA Project No. 1520.01 Figure 4 -Calculated Future DNL Noise Levels 5.2 EC-1.2: Project Generated Noise The two primary generators of noise at the project is vehicular noise (dropoff/pickup) and noise generated by children using the playgrounds. We have calculated the expected noise levels from both of these sources at the southwest corner of the site (see Figure 3), which is the most sensitive receiver location (as existing noise levels are lowest at this location). Our calculations are based upon the following: •Vehicular Noise: Federal Highway Administration's Traffic Noise Model v2.5 0 Assumed vehicle speed of 15 mph 0 Assumed peak hour Leq is equivalent to DNL7 0 Daily Trips: 736 (per project traffic study, Table 3) •Children Playing Noise: 0 Worst-case scenario of 88 kids playing for up to three (3) hours per day. 0 Noise data from our files (taken at other schools) and peer-reviewed research papers to calculate noise from kids playing outside.8 � Calculation Details •Source level: 71.5 dB at 10' (based on New York Public School 52R and Nestor Elementary School, San Diego measurements) •Distance from Playground to Property Line: 45 feet•Sound Pressure Level at Property Line: 61.7 dB •DNL at Property Line (3 hours of play per day): 52.7 dBA 7 Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement, Page 2-56, September 2013. 8 Wu, Weixiong. "Development of Noise Assessment Method for School Playground Noise", Inter-Noise 2006. Page 8 of 12 PC Agenda Page127 CSDA DESIGN GROUP Kiddie Academy-Environmental Noise Study January 20, 2016 CSDA Project No. 1520.01 Table 3 summarizes the results of these calculations. Table 3 -Project-Generated DNL Noise Levels Project DNL at Cumulative DNL Increase over Source Property Line, Existing DNL, (Existing + Project), Existing DNL, Criteria, dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA Project Traffic 51 ---- Kids Playing 53 ---- Cumulative 55 62 63 +1 +3 Note: Criteria of a +3 dBA increase is based on the existing noise level being above DNL 60 dBA (Satisfactory); see Section 3.2 for further information. Since the DNL increase is less than 3 dBA, the EC 1-2 criteria is met. 5.3 EC-1.3: Project Generated Noise EC 1.3 stipulates that noise from new projects should be limited to DNL 55 dBA. As can be seen in Table 3, the project-generated noise is DNL 55 dBA at the property line. Thus, the EC-1.3 criterion is met. 5.4 EC-1.6: Project Generated Noise The Municipal Code limits noise to a maximum of 55 dB at the property lines. Table 4 summarizes the maximum property line noise levels using the same assumptions/methodology outlined in Section 5.2 Table 4 -Project-Generated Maximum Noise Level Source Noise Level at Criteria, Property Line, dB dB Project Traffic 51 55 Kids Playing 62 55 Cumulative 62 55 (traffic+ kids) As shown in Table 4, the noise generated by the children will exceed the Zoning Ordinance standards. Based on our conversations with the Planning Department a Conditional Use Permit will need to be obtained to allow for the Municipal Code exceedance. 5.5 CALGreen In order to meet the Leq 50 dBA (CALGreen) interior noise requirement, sound-rated windows and doors are necessary at some locations. Table 5 summarizes the recommended STC9 ratings to meet the Leq 50 dBA criterion inside of the building: 9 Sound Transmission Class (STC): A single number used to rate how well a building partition (wall, floor/ceiling assembly, door) attenuates airborne sound. Page 9 of 12 PC Agenda Page128 CSDA DESIGN GROUP Kiddie Academy-Environmental Noise Study January 20, 2016 CSDA Project No. 1520.01 Table 5 -Recommended Window, Door, and Exterior Wall STC Ratings Location WindowSTC DoorSTC WallSTC Owner's Office 28 -40 Day Care Areas 5 through 8 28 26 40 Note: Spaces identified in the table require fresh air (mechanical) ventilation so windows can be kept closed. Please note the following: •Calculations and recommended STC ratings are based upon the February 17, 2015 drawings •The recommended STC 40 wall is based upon cement plaster construction. If exterior insulation and finishing system (EIFS) or other lightweight cladding is planned, please let us know as our calculations would need to be refined.•STC 26 doors are hollow metal or solid core wood with perimeter bulb gasketing and a door bottom with threshold. •A typical, construction grade window achieves STC 28. •Mechanical/fresh air ventilation is necessary at spaces with sound-rated windows and doors so they can be kept closed. The above STC ratings are preliminary and may need to be refined as the project design progresses. 