PC 031407 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chairperson Fox continued to reference small family child care uses at a residential home, which had to go through a home occupation permit process because one-on-one tutoring was not allowed in a residential district. She noted that the business eventually left Pleasanton. Chairperson Fox indicated that with regard to the Mary Kay Berg situation, she read from the staff report, “They [Building and Safety Division] reviewed the proposal and required that the interior of the tenant space be modified such that a one-hour occupancy separation is provided to the walls and to the ceiling. This is a Building Code requirement for E-2 Education Division II occupancies.” She noted that there were issues related to what uses need to meet various Fire Code requirements. She noted that Group E occupancy was an educational use, and Division II was any building used for th educational purposes through the 12 grade by less than 50 persons for more than 12 hours per week, or four hours in one day. Commissioner Pearce interjected requesting staff provide a report so that the information being provided by the claim might have context. Ms. Decker summarized the staff report and described the background and scope of this item. She displayed several charts on the overhead screen and noted that staff wanted to show the types of sizes and uses the conditional use permit covered. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding recourse for a business owner who was located under a permitted use such as a noisy children’ dance studio, Ms. Decker replied that the over-the-counter approvals still fell under Code requirements and that if there were an issue, it would be a Code enforcement issue. However, she clarified that usually the business was unaware of any issues and was happy to work with the City to mitigate the other tenants’ concerns. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O’Connor regarding State licensing, Ms. Decker replied that tutoring uses were generally counted at a ratio of 1-to-6, a standard that was similar to the State ratio. She added that they were not considered day care facilities; therefore, State licensing was not part of the discussion. She noted that in many uses, such as karate studios as an example of one that was recently approved, the noisier activities were generally in off-peak hours after a quiet warm-up. Chairperson Fox read the State list of uses that required licensing and detailed other kinds of child care uses. She expressed concern about Item (L), and read, “Exemption is any program that provides activities for children in an instructional nature, in a classroom-like setting, and satisfied both of the following: (1) is operated only during periods of the year when students in kindergarten and grades one and two are normally not in session in the public school district where the program is located due to regularly scheduled vacations; and (2) offers any number of sessions during the period specified that when added together do not exceed a total of 30 days, when only school-age children are involved in the program, and 15 days, when children under the school-age are enrolled in the program.” She noted that summer programs appeared to be exempt. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2007 Page 12 of 21