PC 021308 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker stated that staff had received various questions regarding the project and wished to answer them for the benefit of all the Commissioners. Ms. Decker then addressed the question of how the program interfaced with the school system and whether it was specifically endorsed by the Pleasanton Unified School District (PUSD). When staff discussed this with PUSD, the District responded that while business brochures for extra-curricular activities are made available to families, it was not specifically endorsed by the District and that businesses operated independently of the District. Ms. Decker also addressed what school sites the applicant had been transporting children from in Pleasanton to his facility prior to the City's cease letter to the applicant that he cease operations pending a decision on the conditional use permit. The school sites were was Lydiksen Elementary School, Hearst Elementary School, Valley View Elementary School, and Pleasanton Middle School. She added that at Valley View Elementary School, there was an adult from the school to the van provided by teaching staff from PUSD. She noted that staff was questioned regarding the pickup location by the van and that if that was slightly off school property, which introduced liability issues. She noted that the District and the applicant were addressing that issue. Ms. Decker noted that the question of how the children were being picked up had been addressed thoroughly in the staff report; the van could transport up to 14 children and an employee's sports utility vehicle was capable of transporting up to seven children and would be driven by a private party. The condition of approval stating that parents would sign the children into and out of the facility originated from the Planning Commission's specific desire to have children escorted by a supervising adult; however, it did not address transportation. Ms. Decker noted that staff had received two letters from Barbara Bobincheck, the Licensing Program Manager from the Department of Social Services (DSS), one stating that the facility needed a child daycare license, and another, superseding the first letter, stating that they did not need a daycare license. The policy was faxed to staff, outlining how the policy can be exempted 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. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 13, 2008 Page 18 of 42