PC 121008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Soo clarified that the exemption restricts the facility from operating for more than 16 hours; the children cannot enroll in more than one, 12-week session and, therefore, they must re-enroll in the program every 12 weeks. She noted that the applicant agrees with the exemption requirement and will abide by it. Commissioner Fox inquired whether or not the exemption was actually for the classification of a classroom or for private recreation use. Ms. Decker replied that, as noted in Section 101158 of Title 22, this is the same exemption that is used for both recreational and tutoring centers. She explained that there are two conditions under which a program can operate for less than 16 hours and that what the Commission typically has engaged in is a discussion of a limitation of 16 hours per child per facility to meet the exemption. She continued that the same exemption allows a child to attend more than 15 hours per week that is not longer than 12 weeks in duration, which is treated as a back-to-back enrollment. She added that each project is considered on a case-by-case basis and that this project was evaluated based on the assessment and evaluation of Ms. Suzanne Bothwell of Community Care Licensing Office. She noted thatthe applicantwill be able to operate within these constraints, primarily the second portion of it being that the program is greaterthan 15 hours perweekand that the applicant is not desirous of limiting the attendance of children to 16 hours per week. Chair Blank inquired if there is a re-enrollment process or paper trail such that the student receives a completion certificate and paperwork at the end of each session that goes on for 12 weeks to show that the student is not continuing in the program for 52 weeks. Ms. Decker replied that this particular program would be monitored by the State and the City has not been engaged in the process of looking at re-enrollment for 12-week back-to-back sessions. Commissioner Pearce noted that it appears that the exemption encompasses everyone and inquired if there ever is a childcare facility for school-age children that would require a license. She further inquired what the purpose of an exemption might be if the children can be in programs for 20 hours per week and re-enroll in the same programs all year. Ms. Decker replied that the State acknowledges that these sessions can be back-to-back and that students can re-enroll in the same programs. She noted that the State has a monitoring process thatthe City has not been engaged in. She stated thatthe Planning Commission has had various discussions regarding this and has expressed a certain discomfort in the titling of an exemption for continuous engagement in these programs with back-to-back enrollment, and whether or not such facilities are still considered a tutoring center or a childcare facility. She indicated that with respect to this application, staff has evaluated this particular program and believes that it meets the exemption that the State has provided. Commissioner Fox requested staff to provide an actual printout of Title 22, Section 10158 in order that the Commission may see its exact wording. She noted PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 10, 2008 Page 4 of 35