Title
PLN24-0280 - 3100 Central Avenue - Use Permit. Applicant: Malyka Chop. Public hearing to consider a Call for Review of the Zoning Administrator’s Approval of a Use Permit to allow the establishment of an approximately 2,600-square-foot preschool with afterschool program, and an outdoor play area surrounded by perimeter fencing located at 3100 Central Avenue. Zoning: R-1, Residential District. General Plan: Low Density Residential. This project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15301 - Existing Facilities, 15303(e) - Accessory Structures and Fences. None of the exceptions to exemptions apply.
Body
To: Honorable President and Members of the Planning Board
From: Steven Buckley, Planning Board Secretary
BACKGROUND
The property at 3100 Central Avenue is an existing single-story, 2,600-square-foot church that was built in 1924. In 1974, the City of Alameda issued a Use Permit to allow the church to hold classes onsite together with the church use. The use permit, renewed in 1976 (UP-76-3), anticipated an average attendance of 90-150 people, 30-50 cars, and a net parking demand of 19-39 parking spaces in the neighborhood (Exhibit 3). In the intervening years, the church use evolved to include providing daycare services for up to 12 children.
On June 5, 2024, applicant Malyka Chop, who operates three Small Size Big Minds preschools in Alameda, applied for a use permit to operate a childcare center at 3100 Central Avenue. Described as having a capacity for 100 students, it was later clarified that it would have a maximum capacity of 50 students at any one time, for ages 0 - 6 years old. Under California childcare licensing regulations, staff believes the property could support up to 50 students.
On August 19, 2024, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing and approved a Use Permit to allow the establishment of an approximately 2,600-square-foot preschool, daycare and afterschool program, and an outdoor play area surrounded by perimeter fencing at 3100 Central Avenue (Exhibit 1).
On August 27, 2024, Councilmember Herrera Spencer filed a Call for Review of the Zoning Administrator’s decision (Exhibit 1). The call for review includes:
• The Zoning Administrator hearing was not conducted properly.
• The project approval is not compliant with the California Environmental Quality Act.
• The project is not consistent with the General Plan.
• The findings made by the Zoning Administrator were inadequate.
• The conditions of approval made by the Zoning Administrator were inadequate.
Call for Review Process (AMC 30-25)
AMC Section 30-25 provides that any decision of the Zoning Administrator may be called for review by one member of the Planning Board or City Council. Calls for review must be scheduled for a public hearing and decision by the Planning Board no later than the third regularly scheduled and held meeting following submittal of the call for review. The September 23, 2024 public hearing date is the first regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting available following the call for review. AMC Section 30-25.4.c further stipulates that all costs associated with the call for review including staff time, technical assistance, and noticing the public hearing shall be funded by the General Fund and shall not be charged to the project applicant. The costs associated with the call for review are discussed below in the Financial Impact section of this report.
The Planning Board reviews the Zoning Administrator’s decision de novo. This means that the Planning Board may consider the introduction of all pertinent material, including all documents constituting the administrative record. At the hearing, any party or person may appear in person or by agent or attorney to provide testimony. The Planning Board may reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, or may modify the decision of the Zoning Administrator.
Staff recommends the Planning Board uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision to conditionally approve the Use Permit.
DISCUSSION
Proposed Preschool
The Use Permit request seeks to allow a preschool with an afterschool program in an existing 2,600 square foot building that was previously used as a church and daycare. The proposed preschool will occupy the entire building, offering six classrooms for preschool, daycare and afterschool activities for students ages 0 - 6 years old. The morning program will include children ages infant to preschool. The afternoon program will be primarily transitional kindergarten and kindergarten children. The age range of the students provides families with a one stop childcare/afterschool facility for infants, preschool and grade school children, which could reduce the need for families to travel to multiple locations. The operating hours will be 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. The facility will employ two shifts, with a maximum of 6 employees on site at any given time. Student capacity is limited to 50 children at once, divided between morning and afternoon sessions. The outdoor play area will accommodate up to 18 students that will utilize the space in rotational groups. The applicant operates three other Small Size Big Minds facilities in Alameda that are well operated facilities with no complaints of record.
For drop off and pick up, parents will use a designated entrance on Fountain Street. An appointment-based drop off and pick up will be implemented to minimize the number of customers arriving at one time. Morning drop off is scheduled from 7:00 AM to 9:30 AM. All of the students arriving to the facility in the afternoon between 12:00 PM and 3:30 PM will be walked over from nearby schools by staff. There will be no vehicles arriving to the site during those times. Pick up windows are available for late morning from 10:30 AM to 1:00 PM, and afternoon pick up from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM.
