Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-06-15; Planning Commission; MinutesMINUTES Meeting of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: June 15, 1988 2 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers COMMISSIONERS \ ? CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McFadden called the Meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman McFadden. ROLL CALL: Present - Chairman McFadden, Commissioners Hall, Holmes, Marcus, Schlehuber, and Schramm Staff Members Present: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director Gary Wayne, Senior Planner Adrienne Landers, Associate Planner Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer Tony Mata, Principal Building Inspector PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES: Chairman McFadden reviewed the Planning Commission procedures on the overhead for the benefit of the audience. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA: There were no comments from the audience. PUBLIC HEARING: 1) DC 88-l - FRAZAR - An appeal of the Planning Director's denial of a large residential daycare permit on property located at 7654 Galleon Way in the R-1-7500 zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant has been operating a daycare facility at the above mentioned location for approximately 18 months without a City permit. On November 12, 1987 the City's Zone Code Enforcement Officer was notified of the situation through the City Manager's Office. The City Manager's office had been contacted by a private inspector who accompanied a potential buyer on a tour of the house. The inspector noticed some bare 110~ wires in the garage and saw them as a potentially hazardous situation since the children were playing there. Once the City was notified, the applicant was requested to apply for a large residential daycare permit, which she then did. The applicant is appealing staff's denial of her request for a large residential daycare permit in the house she is renting at 7654 Galleon Way. Staff's denial was based on the following: (1) the required off-street parking has been converted into a daycare facility which violates Section 21.44.020(l) of the Zoning Ordinance which requires a two-car garage; (2) the two parking spaces located adjacent to the driveway are inadequate in depth to accommodate two cars and back-up space is inadequate; (3) the current driveway does not allow adequate ingress and egress to ensure the safe dropping off and picking up of children and two employees park on the street in front of the house; (4) the daycare facility incurs a number of minor building code violations such as improper wiring and inadequate light/ventilation 7 MINUTES June 15, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 COMMISSIONERS which could easily be rectified; and (5) concern by many neighbors about the additional traffic generated by the daycare facility. Slides of the daycare facility were shown to the Commission and the gallery. Mr. Grimm concluded by saying that the major reason for denial was due to the illegal conversion of the garage and since a home for the elderly or a hospice could not be located in similar circumstances, it was felt that the daycare facility should be treated the same way. In addition, since there is adequate space on the property to construct a room addition to house the daycare facility or to place the daycare facility in the existing house, it was felt that the garage should not have been used for this purpose. Commissioner Holmes inquired if covered parking is required by the ordinance or if the code requires parking that is covered and enclosed. Mr. Grimm replied that the requirement states that all single family residential units in the R-l zones must have a garage. Chairman McFadden inquired what the State law for large residential daycare homes requires with regard to single family zones. Mr. Grimm replied that the State law allows daycare to be located anywhere in a single family zone. The City of Carlsbad has the same provision and this site is appropriate for daycare use. Chairman McFadden wanted this issue made clear to those in attendance. Commissioner Holmes inquired if problems other than parking would be possible to mitigate. Tony Mata, Principal Building Inspector, replied that there is an itemized list of building requirements which must be met. All present violations could be achieved. Chairman McFadden inquired if Mr. Mata had read the inspector's report. Mr. Mata replied that he had read the report and made a correction to Item 3 (Egress) stating that the ordinance requires two exits from the dwelling, not counting the kitchen, but the exits can be through the building. Chairman McFadden opened the public hearing and issued the invitation to speak. Bernadette Probus, 3868 Caminito de Tatan, San Diego, an attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that she also represents the Childcare Resource Service of San Diego and the San Diego County Family Day Care Association. She reiterated the public policy concerning family day care homes and the fact that the State considers this use appropriate for single family residential zones and does not consider day care homes to be a commercial venture. Ms. Probus described the Prazar facility and stated that, in her experience, this is one of the most beautifully situated and presented day care homes that she has visited. It has operated safely without major complaint and without disruption to the neighborhood and is located on a wide street with plenty of off-street and on-street parking. She stated that many residents in the area have in excess of two cars and park them on the street. In addition, the County and State Fire Marshalls have reviewed, approved, and licensed the Frazar facility in addition to five other daycare homes in the 92008 zip code and two in the 92009 zip code. However, the City is requesting the Frazar's to provide four additional parking spaces on-site for employees, which is more than any other city in the County requires. T MINUTES June 15, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 COMMISSIONERS She disagrees with the staff's interpretation that the garage conversion is illegal since this garage was converted in 1978 and the City's garage ordinance did not go into effect until 1981. Some neighbors have cited a pool hazard, however, the Frazar's have met the County requirement for pool protection. Other neighbors have mentioned additional traffic in the area, however, the State has set the limit for residential day care at 12 children, which could mean 12 vehicles per day. The Frazar's have only eight vehicles dropping off and picking up on a daily basis, which is well below the limit. She concluded by reminding the Commissioners that her client deserves fundamental due process. The Frazar's have attempted to meet each requirement that staff has presented only to have another added to the list on their return visit. Commissioner Hall inquired if there has been any discussion with staff about building a structure to the rear to house the day care operation. Ms. Probus replied that she was unaware of this proposal until tonight; she reiterated the State mandate that the daycare process should not unduly burden the applicant. She feels that requiring an additional structure would cause an economic disincentive to the applicant and, in her opinion, would undermine the State public policy. Chairman McFadden inquired which agency inspected the Frazar facility. Ms. Probus replied that the County Department of Licensing has inspected the Frazar home. They will inspect annually or more frequently if complaints are received. Chairman McFadden inquired who issues the license. Ms. Probus replied that the State issues the license through County licensing. The Department of