5.6 Conclusion The project meets the General Plan noise criteria, as it results in a noise level of DNL 63 dBA and increases the existing noise level by DNL 1 dBA. However, the project exceeds the Municipal Code standard as the cumulative project-generated maximum noise level at the property line noise limit is 62 dB due to noise from project traffic and kids playing. The issuance and compliance of a conditional use permit is needed to allow for this exceedance. This concludes our environmental noise study for the Kiddie Academy Educational Day Care. Please do not hesitate to contact us for further information and discussion of the recommenda tions presented in this report. For your reference, the preparer's credentials are attached in Appendix B. Page 10 of 12 PC Agenda Page129 CSDA DESIGN GROUP Kiddie Academy -Environmental Noise Study January 20, 2016 CSDA Project No. 1520.01 6.0 Appendix A -Noise Measurement Data 80 75 70 )I( --65 - j 60 55 50 45 40 Kiddie Academy Environmental Noise Measurements: 7 /7 /15 -7 /9/15 )I( )I( )I( )I( - --)1()1( ---��------ � c.. 0 0 --- � 8 0 0 )I( )I( )I( -)I( ----- :i: LT-1: Almaden Expressway -LT-2: Redmond Avenue )I( )I( :ii::_ - � .,: 8 0 0 ---------- Page 11 of 12 PC Agenda Page130 CSDA DESIGN GROUP 7 .0 Appendix B -Preparer Credentials Kiddie Academy -Environmental Noise Study January 20, 2016 CSDA Project No. 1520.01 Page 12 of 12 PC Agenda Page131 CSDA DESIGN GROUP RANDY WALDECK PE, LEED® AP Principal, Acoustics Years of Experience 14 Years with CSDA Design Group 4 Education California Poly technic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, B.S. Industrial Technology Licenses/Accreditations CA: M.E. No. 34245 LEED ® AP: No. 7D57F15BFF Affiliations Institute of Noise Control Engineering -INCE (Associate Member) Urban Land Institute (Member) Acoustical Society of America (Full Member) Publications ''ACRP 02-51: Evaluation of Facade Acoustical Measurements," National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 2014 (on-going) Randy D. Waldeck, PE, LEED ® AP, is an expert in environmental, aviation, architectural, and mechanical equipment noise and vibration control. His wide breadth of experience includes consulting on over 500 transit and architectural projects. Randy has provided acoustical expertise for the following types of projects: mixed-use, transportation (air, rail, and roadway), condominiums, single-family homes, hotels and resorts, offices, medical facilities, industrial use facilities, federal buildings, educational facilities, and restaurants. Randy's representative experience is listed below. Healthcare Facilities: •Ravenswood Medical Office Building, East Palo Alto, CA •VA Hospital, San Francisco, CA •Washington Hospital Helipad, Fremont, CA •Palomar Medical Center, Poway, CA•Good Samaritans Hospital Expansion, San Jose, CA •San Francisco General Hospital Helipad Feasibility Study, San Francisco, CA•Stanford Medical Center Helipad, Palo Alto, CA •UCSF Kidney Transplant Suite, San Francisco, CA•UCSF Mission Bay Medical Center, San Francisco, CA•UCSF Medical Center Construction Noise Study, San Francisco, CA •1375 Sutter Street MRI/Imaging Lab, San Francisco, CA•UCLA Kidney Transplant Suite, Los Angeles, CA•John Muir Medical Center, Walnut Creek, CA •Kaiser Antioch, Antioch, CA •Kaiser Modesto Hospital, Modesto, CA •Cathedral Hill Medical Office Building, San Francisco, CA •Kaiser Sand Canyon Hospital, Irvine, CA •Kaiser Template Hospital, Statewide, CA Residential and Mixed Use: •829 Folsom Condominiums Mechanical Noise, San Francisco, CA •333 Harrison Street (Rincon Green) Apartments, San Francisco, CA•150 Otis Street HUD Housing, San Francisco, CA •1945 Hyde Street Condominiums, San Francisco, CA•201 Sansome Street Condominiums, San Francisco, CA•750 Second Street Condominiums, San Francisco, CA •474 Natoma Condominiums, San Francisco, CA •Rincon Green Apartments, San Francisco, CA •One Ecker Condominiums, San Francisco, CA•Daggett Triangle Mixed-Use, San Francisco, CA •Verba Buena Lofts, San Francisco, CA •Symphony Towers Condominiums, San Francisco, CA•Broadway and Sansome Family Apartments, San Francisco, CA •One Rincon Hill Towers, San Francisco, CA •Artisan Way To wnhomes, Environmental Noise Analysis, Menlo Park, CA•6701 Shellmound Street Mixed-Use, Emeryville, CA •Mill Creek Apartments, Milpitas, CA •Flywheel/Soltice Apartments Capella Mixed-Use, Sunnyvale, CA•Silicon Valley Berryessa BART Ex tension Project, Residential Noise Insulation Program, San Jose, CA 1 PC Agenda Page132 CSDA' DESIGN GROUP RANDY