In terms of physical improvements, no changes or modifications are proposed to the building exterior. The church building has an existing ADA ramp to provide accessibility into the building. The applicant proposes the following modifications to the site:
• Install a new 4-foot tall fence that will start at the building line facing Central Avenue and follow the side property lines. The proposed fencing will be constructed consistent with fence regulations in AMC Section 30-5.14.
• Remove nonconforming vehicle parking spaces on the site and restore the curb and gutter by removing the driveway. This change will result in one additional on-street vehicle parking space. The proposal is consistent with the maximum vehicle parking requirements of AMC Section 30-7.
• Install two short term and two long term bicycle parking spaces for the facility. The installation of bicycle parking is consistent with the requirements of AMC Section 30-7.
Call for Review Arguments
The remainder of this report summarizes the arguments made in the call for review, followed by staff’s response.
Call for Review Argument #1 - Improper Sequencing. The call for review claims that the Zoning Administrator hearing was not processed correctly due to the following issues:
1. The Zoning Administrator does not have authority to approve the Use Permit.
Staff Response. AMC Section 30-21.4 provides the Zoning Administrator authority to review and approve Use Permits where the administrator determines that the findings for Use Permit approval can be met. The Zoning Administrator’s decision is appealable to the Planning Board.
2. The Use Permit was approved with inadequate review of impacts to the environment.
Staff Response. See Environmental Review section below.
3. Notification to the surrounding properties was not conducted properly. The call for review claims that public notices were not sent to 1377, 1341, and 1337 Fountain Street, and St. Philip Neri Catholic School.
Staff Response. Staff followed the standard noticing procedures for the August 19, 2024 Zoning Administrator hearing and mailed public notices on August 8, 2024, at least 10 days prior to the hearing, to properties within 300 feet of the site as required by AMC Section 30-21.7. Noticing records show that public notices were sent to 1377 and 1341 Fountain Street, and St. Philip Neri Catholic School on August 8, 2024. However, due to a technical issue with the City’s GIS, the property at 1337 Fountain Street was not included in the public notices sent out. Staff has insured that a notice for this Planning Board hearing includes 1337 Fountain Street (Exhibit 4). The public notice posting in front of the property was posted according to procedure requirements.
4. The agenda item for the Zoning Administrator did not post the plans on time.
Staff Response. All documents were posted in Legistar on Monday August 12, 2024, one week prior to the hearing on August 19, as required by AMC Section 2-91.5.
5. The Zoning Administrator hearing was conducted in an unfair manner by reordering agenda items and not adequately managing the online hearing.
Staff Response. The Zoning Administrator is authorized to announce modifications to the agenda and procedures at the beginning of the meeting to conduct the hearing in an orderly manner. The clerk monitoring the hearing made sure to call on each attendee in the meeting, including those that had left the meeting, to give each person a chance to speak.
6. Information in the application does not match the plans regarding on-site parking spaces.
Staff Response. The information provided in the application forms is the initial information provided by the applicant. The staff report, plans, and conditions of approval would provide the final information and requirements for the project. There is an existing driveway along Fountain Street that is not legal parking because the parking overhangs on to the sidewalk and is unsafe. As part of the use permit the driveway will be removed and restored to sidewalk, curb and gutter and landscaping. The AMC does not require any vehicle parking for the daycare center.
Call for Review Argument #2 - Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA. The call for review argues that additional environmental review of traffic, noise, and neighborhood character is required.
Staff Response. See Environmental Review section below.
Call for Review Argument #3 - Does Not Favorably Relate to General Plan. The call for review asserts that the use results in an overconcentration of similar uses, despite the allowance for childcare uses in all residential neighborhoods, and raises safety concerns.
The site is located within an area designated by the General Plan as Low Density Residential which permits single family detached homes with some multi-family residential buildings, accessory dwelling units, as well as childcare, schools, and religious institutions. The project is consistent with General Plan Policy Action LU-2 g which states the City should “Permit childcare facilities and services in all residential and mixed-use zoning districts.” The proposed use is an allowed use by the General Plan. The proposal is also consistent with General Plan Policy LU-9 which encourages “the development of a broad range of commercial businesses and services in Alameda to provide for the diverse needs of the Alameda community and reduce the need to travel off-island to acquire goods and services. The project provides a type of education service that is different than the existing schools in the area, and therefore is consistent with LU-9. The project also is consistent with General Plan Guiding Policy LU-17 which encourages “reuse of existing structures to retain the structures embodied energy and reduce the generation of waste.” The proposed daycare center would reuse the existing church building with minimal changes to the exterior of the building or demolition of the structure. The project fencing will meet visibility zone requirements. The project also proposes a designated drop off location, an appointment based customer drop off times to stagger arrival times, faculty walking elementary school students to the facility from nearby schools, and accommodations to alternative forms of transportation such as bike racks and bus passes for employees to minimize vehicle traffic impacts to the area.
