11 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Community Care Licensing has its own manual and its own internal administrative policies by which the provisions are further interpreted. She noted that staff has been in communication with the Alameda County Counsel's Office to obtain more information about how the California regulations are being interpreted on an administrative level, and the results are still pending. Commissioner Fox inquired if Title 22 could be printed off and provided tonight for the Commission. Ms. Seto replied that she could go to her office and obtain a copy. She noted that the regulation did include many different exemptions. Commissioner Fox stated that Exemption 7 is public recreation program for less than 16 hours for a total of 12 weeks, operated by various agencies and not by a city or county agency; Exemption 8 is public and private schools that are run by school districts; Exemption 9 is a school parenting program; Exemption 10 is a child daycare that operates only one day per week for no more than four hours on that one day; and Exemption 12 is the one she had requested earlier today which states: "any program that provides activities for children in an instructional nature in a classroom-like setting and satisfies both of the following: (a) is operated only during periods of the year when students in grades K-12 inclusive are normally not in session with the public school district where the program is located due to regularly scheduled vacations; and (b) offers any number of sessions in the period specified in paragraph (a) that when added together, do not exceed a total of 30 days when only school-aged children are enrolled or 15 days when children younger than school-age are enrolled in the program." Commissioner Fox stated that Exemption 12 is what sounds to be most like the proposed use because it is a classroom-like setting, but it does not provide the 12-week back-to-back session provision and does not discuss 16 hours or less versus 16 hours or more. She added that she did not understand how the State could produce the letter and cite the statute when nothing in Section 101158 matches what is stated in the letter. She stated that she did not see the statute the State is referring to. Ms. Seto reiterated that staff was trying to work with the County Counsel's Office to receive information about how that office has administratively decided to interpret these regulations. Commissioner Fox stated that she was concerned by the fact that she did not see a match in the exemption letter to what is in the actual Code of Regulations. She noted that if the State is citing a California Code of Regulation which does not really exist or which the Commission cannot find, she was not certain how the Commission can or should rely on it. Ms. Seto stated there are many provisions in the same regulation under those same sections that give various agencies the authority to do their own implementation, and this might be the authority under which they are working to apply this. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 10, 2008 Page 5 of 21