WALDECK PE, LEED® AP Principal, Acoustics Publications Coauthor: "Acoustical Measurement Methods Analysis," Center for the Built Environment, Berkeley, CA, 2011 "Field Measurement of Facade Noise Reduction: Home Selection." AAAE Airport Noise Mitigation Symposium, San Francisco, CA, 2010 Coauthor: "Post-Occupancy Assessment of Speech Privacy in Offices," Acoustical Society of America, lSlst Meeting, Providence, RI, 2006 Coauthor, ''A Case Study Assessment of the Speech Privacy and Sound Isolation of Spaces Having Underfloor Air Distribution Systems," INCE Noise Conference, HI December 2006 Educational Facilities: •Grossmont College, Performing Arts Complex, El Cajon, CA•Los Angeles County High School for the Arts, Acoustical Study and Design, Los Angeles, CA•International Polytechnic High School, Acoustical Study and Design, Pomona, CA•Roosevelt Middle School Theater, San Francisco Unified School District, San Francisco, CA•Carondelet High School Theater, Concord, CA•Lennox School District Sound Mitigation, Lennox, CA•Berkeley High School New Classrooms, Berkeley, CA•Redwood High School Gymnasium, Larkspur, CA•Notre Dame High School, San Jose, CA•Fammatre Elementary, San Jose, CA•College of San Mateo Arts Building, San Mateo, CA•Contra Costa College Student Services Building, San Pablo, CA Commercial, Laboratory and Research: •Confidential Tech Client, Mountain View, CA•Stanford Linear Accelerator Research Space & Lab Control Room, Menlo Park, CA•Airport Cooperative Reasearch Program (ACRP), Various Locations Nationwide•Allergan Medical Research and Development Labs, Campbell, CA•Stanford Medical Center Helipad, Palo Alto, CA•Stanford University James H. Clark Center, Palo Alto, CA•Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories Computational Research and Theory Facility, Berkeley, CA•Wisconsin Energy Institute Ground Vibration Study, Madison, WI•The Centennial, South San Francisco, CA•200 Paul Avenue Data Center, San Francisco, CA•360 Spear Street Data Center, San Francisco, CA•Transamerica Pyramid Cooling Tower Noise, San Francisco, CA•Chevron Building A4, San Ramon, CA•Crocker Art Museum, Sacramento, CA•Hewlett Packard, Santa Clara, CA•Powerhouse Science Center, Sacramento, CA•NASA Building N233, Mountain View, CA Public and Municipal: •GSA Adaptable Workplace Laboratory, Washington, D.C. •Metro Purple Line Construction Noise and Vibration, Los Angeles, CA •San Francisco Emergency Operations Center, San Francisco, CA •California Independent System Operator Headquarters and Control Room, Folsom, CA •City of Cupertino General Plan Update, Cupertino, CA •Los Angeles World Airports Residential Soundproofing Program, LA, CA •City of Inglewood Residential Sound Insulation Program, Inglewood, CA •City of Lemoore General Plan Update, Lemoore, CA •City of Los Banos Noise Element, Los Banos, CA •City of Pacifica General Plan Noise Element, Pacifica, CA •City of Porterville General Plan Update, Porterville, CA 2 PC Agenda Page133 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PC Agenda Page134 PRELIMINARY NOISE STUDY Ch ristian Elementary School at Faith Chapel PDS2014-MPA-14-020 San Diego County, CA Lead Agency: County of san Diego Planning & Development Services Contact: Emmet Aquino 5510 Overland Avenue #110 San Diego, CA 92123 858-694-8845 Prepared by: Jeremy Louden Ldn &«Mulling, Int:.. 42428 Chisolm Trail Murrieta, CA 92562 760-473-1253 Project Proponent: Mark Linman 11316 Rolling Hills Drive El Cajon, CA 92020 February 22. 2016 Project: 1530-04 Faith Chapel Elementary Noise Report RL 2 PC Agenda Page135 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................. II LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................................... II LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................................................................................ 111 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... IV 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION .............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS .................................................. , ..................................................................................... l 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETIINGS & EXISTING (ONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 3 1.5 METHODOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................. 7 2.1 GUIDELINES FOR THE DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE .............................................................................................. 