Laserfiche WebLink
State. She stated that she thinks the Korean Church facility is a good location but that <br />she would prefer that a childcare license be obtained. <br />Chair Blank asked Commissioner Fox the reason for her preference when there is no <br />student at the facility less than five years old. Commissioner Fox replied that State law <br />does not say anywhere that a childcare license is only required for children 4 years, 9 <br />months. She added that the California Code of Regulations does not require a license <br />for children older than 4 years, 9 months. She noted that the children at KinderCare, La <br />Petite Academy, and Quarry Lane After-School Program are older. <br />Chair Blank reiterated his point that there are no exemptions for those less than 4 years, <br />9 months old. Commissioner Fox disagreed and noted that it is stated that in a public <br />recreation facility, the program is provided for children under the age of 4 years, <br />9 months for sessions that run 12 hours per week or less and that are 12 weeks or less <br />in duration; the program shall not permit enrollment in a combination of sessions that <br />total more than 12 hours per week for each child. She noted that this is a public <br />recreation exemption and that this is what Gingerbread House operates under today. <br />Chair Blank expressed concern about the Commission directly interpreting State law. <br />Commissioner Pearce inquired if staff foresees any unintended consequences <br />stemming from the Commission requiring the applicant to go and obtain a childcare <br />license as she has indicated she is willing to do, such as triggering a change to the <br />E class occupancy. <br />Ms. Decker replied that if the Planning Commission were to consider this facility as a <br />childcare center, the occupancy would change from a B to an E, which may or may not <br />then require additional modifications to the structure, depending on a determination to <br />be made by the Building Inspector and the Fire Marshal. She noted that in addition to <br />that, Hacienda Business Park does not currently allow childcare use within the Park, <br />which would mean that a PUD modification would need to be processed. She added <br />that a third consideration would be that an outdoor play area would be required for a <br />childcare license. <br />Commissioner Fox noted that the Hacienda Child Development Center, a childcare <br />facility, is currently on Chabot Drive across from the Post Office and within Hacienda <br />Business Park. She indicated that she was under the impression that a PUD <br />modification was already in place. Ms. Decker clarified that this location has a different <br />zoning district. Ms. Soo added that the proposed site is within an Industrial Park zoning <br />district where childcare is not a permitted or conditionally permitted use and would <br />require a PUD modification. <br />Commissioner Pearce stated that it appears to be a great facility. She noted that she <br />visited the site today and met with the applicant and Mr. MacDonald and added that her <br />five- year old now wants to go there and learn Chinese. She indicated that her concern <br />is that she wants to make sure that appropriate protections are provided, given the <br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 10, 2008 Page 16 of 21 <br />