Social Services is the jurisdiction and the authority for issuing licenses in the County of San Diego. In addition, the State Fire Marshal inspects the facility and has a 28-item check list which must be met. The Frazar's have meet the conditions required by the Fire Marshal. Commissioner Holmes inquired how many children the applicant has. Ms. Probus replied that the Frazar's have two children and they must be included in the 12-child limit. Ms. Probus added that she is also a real estate broker; she has examined thousands of title documents and the existence of a daycare home does not show up on a lot, it does not decrease property values , and recent articles in the San Diego Union state that developers are aware that they must consider the need for child care in planning their developments. She feels that quality daycare in the neighborhood would be a selling point for new buyers to an area. She does not feel that speculation about decreased property values is appropriate. Chairman McFadden introduced four letters into the record: Two letters (Schrecker and Heyerdahl) do not object to the daycare home; one letter (Myers) complaining that her child was not watched properly at the center and wandered home; and one letter (bearing eight signatures) objecting to the daycare use. In addition, the staff report included eight letters supporting and eight letters objecting to the daycare facility. Cheryl Frazar, 7654 Galleon Way, Carlsbad, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that she has two siblings and eight cars that come into the neighborhood in addition to ,P /I MINUTES June 15, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 COMMISSIONERS two employee vehicles. Her home is within walking distance of an elementary school with 820 students, buses, and 40 staff members which creates a lot of traffic in the neighborhood. Mrs. Frazar does not feel the eight cars coming to her home creates a nuisance. She has tested the noise level and is unable to hear the children within the front yard. She, too, is very concerned about property values and stated that there is no outside indication that a daycare facility exists in her home. The children who attend her facility do not play in the front yard or the street. This evening she observed a 2-l/2 yr. old neighborhood child playing, unsupervised, in the street. Other neighborhood children ride skateboards and bicycles up and down the street. She passed out a roster which showed the times that children were dropped off and picked up. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he visited the site and inquired about the various vehicles he observed. Mrs. Frazar replied that the gold Ford belonged to an employee; a red vehicle belongs to her 19 yr. old son, however it has been sold and will be removed in the near future; a VW bus belongs to her son; and a blue vehicle belongs to an employee. Commissioner Schlehuber did not observe the applicant's vehicle but she stated that it should have been there. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about the complaint of the child who wandered home. Mrs. Frazar replied that one of mothers had left the front door open and the Meyer child walked out the door and went home. To avoid another occurrence of this nature, children must now be picked up at a rear door. The State does not allow locked doors. Chairman McFadden inquired if this was the only incident of this kind. Mrs. Frazar replied that it was. Commissioner Hall inquired how long she had been in business and Mrs. Frazar replied since October 1986. Commissioner Hall inquired if the possibility of an additional structure in the rear had been discussed with the Planning Department. Mrs. Frazar replied that she had not discussed it but her husband may have. Commissioner Hall reviewed, again, the list of vehicles identified by Commissioner Schlehuber. Rosalind Unger, 128 Via De La Valle, Solana Beach, addressed the Commission and stated that her two children, aged 2 and 5, have been at the Frazar facility for a year and a half. She is extremely happy with the operation. She recently moved to Solana Beach and drives to Carlsbad for child care because she likes the care her children receive from Mrs. Frazar. Leslie Reilly, 2203 Recode Court, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she teaches handicapped children at a local Jr. High School and is very concerned about the day care that her children receive. She is very impressed with the quality environment at the Frazar facility. Her staff is warm and loveable. She likes the many activities which the children are exposed to. Julie Rule, 1852 Lilac Court, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that her son has been cared for by Cheryl Frazar since the beginning. She rarely runs into other parents when dropping off or picking up her child. -, MINUTES June 15, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 COMMISSIONERS Today she noticed cars all along Galleon Way which apparently belong to residents of the area. She knows many neighbors in her own area that use their garage for other than parking vehicles. Paula Madson, 2604 Coronado, Vista, addressed the Commission and stated that she is expecting a baby in two weeks. She is planning to use the Frazar daycare center because of the quality environment and affordable price which is difficult to find. It is well worth the drive from Vista. The Child Care Task Force report indicates that the City recognizes the need for quality child care and wants to cooperate with providers. She feels this would be a good opportunity. Dale Sieling, 7657 Galleon Way, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he and his wife live across the street from the Frazar's. He also wrote a letter but did not have complete information. The parking disturbs him. In his observation, children are discharged at several points along the street, not just at the mailbox. He feels the additional traffic is a hazard to the neighborhood children. He does not like the commercial nature of a large daycare facility in a residential area. George Whitfield, 7678 Galleon Way, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he had written a letter but was unaware that daycare centers were permitted in residential areas. He would like to see commercial ventures prohibited in residential zones. He is disturbed that the daycare facility is being conducted by a renter and the property owner is unaware of the daycare use. He doesn't like the garbage which the Frazar's place in the front yard/curb area because it lowers the property value. Commissioner Schlehuber was unaware of the garbage issue. He asked Mr. Whitfield to point out on the map where the garbage is located. He replied that discarded furniture and garbage is placed behind the front hedge and is clearly visible to passers by. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if Mr. Whitfield understood that the City cannot reinforce CC&R's and that those restrictions are a private agreement with the La Costa Land Company. Mr. Whitfield stated that he did understand. Mary Ann Prechtl, 7705 Galleon Way, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she is concerned about traffic. If Mrs. Frazar is approved for a large facility, she could add children and then additional cars (in excess of the present eight cars) would be entering and leaving the area on a daily basis. She has young children and feels that they are entitled to play in their street. David Cross, 3004 Delfina Place, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he purchased his home in October 1987. The homes are expensive, custom homes and he feels a daycare facility will lower the property values and degrade the area. He does not like the additional traffic in the area. Ilona Moore, 7669 Galleon Way, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that vehicles drive down the street very fast. She has noticed that Mrs. Frazar is not there all the time and questions the supervision of the children. The Frazar's are renters and the actual owner of the home is very P /7 MINUTES June 15, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 confused and unaware of the daycare use. She is very opposed to a commercial venture in a residential area. Barb Hogan, 1856 Tule Court, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she does not feel it is fair to claim that all fast drivers are clients of Cheryl Frazar. She feels that most parents are careful drivers because they know the spontaneity of small children. Mrs. Frazar was recommended by her pediatrician and she is very happy with the care being provided. She is sure that the Frazar's will correct the garbage problem. Donna Rosenbaum, 1746 Willowspring Drive, Encinitas, addressed the Commission and stated that she works with her husband in his dental practice. She has two young children attending the Frazar facility on a part-time basis. Her daughter used to be a difficult child but has been transformed into a social, loveable child. She feels this is a direct result of the excellent care she receives in the Frazar facility. She would never let her children play in the street. John Frazar, 7657 Galleon Way, Carlsbad, husband of the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he has lived in North County since 1960. He passed out a diagram of the home and yard and stated that he is willing to do a curb cut in order to make room for four cars in the driveway. He would prefer not to construct a room addition in the rear yard as it would place a financial burden upon the family. He is buying the home and it is now in escrow. He feels the daycare use is needed and is an asset to the community. He does not feel that neighborhood children should play in the street. Commissioner McFadden inquired when the State had requested that the heating and ventilation be remedied. He deferred answer to Cheryl Frazar. Mr. Frazar mentioned that he had inquired of staff about a child care license and was referred to the State. He was unaware that a City permit was also required. He would like to see the pamphlets issued by the State licensing authority mention something about consideration of the City ordinances. Commissioner Holmes inquired about the outside width of the living room from the entry to the left wall and Mr. Frazar estimated it to be 18 ft. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about the hours of operation. Mr. Frazar replied that the daycare facility operated from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about Mr. Frazar's vehicle and if it is around during the day. He replied that he drives a Dodge Caravan and is in and out. Commissioner Hall inquired if Mr. Frazar had talked to staff about adding a structure in the rear. Mr. Frazar stated that he had talked about it with the Planner over the counter as a possible solution to the problem, however, it would be a financial burden. Line11 Killus, 1470 Portofino Drive, Vista, addressed the Commission and stated that she likes the atmosphere and educational environment of the Frazar facility. She seldom has observed two parents arriving at the same time. r7 MINUTES June 15, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION ‘we 7 COMMISSIONERS Lindsey Nicholl, 3002 Azahar Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she seldom sees another parent when she is delivering or picking up her child. She drives very carefully in the area because she knows that neighborhood children play in the street. Kae Gernandt, 4330 El Capitan Court, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that her daughter has been attending the Frazar daycare home since it was opened. She is extremely pleased with the care she receives and does not want to see daycare moved out of the home environment. There is a real need in Carlsbad for day care homes. May Barton, 6741 Paseo De1 Vista, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she has a 21 month old daughter. She looked very hard for daycare before locating Cheryl Frazar. She is very careful driving in the area and has not observed a traffic problem. She is a teacher by profession and likes the modeling, kindness, and firmness demonstrated by the staff. She is impressed with the environment and the activities provided by Mrs. Frazar. Dan Hansen, 4531 St. George Court, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that his son, Timothy, has been taken care of by Cheryl Frazar for over a year. He likes the stimulating environment. He feels that the City's parking requirements will severely limit where a daycare facility can be located. Chris Hogan, 1856 Tule Court, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he likes the quiet, organized environment of the Frazar daycare facility. He accidentally entered another home on the street one morning when dropping his son off and stated that this should prove that it is impossible to detect the presence of the facility from the outward appearance of the home. Pat DeCosta, 7672 Galleon Way, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that the neighborhood is very quiet and she would like to see it remain that way. She has noticed some increase in traffic due to the year round school schedule. Her children play in the street because there is no place else to play. She has observed speeding cars. Natalie White, 7632 Galleon Way, did not wish to speak but submitted a handwritten note to the Commissioners stating that she is opposed to the daycare facility because she does not like a commercial venture located in a residential zone since is destroys property values and living conditions. Bernadette Probus, attorney for the applicant, requested and was granted time for rebuttal and stated that (1) this is not the proper forum for complaints regarding CC&R's, (2) the comments made about her client's character are irrelevant and the City cannot discriminate if the applicant is a renter, (3) daycare homes are not considered a commercial use and she cited a Supreme Court case, (4) the comment about employee qualifications cannot be considered since her client has a higher ratio of adult-to-child than is required, (5) the proper investigative agency is the licensing agency, (6) "garbage" in the front yard is not a routine occurrence, and (7) a parent would probably be found negligent if her child were injured while playing in the street. Chairman McFadden inquired about the heating and ventilation violation. Ms. Probus replied that this violation was cited P /1 MINUTES June 15, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 COMMISSIONERS by the City inspector and not the State or County inspector. The County and State Fire Marshalls have already approved the garage in its current condition for use as a daycare facility. Commissioner Hall inquired about her reference to a grandfather clause. Ms. Probus replied that garage conversions went into effect in 1981. The garage in its present state is older than 1981 and normally a pre-existing use should be allowed to continue. There being no other person desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public hearing closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Chairman McFadden inquired of the City Attorney about grandfathering. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, replied that "grandfathering" normally pertains to a legally constructed unit. If the structure is legal at the time of construction and is subsequently made non-conforming by passage of a zoning or building law, then it retains its status as a legal non-conforming use. There has been no evidence as to when this garage was converted but it is entitled to be looked at if it was converted or constructed with all necessary and proper building and zoning permits. If the conversion was made without building permits, it is not entitled to carry forward a legal status because it does not commence until it becomes legal. