18 ATTACHMENT 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT any age. She noted that this use was considered a daycare if a waiver were provided, as included in the packet but clarified that the City was not obligated to agree. Commissioner Pearce noted that she had looked up the definition of "care and supervision" with respect to the general licensing requirements, which covered "maintenance of rules, protection of children, supervision of children's activities and schedules." Because this program stated that children could come and go as they please, the applicant indicated that they did not provide rules and supervision and, thereby, did not provide care and supervision under the definition, and, therefore, was exempt. Ms. Decker confirmed that was the premise stated by the applicant and as described by the Department of Social Services. She added that the DSS policy described children who did not need supervision. She noted the applicant's premise that the parent would sign a waiver acknowledging that the use was not a day care and that all of the applicant's activities were martial arts activities. She stated that the floor plan showed computer and resting areas and that while the applicant claimed all the activities were related to martial arts, staff did not believe that some activities, such as coloring, qualified for that status. She added that homework involving martial arts language was done, as was regular school homework; in those cases, the children were being supervised. Commissioner Fox cited a letter from Mike Martin, which read, "My wife and I both work and find it increasingly difficult to cobble together after-school care for our children." A second letter from Cherie Francois read, "... they are available to watch my child during the hours that I need for him to be in an after-school program." The January 9 letter from Laura Tenorio-Fejeran read, "I cannot find another program with such a high level of care...." She noted that the parents used the word "care" in their letters, which seemed to contradict the "not-a-day-care" waiver. Commissioner Fox inquired whether, if the facility was located in an industrial area and the children were free to come and go to the facility, the children would walk home. Ms. Decker noted that Commissioner Fox's first statement regarding the letters from parents generally addressed "care," not "day care," although some letters specifically stated that if the after-school program were to be closed down, some parents would need to find day care. Staff noted that this application was similar to some other uses that resembled day care, with some of the components of day care such as transportation; staff crafted language requiring that the children be signed in and out in order to follow the City's practice. Similarly, as an example, Ms. Decker stated that the City had many applications with second residential units that looked like and had all of the facilities for second residential units; residents may state that they were not second residential units, but the City would proceed in requiring that they conform to the second residential unit ordinance. Generally, if a site resembled a particular use, the City proceeded on that basis and required the proposal to meet the ordinance. With respect to Commissioner Fox's question regarding children in industrial areas being free to come and go, Ms. Decker replied that the issue of having use permits in industrial zones involving children has been a particularly difficult for both staff and the Planning Commission. Staff has had various internal discussions regarding the appropriateness of having these uses in industrial areas and that the Code allowed these uses with conditional use permits. Staff looked DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 2-13-2008 Page 2 of 15