Call for Review Argument #4 - Inadequate Findings.
1. The proposal for a 4-foot fence bordering the front of the property is not compatible with the neighborhood.
Staff Response. The applicant has revised the proposed fence after the Zoning Administrator hearing to bring the fence line back to the face of the building on Central Avenue. This change specifically responds to the adjacent neighbor’s concern over the ability to see the surroundings when backing a vehicle out of the driveway. Moving the fence line away from the sidewalk also preserves an open front yard compatible with the front yards on adjacent residential properties. After the Zoning Administrator hearing, the applicant also modified the design of the fence in the visibility zone along Fountain Avenue to meet Zoning Ordinance requirements. See Exhibit 2: Revised Plans & Applicant Response.
2. The project design is not operationally harmonious with the community and surrounding development due to the noise exposure.
Staff Response. The proposed outdoor play area will have a maximum of 18 students outside at any given time, which is 6 additional children over the 12 children of the previous daycare use operated by the church. In the morning the outdoor yard will be used in 30-minute intervals from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM. During the afternoon outdoor session between 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM, the outdoor play area will be used in 30-minute intervals. Students in the outdoor play area will be supervised by adult staff at a ratio of 8 to 1 and will be receiving organized outdoor lessons and instructions as part of the outdoor activities. No amplified sounds, heavy equipment, vibrations will be generated from the facility. Noise generated from the site will be children playing and receiving lessons from teachers.
For comparison, the City’s Noise ordinance does not regulate City parks and outdoor recreation spaces between 9:00 AM to 10:15 PM. Similarly, family daycares with up to 14 children are allowed by the State in residential homes and must be allowed by right by the City. These family daycares would also include outdoor play areas. In addition, as noted above, the existing building served a church of up to 150 attendees with services and classes and a daycare with approximately 12 students. Considering that there is also an existing outdoor play area for the kindergarten school that shares the rear property line of the project site, the increase of 6 additional students outdoors from the proposed childcare center would not be a noticeably significant increase in noise.
3. According to Alameda’s Code of Ordinance 3-107.801, prior to any zone change “the director shall review the noise impact of the proposed action.”
Staff Response. Alameda Code of Ordinance 3-107.801 is a requirement of the County of Alameda Ordinance and not part of the City of Alameda Ordinance. In addition, a change of zone is not proposed as part of this application.
4. The neighborhood is already saturated with schools.
Staff Response. The City’s General Plan recognizes a community need for preschools with General Plan Policy Action LU-2 g which states the City should “Permit childcare facilities and services in all residential and mixed-use zoning districts.” The applicant advises that the existing three Small Size Big Minds facilities in Alameda have a 12 - 18-month waitlist with more than 100 customers. There is a demonstrably high demand for an additional daycare facility on the east side of Alameda based on this operator’s own 24-month waitlist at another facility in the area.
General Plan Policy LU-9 which encourages “the development of a broad range of commercial businesses and services in Alameda to provide for the diverse needs of the Alameda community and reduce the need to travel off-island to acquire goods and services.” Although the type of curriculum could change over time, the current applicant provides additional education service that adds to the diversity of services in the area. The project offers education services for the 0-6 age range which provides families with a one stop childcare/afterschool facility for infants, preschool and grade school children. The broader age range reduces the need for families to travel to multiple locations, which also is not offered at other locations. In addition, the applicant provides a curriculum that is a secular and not Montessori curriculum.
5. The current drop-off zone plans are inadequate for this audience of “vulnerable uses” and therefore not aligned with the General Plan.
Staff Response. See Traffic Discussion in Item 6 below.
6. The finding that the 100 student, 20 teacher school will not significantly generate additional traffic has not been properly evaluated.
Staff Response. In response to concerns expressed in the call for review, the applicant has agreed to set the maximum capacity of the preschool with afterschool program to 50 students maximum. The maximum number of those students in the outdoor play area is 18 maximum at any given time. The total number of employees on site at one time will be 6.
Drop-Off and Pick-Up Strategy. The building has a covered entry for drop off and pick up on Fountain Street, where there is a long uninterrupted curb and sidewalk. To avoid a scenario where all students arrive at once, the facility will utilize an appointment-based customer drop off where students arrive to the facility at a given 15-minute time slot during each arrival window in the morning and afternoon. If necessary, a teacher will also come to the curb to escort students into the building avoiding the need for parents to park. In addition, staff will walk students attending the afterschool program from nearby schools over to the facility.
Trip Generation. The applicant provided the following information based on the operations of the other three Small Size Big Minds facilities in Alameda:
• Approximately 80% of students will arrive by automobiles (80% of 50 students = 40 students)
• Approximately 60% of the students are siblings and will be dropped off and/or picked up together (30 students will share a trip).
