PC 121008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Blank expressed concern about the Commission directly interpreting State law. Commissioner Pearce inquired if staff foresees any unintended consequences stemming from the Commission requiring the applicantto go and obtain a childcare license as she has indicated she is willing to do, such as triggering a change to the E class occupancy. Ms. Decker replied that if the Planning Commission were to considerthisfacility as a childcare center, the occupancy would change from a B to an E, which may or may not then require additional modifications to the structure, depending on a determination to be made by the Building Inspector and the Fire Marshal. She noted that in addition to that, Hacienda Business Park does not currently allow childcare use within the Park, which would mean that a PUD modification would need to be processed. She added that a third consideration would be that an outdoor play area would be required for a childcare license. Commissioner Fox noted that the Hacienda Child Development Center, a childcare facility, is currently on Chabot Drive across from the Post Office and within Hacienda Business Park. She indicated that she was under the impression that a PUD modification was already in place. Ms. Decker clarified that this location has a different zoning district. Ms. Soo added that the proposed site is within an Industrial Park zoning district where childcare is not a permitted or conditionally permitted use and would require a PUD modification. Commissioner Pearce stated that it appears to be a great facility. She noted that she visited the site today and met with the applicant and Mr. MacDonald and added that her five- year old now wants to go there and learn Chinese. She indicated that her concern is that she wants to make sure that appropriate protections are provided, given the number of hours that the children are in the facility. She inquired if there was a way to do that while being consistent with previous applications and acknowledging that there may be unintended consequences while honoring the spirit of what the Commission is trying to do. She further inquired if the Commission could simply condition the applicantto conduct criminal background checks or outdoor space if that is what the Commission is concerned about. She indicated that she would like to create quality childcare in the City while being consistent with prior applications but also recognizing that unintended consequences may result from requiring the applicantto get a childcare license. She noted that the E classification was creating issues for her, and this was not necessarily something that she sees as a potential consequence. She added that the facility looks great, and while she would like to get the protections and conditions, she did not want the applicantto have to go through the PUD modification process. Chair Blank concurred that the program is great and stated that it is unfortunate it fell out of compliance with the existing PUD. He noted that all the testimony given were very positive and none about why the program should not continue or should not be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 10, 2008 Page 20 of 35