PC 121008 - Laserfiche WebLink

districts; Exemption 9 is a school parenting program; Exemption 10 is a child daycare that operates only one day perweekfor 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 orwhich 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. 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 10, 2008 Page 8 of 35