• Approximately 20% of the customers arrive by bicycle or walk to the facility (10 students will arrive by bicycle or walk).
• There is also an approximately 8% absentee rate (4 students sick or on vacation).
• The applicant advises that 70% of staff typically live in Alameda and estimates that for 6 staff on site, it is estimated that 3 will arrive by vehicle, 2 by public transit, and 1 by bicycle.
This means that approximately 25 families will be arriving to the facility by motor vehicles and approximately 10 families will be arriving to the site by bicycle or foot. The appointment system will assign these parents a designated 15 min arrival time, which would result in approximately 2.5 vehicles arriving to the site every 15 minutes during drop-offs and pickups.
All of the students arriving to the facility in the afternoon between 12:00 PM and 3:30 PM will be walked over from nearby schools by staff. There will be no vehicles arriving to the site during those times.
The afternoon arrivals for customer pick-ups will take place as appointments in 15-minute intervals between 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM, with approximately 25 motor vehicles arriving between 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM which will result in approximately 2 vehicles arriving to the site every 15 minutes.
Bicycle Parking and Bus Passes. The facility will provide bike parking for customers who will arrive to the facility by bicycle. The project will also provide bus passes and on-site bike parking for employees for alternative modes of transportation. Overall, these measures will minimize impacts to traffic to less than significant.
On-Site Parking Alternative. Neighbors have suggested that the project should retain two parking spaces on the site for drop-off and pick-up. At present, the paved area is not properly sized to accommodate this, so it would have to be expanded, which would reduce the available play area, The applicant advises this would make the operation of the facility infeasible. In addition, this alternative would require customers to pull into the driveway to park, and then to back out into the street when they leave. The two-direction movement would increase pedestrian and traffic safety hazards along that section of Fountain Street and is not recommended by staff.
Call for Review Argument #5 - Inadequate Conditions Listed in Approval
1. The approval of a 4-foot redwood fence topped with 1 foot of wire around the property is in direct violation of the city’s visibility requirements which mandate a maximum fence height of 3 feet in visibility zones.
Staff Response. See fence response addressed in Argument #4.1.
2. According to section 30-21.3D, it is the Planning Board that has the authority to revoke the use permit, not the Zoning Administrator.
Staff Response. Comment Noted.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS
Property owners and residents/tenants within 300 feet of the project boundaries were notified of the public hearing and given the opportunity to review and comment on the proposal. Comments received as of the writing of this report is provided in the exhibits to this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15301 - Existing Facilities - operation, repair, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The project qualifies for this Class 1 categorical exemption in that it consists of the operation of a preschool in an existing church building that had previously been used for the same or similar purpose. Furthermore, the project involves negligible or no expansion of existing or former use (the church was previously approved to accommodate up to 90 to 150 people onsite under use permit UP-76-3). On a separate and independent basis, the project also qualifies as a Class 3 categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (e) for the construction of accessory structures consisting of the proposed fence. Staff believes the Planning Board can find that none of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions apply.
In any event, the primary environmental concern raised by neighbors was increased traffic. CEQA has changed its transportation analysis from a level of service to a vehicle mile traveled. (VMT). Combining the day care and after-school use and siting the center in a residential neighborhood close to schools generally results in reduced overall VMT.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Pursuant to AMC Section 30-25.4, all City costs associated with the call for review shall be funded by the General Fund and shall not be charged to the project applicant.
CLIMATE IMPACT
The project proposes to reuse the existing church building as a preschool with afterschool program which minimizes the need for local residents to travel outside or across the City for school services. The facility will provide childcare for ages 0-6 and provides family with a one stop childcare/afterschool facility for infants, preschool and grade school children, reducing the need to travel to multiple locations. In addition, the facility proposes to upgrade the building to be more energy efficient such as adding energy efficient lighting and appliances, and upgrading electrical systems. The project therefore has a positive climate impact as an adaptive reuse of the existing building and providing a local service for Alameda residents.
RECOMMENDATION
Hold a public hearing and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve the Use Permit to allow the establishment of an approximately 2,600-square-foot daycare center (preschool with afterschool program) with a maximum capacity of 50 students at any one time, and the outdoor play area with a maximum of 18 student outside at any time surrounded by perimeter fencing located at 3100 Central Avenue, with conditions set forth in the draft Resolution (Exhibit 5).
Respectfully Submitted,
Steven Buckley, Secretary to the Planning Board
By,
Henry Dong, Planner III
Exhibits:
1. Administrative Record and Call for Review
2. Revised Plans and Applicant Response
3. 1975 Church Use Memorandum
4. Public Noticing Labels
5. Draft Resolution