PC 121008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Fox noted that the narrative forthe application at hand talks about a private recreation facility exemption; however, it appears that Item G of the statute on page 6 appears to correspond to the public recreation program that is referred to in Exemption 7 on Section 101158 of Title 22; and Item L of the statute, the activities for children in an instructional nature in a classroom-like setting, but only for summer and only for 30 days or less, corresponds to Exemption 12 in Section 101158. She inquired where private recreation for the facility as an exemption criteria is based on when the California Code of Regulations does not have it listed as an exemption category and it is not included in the statute as well. Ms. Seto replied that this is the area that the City is trying to clarify with the County in terms of how the County is looking at and interpreting the statute and regulation. Chair Blank inquired if the facility, based on the information now known of the facility, including its 58 students, would be in compliance with the approved conditions of the use permit at its existing site if it were to stay at that location. Ms. Decker replied that it was not in compliance, and this is the reason why it has applied for a new location and why the Code Enforcement process was placed in abeyance. Chair Blank inquired if the prime distinction of the non-compliance was the number of students or the nature of operations and hours. Ms. Decker replies that it was both the number of students and the hours of operation. Commissioner Fox noted that based on the testimony presented, it appears that the program is excellent and students are deriving benefitfrom the program; however, she is uncomfortable with this having an exemption when the California Code of Regulations and the statute do not specify the exemption that corresponds with the letter from the State. She stated that she thinks the Korean Church facility is a good location but that she would prefer that a childcare license be obtained. Chair Blank asked Commissioner Fox the reason for her preference when there is no student at the facility less than five years old. Commissioner Fox replied that State law does not say anywhere that a childcare license is only required for children 4 years, 9 months. She added that the California Code of Regulations does not require a license for children older than 4 years, 9 months. She noted that the children at KinderCare, La Petite Academy, and Quarry Lane After-School Program are older. Chair Blank reiterated his point that there are no exemptions for those less than 4 years, 9 months old. Commissioner Fox disagreed and noted that it is stated that in a public recreation facility, the program is provided for children under the age of 4 years, 9 months for sessions that run 12 hours perweek or less and that are 12 weeks or less induration; the program shall not permit enrollment in a combination of sessions that total more than 12 hours perweek for each child. She noted that this is a public recreation exemption and that this is what Gingerbread House operates under today. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 10, 2008 Page 19 of 35