7 2.2 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS .................................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 3.0 CERTIFICATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 11 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1-A: PROJECT VICINITY MAP ...................................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 1-B: PROPOSED PROJECT SITE LAYOUT ...................................................................................................... 4 FIGURE 1-C: EXISTING NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATION ...................................................................................... 5 FIGURE 2-A: OUTDOOR PLAYGROUND AREA ....................................................................................................... 10 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1-1: EXISTING NOISE LEVELS ....................................................................................................................... 5 TABLE 2-1: PROPERTY LINE SOUND LEVEL LIMITS IN DECIBELS (DBA) ..................................................................... 7 ii Ldn Consulting, Inc. 2/25/16 1530-04 Faith Chapel Elementary Noise Report RL 2 PC Agenda Page136 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Sound Pressure Level (SPL): a ratio of one sound pressure to a reference pressure (Lrer) of 20 µPa. Because of the dynamic range of the human ear, the ratio is calculated logarithmically by 20 log (L/lref), A-weighted Sound Pressure Level (dBA): Some frequencies of noise are more noticeable than others. To compensate for this fact, different sound frequencies are weighted more. Minimum Sound Level (L min): Minimum SPL or the lowest SPL measured over the time interval using the A-weighted network and slow time weighting. Maximum Sound Level (L max): Maximum SPL or the highest SPL measured over the time interval the A-weighted network and slow time weighting. Equivalent sound level (Leq): the true equivalent sound level measured over the run time. Leq is the A-weighted steady sound level that contains the same total acoustical energy as the actual fluctuating sound level. Day Night Sound Level (LDN): Representing the Day/Night sound level, this measurement is a 24 -hour average sound level where 10 dB is added to all the readings that occur between 10 pm and 7 am. This is primarily used in community noise regulations where there is a 10 dB "Penalty" for night time noise. Typically LDN's are measured using A weighting. Community Noise Exposure Level (CNEL): The accumulated exposure to sound measured in a 24-hour sampling interval and artificially boosted during certain hours. For CNEL, samples taken between 7 pm and 10 pm are boosted by 5 dB; samples taken between 10 pm and 7 am are boosted by 10 dB. Octave Band: An octave band is defined as a frequency band whose upper band-edge frequency is twice the lower band frequency. Third-Octave Band: A third-octave band is defined as a frequency band whose upper band­ edge frequency is 1.26 times the lower band frequency. Response Time (F,S,I): The response time is a standardized exponential time weighting of the input signal according to fast (F), slow (S) or impulse (I) time response relationships. Time response can be described with a time constant. The time constants for fast, slow and impulse responses are 1.0 seconds, 0.125 seconds and 0.35 milliseconds, respectively. iii Ldn Consulting, Inc. 2/25/16 1530-04 Faith Chapel Elementary Noise Report RL 2 PC Agenda Page137 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This noise study has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed project. The applicant proposes to develop the expansion of the existing facility and modify existing use permits to allow for incorporation of a 325 student elementary school during the week. The proposed Project site is located within the community of Spring Valley, in the eastern portion of San Diego County. Based upon the property line noise levels determined, the proposed playground noise sources will not exceed the property line standards at the shared residential property lines. Therefore, the proposed development related operational noise levels comply with the noise standards at the adjacent property lines. No Impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. iv Ldn Consulting, Inc. 2/25/16 1530-04 Faith Chapel Elementary Noise Report RL 2 PC Agenda Page138 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of this Study This noise study was completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the the expansion of the existing school facilities at Faith Chapel. The project site (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 500-150-65, 66 and 67) is located at 9400 Campo Road, in the Valle De Oro Community Planning area. 1. 