HomeMy WebLinkAbout102-Resolution.pdfRESOLUTION NO. ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
DENYING AN APPEAL;
THEREBY AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION CUP 09-0004
for a new day care facility in the Professional Administrative Zoning District
Alex Du Von; 20398 Blauer Drive
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2009, following a duly noticed public hearing at which time all
interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the City of
Saratoga Planning Commission denied a Conditional Use Permit application (CUP09-0004) for the
operation of a day care facility for 56 students in the Professional Administrative Zoning District;
and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2009 an appeal of the Planning Commission decision was filed
by th e appellant Julia Hashemieh; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2009, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the appeal at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and
to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga has considered the appeal and all
testimony and other evidence submitted in connection therewith.
Now, therefore be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby:
I. Denies the appeal and affirms the Planning Commission’s denial of a Conditional Use
Permit application; and
II. Determines that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to
projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves, pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, Chapter 3, Article 19, Section 15270(a).
III. Determines that the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said
application for Conditional Use Permit Approval, as consistent with the following Conditional Use
Permit findings specified in City Code Section 15-55 and the below General Plan goals and policies.
General Plan Goals and Policies
The proposed project is not consistent with the following General Plan Policies:
Provide adequate parking for non-residential uses to minimize intrusion into adjacent
neighborhoods (Circulation Policy 7.0a). The project is not consistent with this General Plan
Policy in that as proposed, the facility would have five (5) employees and provide services for 56
students on property which has only 14 available parking spaces. Applicant’s own Traffic Study
dated June 18, 2009 (as to which Applicant refused Peer Review) indicates that existing parking on
2
Application No. CUP 09-0004; 20398 Blauer Drive
site can accommodate only 40 students (based on the assumption that “the average parking duration
would be a few minutes” and giving no consideration to the potential for large events). Hence, the
City Council finds that the proposed non-residential project will not provide adequate parking to
minimize intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods.
Development proposals shall be evaluated against City standards and guidelines to assure that
the related traffic, noise, light, appearance, and intensity of the proposed use have limited
adverse impact on the area and can be fully mitigated (Land Use Policy 5.2). The project is not
consistent with this General Plan Policy in that the number of available parking spaces is not in
proportion to the number of students proposed, the proposed fence is over the maximum allowed in
the front setback, and play structures are not allowed in the front setback and would not be
harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood and businesses.
Use Permit Findings
The Applicant’s Project has not met the burden of proof to support the Findings required for
approval of a Use Permit under Article 15-55 of the City Code, as set forth below:
The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the
immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants
thereof. This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. As proposed, the facility would have five
(5) employees and provide services for 56 students on property which has only 14 available parking
spaces. The applicant’s own Traffic Study dated June 18, 2009 (as to which Applicant refused Peer
Review) indicates that existing parking on site can accommodate only 40 students (based on the
assumption that “the average parking duration would be a few minutes” and giving no consideration
to the potential for large events). Hence, the City Council finds that the proposed non-residential
project will intrude into and adversely affect the immediate neighborhood and surrounding
properties or the occupants thereof.
The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. This finding cannot be
made in the affirmative. Day Care Facilities are not allowed as of right in the Professional
Administrative (PA) zoning district. Due to the inadequate parking spaces on the property and the
intrusion and adverse affects which will result to immediate neighborhoods and surrounding
properties, this proposed project is not in accord with the following purposes of the PA zoning
district:
City Code Section 15-05.020
(a) To control the physical development of the City in such a manner as to preserve it as
essentially a residential community with a rural atmosphere.
(c) To foster a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses.
(d) To promote the stability of existing land uses which conform with the General Plan,
and to protect them from inharmonious influences and harmful intrusions.
(e) To ensure that public and private lands ultimately are used for the purposes, which
are most appropriate and most beneficial from the standpoint of the City as a whole.
3
Application No. CUP 09-0004; 20398 Blauer Drive
(h) To minimize traffic congestion and to avoid the overloading of utilities by
preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the land around
them.
(j) To provide for adequate off-street parking and loading facilities.
and City Code Section 15-18.010
(a) To reserve appropriately located areas for harmonious transitional uses to serve as
buffers between residential districts and commercial districts (as proposed this will not be
a harmonious transitional use).
(c) To create a suitable environment for office buildings especially designed for their
purposes, located on sites large enough to provide room for landscaped open spaces and
off-street parking facilities.
(e) To provide adequate space to meet the needs of modern office buildings, including
off-street parking of automobiles ….
(f) To minimize traffic congestion ….
The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated
or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. This finding cannot be made in the
affirmative. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would
be operated or maintained will be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and injurious
to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that: as proposed, the facility would have five (5)
employees and provide services for 56 students on property which has only 14 available parking
spaces. The applicant’s own Traffic Study dated June 18, 2009 (as to which Applicant refused Peer
Review) indicates that existing parking on site can accommodate only 40 students (based on the
assumption that “the average parking duration would be a few minutes” and giving no consideration
to the potential for large events).
The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Saratoga
Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 15 of the City Code. This finding cannot be made in the affirmative.
The proposed fence that would be located on top of a retaining wall would be taller than the
maximum allowed height for fences in the front setback. Play structures are not allowed in the front
setback and the project does not meet the State’s requirement for outdoor play space. Furthermore,
the project does not meet the City’s requirement for off-street parking.
IV. Project Denial
After careful consideration of the entire Application and any other exhibits and evidence submitted
in connection with this matter, the statutory exemption from CEQA is approved, the findings for
denial set forth above are made, and the Application No. CUP-09-0004
for a new day care facility in the Professional Administrative Zoning District is hereby denied.
4
Application No. CUP 09-0004; 20398 Blauer Drive
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Saratoga, State of California, this 18th day of
November, 2009 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
________________________________________________
Chuck Page, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________________________
Ann Sullivan, City Clerk