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, responded that he is unaware when the ordinance changed but there was a prior requirement for covered parking, be it garage or carport. In addition, the covered parking had to be beyond the 20 ft. front setback. The only place this can be done on site is in the existing garage or a new garage to be built in the grassy area to the left of the existing garage. Since the legal parking has always been required beyond the 20 ft. setback, Ms. Probus' comment would not apply. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired of Ms. Probus regarding Mr. Grimm's comment about the requirement for covered parking and the date which the garage began to be used as a daycare facility. Ms. Probus replied that it was presented to her that the original garage conversion was accomplished legally with permits. Commissioner Holmes inquired about the minimum legal width for a garage. Tony Mata replied that the minimum interior width of a garage is 20 ft. by 20 ft. Commissioner Marcus inquired if it is appropriate to address the comment about Mrs. Frazar working someplace else. Chairman McFadden replied that the character of the applicant or her staff could not be considered. Commissioner Marcus inquired about the actual number of children being cared for by Mrs. Frazar since so many people had written letters and spoken that have children in the center. Ms. Probus commented that the children are staggered and at any given time she has no more than eight children including her own. Commissioner Schlehuber commented that he is happy to hear about the quality care and understands the need for having two employees when the children are staggered throughout the P /I MINUTES June 15, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 COMMISSIONERS \3 day. He has counted six automobiles, including the employee automobiles, and feels that residents have some rights also. He cannot accept this facility with more than six children and feels that the applicant should be required to meet City standards. Commissioner Marcus has great difficulty with State mandates such as the daycare homes. She does not feel that the State mandate includes approval of illegal conversions. She is concerned about the staggered children since this means that there could be as many as 14 vehicles per day. She feels that the applicant is dedicated and provides an excellent environment; however, she cannot support it under the present circumstances. She would like to see something worked out. Commissioner Hall feels that 14 vehicles is a false assumption since there are probably some children who come only once a week. He would like to support it but has difficulty with the garage conversion. He appreciates that the home is immaculate, the child care environment is excellent, and that you cannot tell in a drive by that the home contains a daycare facility. He thinks the use is needed and would like to see some way for it to work. However, he feels that it needs to conform to code. Commissioner Schramm would like to see the permit approved but has a problem with the garage conversion. For that reason she cannot support it. Commissioner Holmes feels that the big stumbling block is parking. A parking structure in the grassy area should fit. He feels the staff requirements are reasonable. Otherwise, he can support it. Chairman McFadden is not concerned with the extra traffic or the street parking. Her concern is the garage conversion. She does not feel that a precedent should be set and would like to see the application come back with plans so that enclosed parking is taken care of. Ms. Probus, attorney for the applicant, stated that the Frazar's would like to return with a plan to mitigate the off-street parking requirement. Commissioner Hall stated that the applicant should consider utilizing the space at the rear of the property. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to continue DC 88-l to August 3rd when applicant will return for another hearing with plans for a two car enclosed garage which will meet code requirements. The present daycare use can continue until a final decision has been made. Staff will renotice the public hearing. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 8:06 p.m. and reconvened at 8:22 p.m. 2) ZC 87-l/CT 87-2/HDP 88-2 - CARLSBAD RANCH BUSINESS CFINTER - Zone change from P-M, L-C, and R-P to reconfigure those designations and add an OS designation and a Q-Overlay to the P-M area; Tentative Tract Map to create a g-lot subdivision; and, a Hillside Development Permit for the proposed grading plan, on property located on the south side of Palomar Airport Road, east Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm P -> MINUTES CORRECTED June 15, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 COMMISSIONERS of Paseo de1 Norte, in Local Facilities Management Zone 5. Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, gave the staff report and stated that the applicant, Carltas Development Company, is requesting approval of an industrial subdivision on 56 acres located just to the east of Nurseryland on the south side of Palomar Airport Road and extending to Paseo de1 Norte. Carltas is proposing a nine lot subdivision with an 18 acre remainder parcel. The nine lot subdivision is proposed for uses that are travel service and office related as well as planned industrial and open space which would be consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program. The proposed development necessitates zone changes to reconfigure P-M, L-C, and R-C zones; to place OS over the environmentally constrained positions of the site; and to place a Q-overlay over the P-M portion of the site. The zone change would not adversely affect nearby properties which are zoned similarly and have existing compatible uses. The open space zoning designation will ensure that the environmentally constrained areas will be preserved. The proposed intersection of "A" Street and Palomar Airport Road does not meet City standards for intersection spacing and will require a variance approval to be allowed. As proposed, the intersection would provide 1,750 ft. spacing to Paseo de1 Norte and 2,400 ft. spacing to future Hidden Valley Road. The standard is 2,600 ft. spacing. Engineering is recommending approval of this variance because the intersection would reduce congestion from traffic generated by future development at the Paseo de1 Norte/Palomar Airport Road. Engineering is also recommending the reservation of an easement for possible relocation of existing Paseo de1 Norte/Palomar Airport Road. The overhead map shows the future relocation of Paseo De1 Norte and Palomar Road to approximately 600 feet to the east. Due to the heavy turn traffic, this intersection causes a stacking problem and traffic backs up to the freeway. The problem will be worsened as traffic continues to increase. Engineering feels that moving the intersection to the east will solve the stacking problem. The Hillside Development permit is needed because the property has 15 percent and greater slopes. The property will impact approximately ;Ilff -14 acres of wetlands, including several nesting sites of the black-tailed gnatcatcher which is a candidate species for the Federally endangered species list. The City's biological consultant has developed a mitigation program which reduces environmental impacts to insignificance. In addition, staff is recommending a change to paragraph 2Oc of the Negative Declaration as well as an additional condition to comply with the requirements of the State Fish and Game Board. Staff feels that the findings can be met and recommends approval of ZC 87-1, CT 87-2, and HDP 88-2. