16 ATTACHMENT 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

for recreational facilities for children who did not need supervision in any way, as detailed in the staff report. The letter indicated that the policies were originally crafted for boys' and girls' clubs within neighborhoods for children who are old enough to come and go freely and not for a use such as this or for tutoring facilities. Ms. Decker addressed the issue of the exemption with Ms. Bobincheck, who stated that the City was not required to acknowledge the policy, which is not State law; the policy states that children must be free to come and go at any age. Ms. Bobincheck noted that this use would be considered a daycare unless a waiver were provided, as included in the packet but clarified that the City was not obligated to agree. Ms. Decker indicated that upon further conversations she had with the Department of Social Services, the applicant-composed waiver indicates that the State requires the facility to essentially allow afive-year-old to leave the facility on his/her own as part of "come and go freely," even if that appears unreasonable and even if parents are called informing them that the child does not want to participate in the program. Commissioner Pearce requested awalk-through of the California Department of Social Services regulations and exemptions and care and supervision. She 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, including homework. 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. She concluded by indicating that this is contradictory to what the applicant proposes and the policies of the Department of Social Services. Commissioner Fox expressed confusion about the applicant-composed waiver that indicated that this was not a daycare and included language that the school is not responsible for the care and supervision of children in conjunction with the letters of parents of children in the program that used the work "care." She 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 to neighborhoods at the schools where van transportation is taking place such as the Lydiksen EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 13, 2008 Page 2 of 19