11 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Blank noted that it also states that the exemption status is based on the Title 22 policy in Health and Safety Code Section 1596.792. Commissioner Fox stated that she believed that Health and Safety Code 1596.792 basically inherits Section 101158. Chair Blank disagreed and stated that according to the staff report, this project was approved as PCUP-179 in September of 2006. He noted that most of the people present were here in 2006 and that it might be useful to pull the conditions of approval that the Commission approved for the conditional use permit. Commissioner Narum noted that Condition No. 5 of Exhibit B relating to a traffic mitigation fee was somewhat open-ended and requested staff to explain how this is determined and whether there would actually be a fee. Ms. Decker clarified that the project was originally proposed for a different location, and there was concern regarding traffic impacts at that site, although no traffic study was required for the site. She noted that the proposed site is an office building with all traffic fees for office use already paid for at that time of construction. She added that a conditional use permit was then granted to the Korean Church where the actual trip rate is less than the office trip rate. She stated that staff looked at potential impacts regarding a tutoring use and found that as this project moves forward, the trip rate, although not identified by a traffic study, may increase and may trigger a fee over and above the office trip rate. Ms. Decker stated that Peter MacDonald, the applicant's representative, discussed with staff what this fee, if any, might be. She noted that if the traffic engineer should find that no fee is required, no fee would be paid; but if a fee to be assessed, staff would then hold more discussions with the applicant and her representatives. She indicated that the applicant and her representatives have expressed the desire to have a traffic study done to narrow down what the actual net increase might be, based on actual data. She added that they are amenable to the condition as written. Commissioner Fox inquired if it was possible that the Licensing Office program analyst believes this is a public recreation program operated by a city, county. special district, or school district and this is the reason an exemption letter was issued. Ms. Decker replied that she could not comment on this and that the City relies on the State to evaluate programs based upon the narrative, site plans, and building plans the City sends over to the State Licensing Office. She added that the State Licensing Office is the authority in childcare exemptions and what needs to be licensed or not, and City staff relies on its determination as to what exemption might or might not be applicable. She noted that in this case, the State has indicated that this exemption is appropriate for a request for a conditional use permit. Commissioner Fox noted that the State's letter appeared identical to what is written under Exemption 7a on page 17, which is clearly under a public recreation program. Chair Blank stated that he believed it was impossible for the Commission to determine the thinking of the analyst who wrote the letter. Ms. Seto reiterated that staff is trying to work with Alameda County to determine what might be any internal regulations that are not reflected in either the statute or regulation that the County uses to evaluate facilities and that staff has not received a response to date. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 10, 2008 Page 6 of 21