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if a finding would be made on the Paseo de1 Norte intersection or if the reservation is for future consideration only. Gary Wayne replied that realignment of the Paseo de1 Norte intersection would require a separate environmental review and hearing. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about an easement for the frontage road and Mr. Wayne replied that Condition #48 on page 10 of Resolution No. 2746 refers to the possible future intersection and not the possible frontage road. Condition ‘. ‘8 f- T MINUTES June 15, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page l1 COMMISSIONERS #48 requires that a maximum four year 'reservation for future street" has been provided. Condition #22 refers to the frontage road and that condition does not specify any time limit. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about paragraph 2 on page 8 of the Negative Declaration and David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, replied that this is a standard paragraph on soils reports and environmental reviews. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if there is a problem with faults and Mr. Hauser was unaware of any historic faults. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if Condition H39 would hold up building permits. Mr. Hauser replied that the applicant would enter into a secured agreement. Commissioner Hall inquired if the applicant has seen and agreed to the conditions. Mr. Wayne replied that he has been advised by a second party that the applicant is aware of and agrees to the conditions which have been added. Commissioner Hall inquired about the adjoining property owner and was advised that both owners are the same. Commissioner Hall inquired about Condition t48 and if four years is enough time. Mr. Hauser replied that the four years was a negotiated time period. Commissioner Schramm inquired about Condition 1122 on page 7 regarding the offer of dedication and if this will be returned to the Commission. Mr. Hauser replied that Condition #22 could be modified to do so. Chairman McFadden inquired about the width of the reserved easement for the potential realigned Paseo de1 Norte and stated that she thought it was already 84 ft. but the staff report states that it will be widened from 72 to 84 ft. Mr. Hauser replied that the street would be widened from 72 to 84 ft. if the City realigned the street. Chairman McFadden inquired about the easement in perpetuity. Mr. Ball, Assistant City Attorney, replied that the applicant should agree to the condition because it is not being proposed for development. Chairman McFadden inquired if the applicant had agreed. Mr. Hauser replied that the applicant offered to provide an easement. Mr. Hauser stated that a study would have to be conducted. Chairman McFadden inquired about the lack of a grading permit or stockpile permit requirement for the remainder parcel since she doesn't want to end up with a "bunch of dirt.' Mr. Hauser replied the condition could be expanded to include this requirement. However, the requirements should not pertain to entitlements necessary to widen and reconstruct Palomar Airport Road. Commissioner Schlehuber expressed concern about the four year maximum street reservation since the Planning Commission cannot be bound by a negotiated time limit. If this condition is left in, four years would be the maximum time period. Commissioner Schlehuber is also concerned about the potential "T" intersection. June 15, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION ;“,Y Page l2 COMMISSIONERS \ % Chris Calkins, 4401 Manchester, Encinitas, representing Carltas Development Company, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that Carltas Development is owned by Paul Ecke. Mr. Calkins would like to see the street reservation resolved quickly since long term planning could impact businesses on Paseo de1 Norte. He requested Commissioners to retain the four year limit. In addition, he would like to return with a complete plan to preserve the open space and drainage, etc. Chairman McFadden did not see a payment plan for interconnecting traffic signals through to "A" Street and referred to 56C on page 11 of Resolution No. 2746. Mr. Calkins replied that he would agree to a payment plan. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the applicant had a problem with the requirements to redesign the project so there would be no impact to the wetlands and to postpone development until after the gnatcatcher's nesting season. Mr. Calkins replied that it posed no problem and agreed to the conditions. Chairman McFadden inquired about a public easement and Mr. Wayne replied that the easement would be private, not public. Chairman McFadden opened the public hearing and issued the invitation to speak. Mark T. Simmon, 7811 University, La Mesa, the Development Manager for Southland Corporation, addressed the Commission and stated that Southland Corporation is against the divider (median) on Palomar Airport Road crossing Paseo de1 Norte at the existing intersection. Chairman McFadden replied that this is a separate issue and will be conditioned and noticed. However, Mr. Simmon was concerned about all of the references to the realignment and stated that the realignment seems to be included in this application. Chairman McFadden inquired of the City Attorney if Mr. Simmon should be speaking to the realignment at this time. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, replied that he should wait until that project comes before the Commission. Chairman McFadden informed Mr. Simmon that the median is not being considered at this time. Mr. Wayne also responded that a street alignment change would require a future General Plan amendment and this proposal for realignment is being held in abeyance. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that it is possible the realignment may never happen. Chuck White, 850 Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, representing Pea Soup Andersen, addressed the Commission and stated that he has similar concerns as the previous speaker. He feels that the plans being considered will destroy the current development and would incapacitate Pea Soup Andersen's business. Chairman McFadden inquired what Mr. White was requesting and Mr. White replied that he does not agree about the traffic stacking problem. He feels it is cross traffic that causes the backup problem. ‘. ‘. I’ P T MINUTES June 15, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page Ken Huepper, 18634 Lancashire Way, San Diego, representing Mobil Oil Corporation, addressed the Commission and stated that he echoes the complaint of previous speakers. Mobil Oil Corporation is planning a $1 million expansion at Palomar Airport Road and Paseo de1 Norte and he feels the proposed changes being discussed would be detrimental to their business. He would like to be noticed on all proposed activity in the area. Mr. Ball informed Mr. Huepper that requests for notice should be made to the City Clerk. James M. Gaiser, 3340 Ridgecrest Drive, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he owns 1.5 acres of land on Paseo de1 Norte. He does not understand why the proposed realignment is on all of the maps and referred to in the staff documents if it is not under consideration at this time. Dennis Wickham, 3003 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, representing Hadley Fruit Orchards, addressed the Commission and stated that he had also written a letter to the Planning Department about the proposed project. He wants to make sure that this project will not effect