PC 021109 - Laserfiche WebLink

planning staff's understanding that Club Sport is adhering to the time limit of parents or of having their children on site forfour hours or less per week when they are not there. Ms. Seto replied that staff reviewed the exemption letter and sees Conditions 1 and 2 as being read separately. She indicated that obviously, the discussion about a camp would necessarily have the parents away from the children for the hours that have been described. She added that the Commission has the option, after considering this particular application, to direct staff to work with Club Sport to seek clarification about its status with regard to this letter. She noted that at this point, staff sees it as being quite unrelated to the current proposal. Commissioner Fox stated that with respect to the issue of whether or not Club Sport is a childcare facility with respect to the time limit of four hours or less per week when parents are not on site, Club Sport's website says that "it provides child care per day and children from 6 weeks to 12 years old can receive three hours of child care per day." She noted that the three hours per day plus the four hours or less per week enable parents to leave their children at Club Sportfor a total of 21 hours per week. Chair Pearce suggested that the Commissioners limittheir inquiries at this point to clarifying questions. Commissioner Blank stated that he believed the text is difficult to read without reading the entire context: "All Club Sport Pleasanton family members receive three hours of complimentary child care per day, which allows parents plenty of time to work out, enjoy lunch, or receive spa treatment or anything else we have to offer." He noted that this implies that the parents are on-site. Ms. Seto stated that Club Sport regulations for the Kids Camp does require that the parent stay on site; so to that extent, parents can use those three hours a day provided they are on-site. She added that Condition 2 talks about when parents are not on site. She noted that staff does not see those as in conflict with each other. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Commissioner Fox referred to Attachment B of the staff report for the wireless ordinance, distributed earlier, which was adopted in 1998. She noted there was a wireless communication facilities group that was put together as atwo-year committee, which developed a draft ordinance that went through the Planning Commission and City Council. She stated that page 5 of that staff report for the ordinance states that a wireless facility would not be allowed within 300 feet of a residences, public parks, public schools, private schools, childcare centers, or senior care assisted-living facilities. She added that on page 6, the ordinance outlines some of the reasons why this was put in place, with property values being one of the main drivers; and page 7 talks about some of the issues regarding commercial uses PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 11, 2009 Page 5 of 13