Laserfiche WebLink
Issues associated with the application have been limited but controversial, and they focus on <br />distinctions between childcare and tutorial facilities. The State has judged the structured <br />academic and cultural curriculum to be more in line with a tutorial school and granted a <br />licensure exemption. <br />The Planning Commission has developed conditions of approval to address the concerns <br />surrounding the school operation which include background checks as well as first-aid and CPR <br />training requirements. Additional concerns were raised over the opportunity for fresh air <br />exercise during the summer months. In response, the Planning Commission created conditions <br />and staff crafted Condition 21 which allows the Community Development Director a fair amount <br />of discretion. As both the property owner and business park are not thrilled with idea of shoe- <br />horning aplayground, he met with the applicant to discuss a programmatic solution. They have <br />agreed that the school may, on a daily basis, escort the children to the park or middle school <br />playground provided that it obtains the necessary permits and pays any applicable fees <br />associated to secure the use of a public facility for private profit. Staff has received <br />correspondence from the applicant's attorney suggesting that they disagree with the evolution of <br />this particular condition. <br />Councilmember Sullivan questioned and confirmed that the school is still currently operating at <br />4455 Stoneridge Drive. <br />Mayor Hosterman opened the public hearing. <br />Anne Fox, appellant, stated that she is concerned over the recent number of applicants who, <br />having been deemed childcare centers by the State, submit numerous proposals to the <br />Planning Commission in an attempt to become licensing exempt. She likened this private <br />recreation facility application to the one for Tri-Valley Martial Arts A+ Afterschool Success <br />Academy approved by the Planning Commission, but ultimately overturned by the City Council. <br />Ms. Fox stated that the proposed use does not comply with the City's previously employed <br />definition of a tutoring facility, is not located in a district where the Municipal Code supports <br />private recreation facilities, and exceeds the operating limits for an instructional facility <br />exemption as set forth in Health and Safety Code 1596.792L. In addition, the Little Ivy League <br />School (LIE) has provided information that it is an academic private school yet is not registered <br />with the California Department of Education; has submitted letters from the State which <br />reference a statute that does not list a private recreation facility as an exemption; and has <br />submitted conflicting iterations in regards to hours of operation. <br />Ms. Fox closed by asking the City Council to find that this application, as well as other childcare <br />providers that attempt to define themselves otherwise, requires a childcare license. <br />Councilmember Sullivan asked staff for the appropriate application of Health and Safety Code <br />1596.792E which stipulates that an instructional facility shall not operate more than 30 days in a <br />12 month period. <br />City Attorney Roush requested time to review and consider the referenced code. <br />Jennifer Zheng, applicant, founded the Little Ivy League School in 2005 to give her own children <br />the opportunity to learn Chinese language and culture, as well as review their classroom <br />learning in a very structured environment. An influx of Asian residents in the community has <br />spawned significant growth in the school, whose current location has been sold. Ms. Zheng said <br />City Council Minutes Page 3 of 19 February 17, 2009 <br />