a need to realign Paseo de1 Norte. Mr. Wickham's letter is included with these minutes. Dick Crandall, 5205 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, the Marketing Manager for 7-11 Stores, addressed the Commission and stated that he has recently been involved in a similar situation in Escondido on Center City Parkway where a median was installed. It has affected sales by 15% and 7-11 has been unable to recover the loss. Although the median is not an issue tonight, he would like to go on record that he is opposed to it. Ted Rees, 4021 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, owner of the 7-11 Store on Paseo de1 Norte, declined to speak but would like to go on record that he is opposed to any realignment of Paseo de1 Norte. Ron Rouse, 4250 Executive Square, La Jolla, representing the Winter Family Partnership and Winter Trust, addressed the Commission and stated that Mr. and Mrs. Winter own property on the southeast and southwest corner of Paseo de1 Norte. He stated that construction of a median on Palomar Airport Road would cause an impairment of activity which is compensable under California law. He wants to make sure that the median or the realignment of Paseo de1 Norte is not an issue at this time. He expressed concern that his client had not received any notice whatsoever about the public hearing and since their property is within 220 feet of the proposed project, the ordinance states that they must be given written notice. He would like this omission investigated. Two letters from Mr. and Mrs. Winters on behalf of the trust and the partnership are included with these minutes. Chairman McFadden inquired which of the Winters property is within 220 feet of the proposed project. Mr. Rouse replied that the Mr. and Mrs. Winters own the corner lots and that the ordinance states that owners within 600 feet will be noticed. There being no other person to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public hearing closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. I . ‘* ,r -, /7 MINUTES June 15, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page l4 COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Schlehuber directed an inquiry to Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, whether there was a problem since the Winters did not receive written notice about the hearing. Mr. Ball replied that staff's only responsibility is to verify whether notices were sent--not received. The applicant takes the risk since they must provide envelopes for the notice. Chairman McFadden inquired if any action taken at this hearing would be null and void if notices were not sent. Ron Rouse responded that the Winters are prepared to waive notice as long as the wording is changed. Mr. Ball replied that defective notice cannot be waived but the Planning Commission does not need to accept a wording change. He recommends that the public hearing be continued and that notice be sent. Gary Wayne replied that the list for notices was from last August and that the property was sold to the Winters in January 1988. Mr. Winters responded from the gallery that Gary Wayne's statement was incorrect. Chris Calkins of Carltas Development stated that their list was based on the property tax list of August 1987. The property was transferred to the Winters in January 1987 and the assessors list was incorrect. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired what the ruling would be for an incorrect list. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, stated that if a person shows up at a public hearing, they are assumed to have received notice. Mr. Rouse replied that staff is missing his point--all he is requesting is a language clarification on the median or realignment of Paseo de1 Norte. He would like to see the project approved. Commissioner Schlehuber replied that he does not want to set a precedent of changing language in response to a waiver of notice. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to continue ZC 87-l/CT 87-2/HDP 88-2 to July 6th. Staff will renotice the public hearing. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Commissioner Schlehuber requested staff to provide some type of street diagram showing house numbers so that Commissioners can cross off speakers. It would have been helpful on both items heard at this meeting tonight. MINUTES: The Planning Commission approved the minutes of June 1, 1988 as presented. Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm K K K K K K K K K K K K 1. ‘. June 15, 1988 P MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ‘I 4 Page l5 COMMISSIONERS \ ‘i ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the meeting of June 15, 1988 was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL HOLZMILLER Planning Director BETTY BUCKNER Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm 3 \ 1 b K K K K c c Winter Family Partnership 1745 Rocky Road Fullerton, CA 92631 June 13, 1988 The Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 We are general partners of the Winter Family Partnership which owns APN 211-050-05 (the new 7-11 store) and APN 211-050-11 (Don Shinn Cleaners). This property is located at the southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Paseo de1 Norte. We strongly oppose the idea and even the serious consider- ation of the partial closure of Paseo de1 Norte. Our lessees had no idea that their traffic circulation would possibly be altered after all the years as it is now established when their leases were signed only a few months ago. The city should not, in good faith to it's tax paying businesses and citizens, make such arbitrary and confisca- tory decisions. The financial loss to the properties on Paseo de1 Norte and near Palomar Airport Road will be terrific and uncalculable. We request that the planning commission terminate all consideration of the plan to alter the Paseo de1 Norte traffic circulation. Yours truly, General Partner Barbara Ecke Winter, General Partner ’ , Ray and Barbara Winter Trust Dated May 15, 1981 1745 Rocky Road Fullerton, CA 92631 June 13, 1988 The Planning Commission, City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 As trustees of property at the southwest corner of Palomar Airport Road and Paseo de1 Norte identified as APN 211-050-01 (Denny's); 211-050-02 (Mobil Oil) and 211-050-03 (undeveloped land) we strongly object to the consideration of the idea of limiting the traffic flow to and from Paseo de1 Norte from Palomar Airport Road. Although we can not say how much the financial impact will be, we know that, in the case of the present leases, it will be very great. In the case of future leases, we are sure that many tenants will not even consider the locations. It appears that this action, if taken, will be the equiva- lent to partial condemnation without compensation. We, therefore, request that this idea be discarded. Yours truly, Ray &Winter, Trustee Barbara Ecke Winter, Trustee LAW OFFICES SELTZER CAPLAN WILKINS & MCMAHON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 3003-3043 F0URTl-i AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX X33999 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92103 TELEPHONE ,619, 895-3003 TELECOPY 16191 298-8904 Honorable Jeanne B. McFadden, Chairperson, HAND DELIVERED and Members of the Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: ZC 87-l/CT 87-2,'HDP 88-2 - Carlsbad Ranch Business Center June 15, 1988, Agenda Item No. 2 Dear Ms. McFadden and Members of the Planning Commission: This firm represents Hadley Fruit Orchards, Inc., which is located at 6115 Paseo De1 Norte, just south of Palomar Airport Road ("PAR"). While Hadleys is not opposed, in concept, to the Carlsbad Ranch Business Center, Hadleys strongly objects to the proposed blocking of Paseo De1 Norte at PAR. Blocking the intersection could devastate Hadleys' business in Carlsbad. Many of Hadleys' customers travel north on Interstate 5 and stop at Hadleys to buy the quality dates, nuts and other products that Hadleys has been selling at the same location in Carlsbad for over 10 years. A critical need for these customers, who generate substantial sales tax revenues for the City of Carlsbad, is to have quick and easy access back onto the freeway to continue north to their destination. For over 10 years, they have been turning west onto PAR from Paseo De1 Norte, and then onto the adjacent freeway on-ramp. We understand from the Staff Report that the City is concerned that people travelling east on PAR may in the future cause some problems turning left (north) onto Paseo De1 Norte. Hadleys' customers do not contribute to this problem as they turn right (south) onto Paseo De1 Norte. Blocking the intersection, however, will prevent Hadleys' customers from immediately returning onto the freeway. In fact, blocking the intersection may aggrevate the congestion eastbound on PAR as those driving north on Paseo ! 