PC 021308 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 Elementary School, Valley View Elementary School, and Hearst Elementary School neighborhoods. She noted that the facility was near the Alisal Elementary School attendance district. With respect to the waiver, she questioned whether children who would leave the facility on their own would walk to their residential areas such as in the Lydiksen Elementary School and Hearst Elementary School locations. 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 13, 2008 Page 19 of 42