2 Project Location The site is north of State Route 94 on the north side of Campo Road between Hollyhock Lane and Rogers Road. Access to the site is provided directly from Campo Road via a private driveway. There is a signalized intersection at Campo Road and the access drive. There is a secondary access provided toward the east to Rogers Road. This access is blocked and is intended for use as an emergency access only. A general project vicinity map is shown in Figure 1-A. 1.3 Existing Entitlements Faith Chapel is governed by Major Use Permit P82-036 as approved by the County of San Diego on February 18, 1983. That approval provides for a 1,950 seat sanctuary, an office­ family life center building, a Sunday school building, preschool facilities and approximately 800 parking spaces. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) [Log #78-14-322] was prepared for the Major Use Permit. The original proposal for development of the property in 1979 included a K-12 school. The school was removed before the project was initially denied by the County Board of Supervisors in 1980 due to the size of the proposed facility and the potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The project was further revised and was ultimately approved in 1983. A revised plot plan was approved August 26, 2013 as a Minor Deviation. The applicant requested to relocate the existing preschool and playground facilities fronting Campo Road to the existing Sunday school building with a new playground replacing a portion of the existing parking lot. The previous preschool building is used as an extension to current youth programming. This change required the relocation of parking. A total of 41 parking spaces were removed from the upper lot; 12 ADA accessible spaces were replaced in the upper lot, and 31 standard parking stalls were placed in the area of the existing playground. A total of 801 parking spaces are provided on the property, which exceeds the County­ required parking of 488 spaces. 1 Ldn Consultlng, Inc. 2/25/16 1530-04 Faith Chapel Elementary Noise Report RL 2 PC Agenda Page139 REDWOOO VlllAGf .� 94 8110AllWAV HflOHTS I \el Mnl u\l Figure 1-A: Project Vicinity Map I .,l ,/' Oallaa St Grossmont Center(•) La Mesa IAQ 115 Spring V w s,."'"1" El Cajon Main z Gr1111lte Hlllt HiQII Sci [ill] tl!JJ> "" :. (I) liPKlnglon I oJlnQIOO (¢,/ I l f EWaw,gtonAve > ... • Casa De Oro-Mount Helix 1 i � [ill] l Valllana High School@ \ I rur/tn Rancho SIil Diego I Lemon Grove /M \ t J I f l J .. "'-"'OJ �Or BAY TERRACES p.l>&c,a SI Palm St I 9 IZ� Troy St i!l I Project Site ��1\lllllr \ ' t. ® l.JI Presa Source: (Google 2015) 2 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 2/25/16 1530-04 Faith Chapel Elementary Noise Report RL 2 PC Agenda Page140 1.4 Environmental Settings & Existing Conditions a)Settings & Locations Faith Chapel and Christian Unified Schools propose to revise the existing Major Use Permit (MUP) for the site to allow the operation of private elementary school (K-6) on the premises. The school will utilize the existing church facilities and no additional buildings will be required. The proposed elementary school will provide educational services for grades kindergarten through sixth grade. At full capacity, there will be a maximum of 325 elementary students and approximately 20 faculty and staff. It is anticipated that the initial operation will consist of a limited offering of lower primary grades with additional grades and classes being added as the demand grows over time. Classes will take place within the existing 16,000 square feet Sunday school building. This space will be shared with the existing pre-school operation on the site. There are 15 classrooms that are available for use for the elementary school. Administrative office space will be located is the same building. Other church facilities such as the gymnasium and sanctuary will be available to the elementary school on a limited basis for special events. The elementary school will operate during the normal school year (August through May) and during typical school hours (8:00 am to 3:00 pm). The calendar and hours have been coordinated to minimize disruption to the existing operations of the church. The outdoor playground at the front