7 ‘- . . . _ * t . Honorable Jeanne B. McFadden, Chairperson, and Members of the Planning Commission June 15, 1988 Page Two De1 Norte would be forced to turn east onto PAR and then try to negotiate a U-turn later. To the extent the Planning Commission believes that the proposed project will contribute to the need to block the intersection, Hadleys objects to the proposed negative declaration, zone change, tentative tract map and hillside development permit because of the extreme, unmitigated, adverse impacts the project would have on existing uses, such as Hadleys, in the area. We request that rather than blocking the intersection, the City consider placing a "NO Left Turn" sign on PAR. This alternative would achieve all of the City's goals of preventing those driving along PAR from turning left (north) on Paseo De1 Norte without devastating our client's business. Very truly yours, &%&JbSZf-ii& Dennis J, Wickham SELTZER CAPLAN WILKINS & McMAHON DJW:sh cc: Hadley Fruit Orchards, Inc. 7657 tialleon Way Carlsbad, CA., 6 JUNE88 PLAYlUNG CCI91ISSION City of CARLSBAD We object to the establishment of a Large Residential Daycare Facility at 7654 Galleon Way for the following reasons: 1, 2. 3. 4, 5. The building does not appear to be properly designed for that purpose. There is a lack of adequate "on Property" parking space to accomodate the expected customers. The expected increased auto traffic and parking on the Street poses a safety problem for the children living in the nearby homes and those going to end from school on Levante. The Pool on the property also poses a safety problem for the children who would be served if the Facility is established. Galleon Way and Primavera are "HCM??," Streets and should not be converted to commercial use needlessly, We regret that we will be unable to attend the on 15 June 88 but urge the Planning Commission Planning Director's denial. Public Hearing to sustain the D. & N. Sieling 6) 216-260-24 To whom it may concern: In reference to the public hearing June 15, 1988, case DC88-1 for day care permit, please accept this statement. I am a "non-owner" resident of Gallean Wy, in La Costa. Because of my "non-ownership" I have tried to remain neutral on the issue of a large day-care "business" being operated in my neighborhood. Although, I have been encouraged to share an experence of ours with the daycare in question, relating to the quality of care. For several months the Frazar daycare was watching our smallest (2 year old) boy, one day a week (Friday), (9:00am-3:OOpm). These weekly Fridays free (of children) were used for our shopping and other errands. We were never at home during these hours. However, on or about, Friday October 16, 1987, Mrs. Myers was later than usual leaving the house. About 11:3Oam., my 2 year old boy had walked out of the daycare, crossed a moderatly busy street (Galleon Way) and traveled several houses lengths to come running into our garage. Mrs. Myers immediatly picked up our boy and walked back toxe daycare confronting the first woman she saw, demanding, 'Who is suppose to be watching these children?" A young woman arrogantly replied; "There are four adults here, what's it to ya?" , and walked back into the garage area of the house. Another woman, overhearing the exchange of words, inquired; 'Oh, did you find him in the front yard?, Thank you" (reaching for him). It was as if no one there recognized him, or realized he was even missing. At this point the staff was trying to calm Mrs. Myers down, and 'discuss' the problem. Visibly shaken and upset, Mrs, Myers left with our son, Although Mrs. Frazar did come by our house about lo-15 minutes later to appologize and acknowledge the accident, we chose not to return. Mr. & Mrs. P.H. Myers Gunter and Karin Schrecker 7660 Galleon War Carlsbad, CA 92009 June 14, 1988 Cheryl Frazier 7654 Galleon War Carlsbad, CA 92009 RE: Residential Child Care Center Rear Cheryl: We are not opposed to your application for a residential child care center because we realize that it provides working parents with a needed service, and you with a way to support yourself. We also understand the concerns of our neighborhood regarding increased traffic and commercial influx into the residential area. We would like to thank YOU again very much for the emergency medical assist- ance your staff provided to our son Eric. It was crucial to us that depend- able help was available next door. Sincerely yours, - 8J.d -, II P c . x ‘i !$ i 1 \ ‘3 , Cd . :: ;’ I. ’ )’ CT t MEAL COUNT RECORD’ L Month/Year -- License Expiration Date Times Shifts are Served Breakfast 1: lluE AM Snack 1: & Lunch l:/+ PM Snack l:a- Dinner 1: Twl Eve Snack 1: ~TUIE Breakfast 2: - AM Snack 2: - Lunch 2: TIHf PM Snack 2: Tw*E Dinner 2: Tlut Eve Snack 2: TlYE CLAIM NO MORE THAN 2 MAJOR MEALS AND ONE SNACK PER CHILD PER DAY C 8 r 9 4 q ‘p +I [:“(,I,, ,/L.P \ ; 3!, . ,* / / 3%. I i C ” :i)\ , 1 1 7 :I,: . , &? \ L , I/ _ / 10 :,,i/:‘.. &+y (“I~’ ‘7 v, ::! ” .,-. .;, r ” 8 , I’ /- ’ 1 h.~,, i.!“” ,i,j, , :A, J$- &’ : GS I 1 pi 5 p,, r’ ,\, If ’ I5 M /’ , .J! ..:’ hi. I.1 i,.. i”,:,v __ ei s ~ fj,\\ .!i *, i , c,a ,-. ,2 T.,!f -: ;&,,\, ;a3 i,:.i.;‘; c -, / : ;+ A\:, y: .’ ::,, c ,’ .I’ 4-J. ’ Li .’ :I i :, ‘--\‘I ,Ir.; A”‘, i,,! c 13 qy$g, pl.,$.~ , 1.1:; I ,/_ , ,;‘i “‘A,\ it ‘:l, I,..;., _, ~ , ( ( r .- I - I I I I 1 I I I I I , - . ./ --.--- -- _ .I’ __- -. +t---t I,.,1 I I I I I I I I III1 ---I I I I I I I I 30 L. 31 -L ‘j?d/-Jp~\ “.;“‘! ‘J, J ; / I c 3 PROVIDERS TOTAL I CDA TOTAL f-l II 13 PROVIDER’S TOTAL ),.‘ I.1 10 PROVIDER’S TOTAL ‘1, 70 J I-\ .z CDA TOTAL COA TOTAL B I. D AMS PMS EVS B L D AMS PMS NS. B f. 0 AMS PMS Evs I certify that: I have lottowed CCFP requirements on types and minimum amounts of food seaed; I have ctainwd meals sewed lo enrolled children under 13 years of age only: I have ctaimed meals tened 10 my childmn only when tl’ey warn led al the same tome as day cam children: reflects the numkn of stiiibb meals served. FOR :;%E “S&iLV _,. Month and Year I.D.% ENROLLED ATTENDANCE BREAKFAST LUNCH DINNER 1 ,l’ r; . MEAL COUNT RECORD’ . Times Shifts are Served License Expiration Date 4 Phone Nof’?qJ’ (fba / License Capacity & Breakfast 1: Eve Snack 1: fwf TIIX Breakfast 2: TlyE AM Snack 2: lluE Lunch 2: TIUL PM Snack 2: lluE Dinner 2: 7111 Eve Snack 2: TIUE CLAIM NO MORE THAN 2 MAJOR MEALS AND ONE SNACK PER CHILD PER DAY 4~ 1 NAME KLP lj t I AGE GRADE 1 AGE GRADE AGE GRI 2 ‘A 2. .3 ,? i c-1 NAME%* Ad SetI DATE IN our B L D AMS WS EVS IN DLIT B L D AMSPMS EVSI IN ’ OUT B L D AMS PMS EVS 1 2 lo.w)+ fp, .+,rr (Jr 1 I Y-- w ~l~~i,.r~,~ 5 /‘: :,,.I ** J “. 3 q?iM CE /‘/--I JJ q’$ *, ~~~~/.~“~. r ., @-- . -. 