11 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker continued that in light of the concurrent application submitted to the City, Little Ivy League then submitted an application to locate at 4430 Willow Road, to be held together with and adjacent to a suite with an application for Fountain Community Church, which was processed and recently approved by the Commission. She stated that during Little Ivy League's leasing process, it determined that the site was no longer viable and found the site at 5925 West Las Positas, which is before the Commission this evening. She noted that the Code Enforcement action begun for 4455 Stoneridge Drive was then held in abeyance because an application had been submitted for a different site. She added that this action is not uncommon with the City's processes. Ms. Decker noted that the Commission had requested the Minutes of the meetings at which PCUP-143 and PCUP-138 were approved and had inquired if the conditions of approval had changed between these actions. She indicated that PCUP-138, the original Little Ivy League approval at 2340 Santa Rita Road, was limited to 30 students at 2.5 hours a day, and PCUP-143, United Youth Enrichment, has a limitation of 25 students for after-hours as well. She noted that while the conditions for both actions were essentially the same in nature, the number of conditions did change, from six conditions for PCUP-138 to nine conditions for PCUP-143. She added that the current application under consideration has 19 conditions and have more criteria to abide by. Commissioner Fox noted that the narrative for the 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 benefit from 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 EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 10, 2008 Page 15 of 21