of the Sunday school building will be used by both the pre-school and elementary school. Schedules will be coordinated to provide exclusive use times for each group. The project site configuration is provided in Figure 1-B. b)Existing Noise Conditions Existing noise occurs mainly from vehicle traffic along SR-94 with less noise from traffic along campo Road. SR-94 is dassified as a 6.1 Expressway on the County Mobility Element Network with a posted speed limit of 65 MPH. SR-94 is depressed from the site approximately 10 feet on the eastern edge and roughly 20 feet on the western portion of the site. campo Road adjacent to the site is classified as a 2.1C Community Collector on the County Mobility Element Network with a posted speed limit of 35 MPH. 3 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 2/25/16 1530-04 Faith Chapel Elementary Noise Report RL 2 PC Agenda Page141 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 2/25/16 Figure 1-B: Proposed Project Site Layout 4 ,11'1 I I II � I ., I I I ' I' 1), 1� Source: Quintanar Architects, August 2013 1530-04 Faith Chapel Elementary Noise Report RL 2 PC Agenda Page142 1.5 Methodology and Equipment To determine the existing noise environment and to assess potential noise impacts, measurements were taken at two locations on the project site. No outdoor activities were occurring on-site during the measurement period. The noise measurements were recorded on October 2, 2015 by Ldn Consulting, Inc. between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. Noise measurements were taken using a Larson-Davis Model LxT Type 1 precision sound level meter, programmed, in "slow" mode, to record noise levels in "A" weighted form. The sound level meter and microphone were mounted on a tripod, five feet above the ground and equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. The sound level meter was calibrated before and after the monitoring using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 150. The noise measurement location was determined based on site access and noise impact potential to the project. Monitoring location 1 (Ml) was located roughly 170-feet from the center line of Campo Road and 470 feet from the centerline of SR-94 near the existing residential structures located on southwestern portion of the site. Monitoring location 2 (M2) was located in the northwestern portion of the site near the main parking area over 400-feet from the center line of Campo Road and 700 feet from the centerline of SR-94. The noise monitoring locations are provided graphically in Figure 1-C on the following page. The results of the noise level measurements are presented in Table 1-1. The noise measurements were monitored for a time period of 15 minutes. The ambient Leq noise levels measured in the area of the project during the morning hour were found to be 54 dBA Leq. The existing noise levels in the project area consisted primarily of existing traffic along SR-78 and background noise from aircraft activities. SR-94 is depressed from the site approximately 10 feet on the eastern edge and roughly 20 feet on the western portion of the site. Table 1-1: Existing Noise Levels One Hour Noise Levels (dBA) Location Time Leq Lmax Lmin LlO LSO L90 Ml 10:00-10:15 a.m. 55.5 67.3 49.6 57.0 54.5 52.5 M2 10:30-10:45 a.m. 52.4 65.7 44.6 54.9 49.9 47.3 Source: Ldn Consulting, Inc. October 2, 2015 Figure 1-C: Existing Noise Measurement Location 5 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 2/25/16 1530-04 Faith Chapel Elementary Noise Report RL 2 PC Agenda Page143 .,/" .,/' .,/" .,/".. �/--f°Y� _,,/ . ,.. .. /,j ,:�'/ ,7// " ,,/' \ # �r-)--1,;a,'ffiio'w _,,-;;;,r-----, I M2 I , (. ./ I . • it ,. , '\:\ (<0)10 < �Ii(� !'1', ij i. /� tll .' �t j f r ,. I 6 ,/ 0 /1' ' 'f'.-, Ij' :,, I I : J,' I Ji ., _,;;· 0 I I I • I ." 'I I• I I�' ) :! / I ' Ldn Consulting, Inc. 2/25/16 1530-04 Faith Chapel Elementary Noise Report RL 2 PC Agenda Page144 2.0 2.1 OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES Guidelines for the Determination of Signif icance Section 36.404 of the County of San Diego noise ordinance provides performance standards and noise control guidelines for determining and mitigating non-transportation, or stationary, noise source impacts to adjacent properties. The purpose of the noise ordinance is to protect, create and maintain an environment free from noise and vibration that may jeopardize the health or welfare, or degrade the quality of life. The sound level limits in Table 36.404 of the County's Noise Ordinance are provided below