4 ui 4 Y /pA’ y”” ?.f r Ls- I I 4. & -’ t-- L’- ##b I I : 3 .” - p-A hl I r JU ‘.W I L) .A /v “/ if ‘: >rj I b c f > ,,+a I - p.3 ‘;j,q ,p--? , V’ J * 1 I I I I I / I I.1 :-‘i , , I I‘/ I.., - - , , I n I I I I I I hat! 1 I,, I /-L~!~.X.1 I I I I I I I 11 I 12 p rl g5j+l W’ f fl -;I,~ .-sy q p, ?‘I:; . ‘“-1 I 13 -J&q “’ i..;q , : , Ia . I I. I L‘ I cl -l=l- -+-I+! 14 I ] ! ! 1 1 ! ! ! 1 1 ! ! j z3?$\ k ! ! /$J$& 3’ 5.3 c/” Y- yyLqvj iyc’,7b *-.,’ ~~ I / ? “qp\ cpj b\ k’, &“. -. -u , i 2. ‘21 i”‘-“ ,+p: j’ “,; c- L--w 4’ K .- EE 0-- - ,I.. r I - IA I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I ,..I L9 30 31 E I I I I I I PROVIDER’S TOTAL 51 ‘> * :‘. : .‘; ~ :. 3Q\ PR&IOER’S TOTAL PROVIDER’S TOTAL CDA TOTAL COA TOTAL I I I I I I I COA TOTAL 1 8 1 L 1 D ]+WS~PMSjEVSI I certify thal: I have followed CCFP mquirsments on types and minimum amounb of food served: I ha!8 claimed meals sewed to enrolled children under 13 yeus of age only; I ham cl&nod meats swerved lo my children only when they weTo fed-at the same time 8s day care children; my child cam licanse: and this Meat Count *c ~2 &f urately reflects the number of efigibb 111611s mrmd. signature FOR OFFICE “SE&Y / Month and Year I.D.# 1 ENROLLED 1 ATTENDANCE 1 BREAKFAST 1 LUNCH 1 DINNER 1 SNACKS I I I I I Snack MEAL COUNT RECORD. . Times Shifts are Served Breakfast 1: TIUE AM Snack 1: ?.‘a Lunch 1: )Az%‘ To Tlyf l,ME PM Snack 1. TluE Dinner 1: tlUE Eve Snack 1: TIUE Breakfast 2: TIHE AM Snack 2: TIUE Lunch 2: llUE PM Snack 2: ~ Dinner 2: TIUE Eve Snack 2: TluE CLAIM NO MORE THAN 2 MAJOR MEALS AND ONE SNACK PER CHILD PER DAY I I I i ,_j j 6 I I I I ! I I 7 -I 1’ ! i, ,. .I ,?I\ 1-1 I I I ,I ,‘,.l:r* I,, I.# I /iIt*. A.+’ i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ’ +z-. I I I I I I ! I I ! I I 15 *..\*,\I . . ‘1 ? A I 1 I I I I I I H 6 / I , I 8. I 1, I I ., /’ / i 4 4, / 4”’ / r Lr 8 j 1 s I 1 I 24 : $j ,” ,P..- ‘3 .F’, ’ 2 J I I+..’ 7 /. _ , .----_~--- .- I .,I II. I H-f I I I 16 I-3 iuP VI I r/ ““‘/-‘AA l l *- l l ,, j .*-I I I 20 u--- - J* t ’ 21 I 22 cc- 27 L--L.x-L-L..Il---.~- .u r I- C’ *v- -7 26 29 1 30 . 31 y$p\ ;.;,y PI c’~ /-- L,../ PROVIDER’S TOTAL I’ 1’) \ PROVIDER’S TOTAL ’ * % PROVIDER’S TOTAL 21 & A/ CDA TOTAL CDA TOTAL CDA TOTAL 8 I. D AMS Pk.6 EVS 8 L D AMS PMS EVSI 8 1 L D AMS PMSjEVS t certify lhatz I have followed CCFP requirements on types and minimum amounts of food served; I hawe claimed me&s served to enrolled children under 13 years of age only. I havs claimed meals Reid to my children Only when they were led al the Mme twne as day care children; ? I I hwa ctalmed ~1s g~)ly within (twt limitations of my child urn Ikens: and this Meal Cgmt apumtely mfbcts the number of eligibta meats sewed. I ’ i .’ P/$1 ,I signat;re ( \ ::/-,-Jfi; /T : yyy : / f.kth and Year FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ‘. I.D.# ENROLLED ATTENDANCE BREAKFAST LUNCH DINNER SNACKS 1 ;’ .z . MEAL COUNT RECORD’ Times Shifts are served Breakfast 1: ~ AM Snack 1: TluL Eve Snack 3: ~ Breakfast 2: I)uE AM Snack 2: ~ Lunch 2: TIu PM Snack 2: Tw Dinner 2: TIYL Eve Snack 2: .TIUf CLAIM NO MORE THAN 2 MAJOR MEALS AND ONE SNACK PER CHILD PER DAY 30 m. 31 1 qy)q y+p? L. J / ~‘fi?l,~\ 399-J ..- rr J gF&m p\-p*, ‘, J J’S PROVIDER’S TOTAL J] 3 I .-y \ PROVIDER’S TOTAL -? ,, ;ir 21 PROVIDERS TOTAL Jl J’ 21 CDA TOTAL CDA TOTAL CDA TOTAL 8 L D AMS PMS Evs B L II AMS PMS Evs e L D *Ms PMS NS I certify that: I have lollowed CCFP reauirements on tyres and minimum amounb 01 food sewed: I hae claimed wb s&ad to enrokl children under 13 years 01 age only; I MM chimed meah servedlo my children only when they vare fed at the same tmw as day care children; fbcts the number of eliiibb meals served. Provider’s Count I.D.# ENROLLED ATTENDANCE BREAKFAST LUNCH DINNER SNACKS . - P.M. WOR EVE SNACK LUNCH 3 Lo 2 & C Q =? 5 - > > 2 ;;c r ) c \ I < I 4. A.M. SNACK 1 P a m ru BREAKFAS DINNEFi = 2 5 C = = 5 i , I ; 7 > 7 5 i I d s e 2 3 CD 2 m is 3 m c - %- iCK 3 m Z C It] r B Z LUNCH A.M. SNACK BREAKFAST P.M. 4 DlNNEFi D a E ? 3 I. 5 c ?. m 2 it 4 x c 5. 5 - F ‘0 c b tt - - ‘1 $ 3 Y ii 1 Li 35 7% o- 5. 1 0: -I? n :a L - 5 P .-. -A . : -g 7: : a z ? ;: x . c > 0 .- : ?I 3 5 -. - f . : - ::. -. ‘. 5: I 2.. I;; i -;. 4 5 --l :: . . . ; ‘- 7- a: c -- ; ._ -. - ‘. - . -. ,.* . I‘. “3 3 -f 7s Ei 0 j WC 0 w? -w -*. z. Or i3 x; Q ! a 5 J I -m w - MEAL COUNT RECORD Provider ______ Name License Expiration Date Times Shifts are Served Month/Year Phone No. License Capa&ty ___ __. Dinner 1: Breakfast 1: TtUE AM Snack 1: TIu(. Lunch 1: TIUE PM Snack 1: TIME llUL Eve Snack 1: ~ Breakfast 2: TIUE AM Snack 2: TIME Lunch 2: V PM Snack 2: rlHE Dinner 2: ltUi Eve Snack 2 -r;i-- CLAIM NO MORE THAN 2 MAJOR MEALS AND ONE SNACK PER CHILD PER DAY -- ATE - 1 1 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 It - 12 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - ; ---. NAME AGE GRADE NAME AGE GRADE NAME AGE GRADE . I OUT 1 6 1 L 1 D iAMSlPMStEVSI ‘IN I 0uT I 13 I L I D IA~.~SIPMS! EVS -. 1-q . ..~--.~.p ..+ -.-, L--; I i i 1 / PROVIDER’S TOTAL -. CDA TOTAL a L D AMS PMS E” I certify that: I have lollowed CCFP requirements on tyres and minimum amounts of food served; I have clamed meals sewed lo enrolled children under 13 years of age only. I have claimed me& served.10 my chsldren only when they were led at the same tome as day care children; I haw, claimed meals only within the limitations of my child care IicenSe. and this Meal Count accurately retlect3 the number Of eligvble meals sewed Signature Month and Year FOR OFFICE USE ONLY I.D.# ENROLLED ATTENDANCE BREAKFAST LUNCH DINNER SNACKS Provider’s Count Breakfast Lunch Dinner Snack t-i SI n 2 ,Z s m 2 8 .= 4 g I 4 is 2 3 -. 5. 8 - P T ST- CK LUNCH BREAKFAST DfNNER Ev - m is ,E 0 e I -- 4 u iD‘ E or 0 3 2 a - AM. SNACK . 3 g 3 ; =: x I I I I z m Z C u r B Z - A.M. SNACK BREAKFAST P.M. WOR LUNCH EVE SI rCK -c \ 0 $ ? g ?JJ 9: c 0 z- ‘\-r, 0: ii$gp* ; i e -;. p/- c $ : -i= r. q* /“” 9 r- - ? -tl ?Z $ s . . 3 L’ X$3 g, ; . . . . --i ._. ‘z :. c,: c ‘-, g <;:. r; i ._. . . “9-s$, -v (p. ::; ‘_ -. ~*,I+~ 1 m c . P.M. a/OR WE SNACK LUNCH AM. SNACK BREAKFAST - z m Z C w r P Z ._ ..r; l..‘... .’ :...r. .j : .“: 7’ .,. L. L , !,X-‘ II ,I ., I',,,.. ~ ,,<” .’ ’ CHILD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIA~ ‘;'- '7‘ j ., ,. -1 .,.;>.* , ..,, .'.,~,.'.., z. .cc.,'-;?~'., - c . x 1-*:,$ '1" I- 2/c .." " .,.$$, y.; ,z '-.. Y_. .,, llf::i., . .,,<,p '.., __ I. ,, : &,pLICATI'N FOR ,;r. ii," . * .--*.-,. . . :, ,-,,. ,,-x '/ ,-." . . ,. .; . . ., ,! >.,C, :- -;. ,". ., OCNS $00 (7187:) '..;,.- y '. d ":. ,. . 1 ADDRESS .'I :.I-<y <_ .: ‘-': -- .G: :: s&g.gL~. : ypg '<y$&',,$+,l; 11' my. child/children in' the usz>ri"Chiid-. Care FbG$!jF tered- by the State of' California:-8~~This ?. progra&:$, z d care facilities for' 'serving.%: nutritious, '::; well;;,;:.:.'ir"$ o day care children. '1 .:?',$?,'.:,' :.,;,: .,YZ ;:t,l.: ,. _ .'?. j r.3 '~.$+x:~,:;:~;~~, I ;,;.> ,*‘ .:i ,-, ildren’ s Name Birth Date AGE Hours in Care ,::,. ..yey;.~;3 -:Fdc,,,l Usuai'days of cue (circle) :Mon Tues. ,'f,!.?. '. I. 1. _ 1 - 2,.- Food'*allergies, if an&: " T/Lvtce Efl, .' T -3 i Physician's name: Kirsa&#% /LAPixLcI . c/ First day in attendance:, 5 c q -** :, ";&b~i~. -f '.;‘~::.'i+:‘: ,.(,. ;.: I~understand my child/children will receive meals~at~~~no e&,ra3 charge to 'me ?when they are in attendance I during~~!~any?'of- the:-?@ scheduled meal services. I also understand that the,.child care$$$ facility ' cannot and will not discriminate for reyi:c$3.$$t oft ,.. .-.+a '\<& race, ': I,:. . ..yw%- :<4 $ ? 1 3 ~.~,,-~~~..;:~.ti~ color, national origin, age, sex, or handicap ;: ‘I:;:. ~~~,~~~~~~;~~.~:~~~.~. If you believe you have been discriminated against&because.~~-of223 race,'. color; national. origin,' 'age, sex;'GXorhandi.cap,; write.:'?; immediately to the Secretary of A.miculture..%Washinaton. C ;:.;";G