in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Property Line Sound Level Limits in Decibels (dBA) Zone Time One-Hour Average Sound Level Limits (dBA) (1)RS, RD, RR, RMH, A70, A72, 580, 581,7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 50 587, 590, 592, RV, and RU with a density of less than 11 dwelling units per acre.10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 45 (2)RRO, RC, RM, 586, VS, RV and RU with a 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 55 density of 11 or more dwelling units per acre.10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 50 (3)594, V4, and all commercial zones.7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 60 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 55 (4)Vl, V2 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 60 V1,V2 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. 55 Vl 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 55 V2 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 50 V3 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 70 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 65 (5)M50, M52, and M54 Anytime 70 (6)582, M56, and M58.Anytime 75 (7)588 (see subsection (c) below) Source: County of San Diego Noise Ordinance Section 36.404 a)Except as provided in section 36.409 of this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person to cause or allow the creation of any noise, which exceeds the one-hour average sound level limits in Table 36.404, when the one-hour average sound level is measured at the property line of the property on which the noise is produced or at any location on a property that is receiving the noise. b)Where a noise study has been conducted and the noise mitigation measures recommended by that study have been made conditions of approval of a Major Use Permit, which authorizes the noise-generating use or activity and the decision making body approving the Major Use Permit determined that those mitigation measures reduce potential noise impacts to a level below significance, implementation and compliance with those noise mitigation measures shall constitute compliance with subsection (a) above. c)588 zones are Specific Planning Areas which allow different uses. The sound level limits in Table 36.404 7 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 2/25/16 1530-04 Faith Chapel Elementary Noise Report RL 2 PC Agenda Page145 above that apply in an S88 zone depend on the use being made of the property. The limits in Table 36.404, subsection (1) apply to property with a residential, agricultural or civic use. The limits in subsection (3) apply to property with a commercial use. The limits in subsection (5) apply to property with an industrial use that would only be allowed in an M50, M52 or M54 zone. The limits in subsection (6) apply to all property with an extractive use or a use that would only be allowed in an M56 or M58 zone. d)If the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable limit in Table 36.404, the allowable one-hour average sound level shall be the one-hour average ambient noise level, plus three decibels. The ambientnoise level shall be measured when the alleged noise violation source is not operating. e)The sound level limit at a location on a boundary between two zones is the arithmetic mean of the respective limits for the two zones. The one-hour average sound level limit applicable to extractiveindustries, however, including but not limited to borrow pits and mines, shall be 75 decibels at the propertyline regardless of the zone in which the extractive industry is located. f)A fixed-location public utility distribution or transmission facility located on or adjacent to a property lineshall be subject to the sound level limits of this section measured at or beyond six feet from the boundary of the easement upon which the facility is located. According to the stationary source exterior noise standards, no person shall operate any source of sound at any location within the County or allow the creation of any noise on a property which causes the noise levels to exceed the exterior noise limits at the property boundary. Section 36.404(c), sets an exterior noise limit of 70 dBA Leq for daytime hours and nighttime hours. Additionally, Section 36.404(e) states that the sound level limits at a location on a boundary between two zones are the arithmetic mean of the respective limits for the two zones. 2.2 Potential Noise Impacts This section examines the potential stationary noise source impacts associated with the development and operation of the proposed project. More specifically, noise levels from the proposed church events and mechanical ventilation. The Project and surrounding properties are zoned RS. Section 36.404 of the Noise Ordinance sets a most restrictive operational exterior noise limit for residential noise sensitive land uses of 50 dBA Leq for daytime hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 45 dBA Leq during the noise sensitive nighttime hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. as shown in Table 4-1 above. Sound from a small localized source (a "point" source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source. The sound level attenuates or drops-off at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance. A drop-off rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance was used for this piece of equipment. The proposed elementary school will provide educational services for grades kindergarten through sixth grade. At full capacity, there will be a maximum of 325 elementary students and approximately 20 faculty and staff. It is anticipated that the initial operation will consist of a limited offering of lower primary grades with additional grades and classes being added as the demand grows over time. 8 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 2/25/16 1530-04 Faith Chapel Elementary Noise Report RL 2 PC Agenda Page146 Classes will take place within the existing 16,000 square feet Sunday school building. This space will be shared with the existing pre-school operation on the site. There are 15 classrooms that are available for use for the elementary school. Administrative office space will be located is the same building. There is no existing or proposed bell system utilized at the school. No additional mechanical equipment such as HVAC or generators are necessa1y for the elementary school. The elementary school will operate during the normal school year (August through May) and during typical school hours (8:00 am to 3:00 pm). The calendar and hours have been coordinated to minimize disruption to the existing operations of the church. The outdoor playground at the front of the Sunday school building will be used by both the pre-school and elementary school. Schedules will be coordinated to provide exclusive use times for each group. The expanded use of the playground area is the only new source of potential noise increase that would occur at the site. School Noise Levels Noise level measurements were taken at an existing school facility (The Classical Academies) with approximately 400 students, located in Escondido, CA on September 19, 2012 by Ldn Consulting. Short term measurements were conducted of the children playing in the larger play field. The results of the noise measurements varied between 60-64 dBA for the children playing at a distance of 25 feet from the main activities in the center of the playing field. For purposes of this analysis and to be conservative, the higher noise level of 64 dBA will be utilized for each of the playing areas and the courtyard. The nearest property line to the playground area is approximately 150 feet to the west as can be seen in Figure 2-A The outdoor play area is located 150-feet from the nearest property line to the east. Based on the distance separation the noise levels would diminish to 47 dBA at the property lines. Therefore no noise impacts are anticipated and no additional analysis is required. 2.3 Conclusions Based upon the property line noise levels determined, the proposed playground noise sources will not exceed the property line standards at the shared residential property lines. Therefore, the proposed development related operational noise levels comply with the noise standards at the adjacent property lines. No Impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. 9 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 2/25/16 1530-04 Faith Chapel Elementary Noise Report RL 2 PC Agenda Page147 Figure 2-A: Outdoor Playground Area 10 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 2/25/16 1530-04 Faith Chapel Elementary Noise Report RL 2 PC Agenda Page148 3.0 CERTIFICATIONS The contents of this report represent an accurate depiction of the future acoustical environment and impacts surrounding the Christian Elementary School at Faith Chapel development. The report was prepared by Jeremy Louden; a County approved CEQA Consultant for Acoustics. DRAFT Jeremy Louden Principal Ldn Consulting, Inc. Ldn Consulting, Inc. 2/25/16 Date February 25, 2016 11 1530-04 Faith Chapel Elementary Noise Report RL 2 PC Agenda Page149