01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. MacDonald confirmed and added that the State does not have the resources to license afterschool programs. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio questioned and confirmed that the key issues that would be governed by a license have been addressed. Councilmember McGovern noted that the issues of fresh air and suitable play areas as required by a license had not been properly addressed; Mr. MacDonald said that the State's particular concern is that by requiring all afterschool programs to have playgrounds, children will have fewer afterschool options rather than more playgrounds available. She said that Pleasanton's Municipal Code contains only one paragraph on childcare facilities which simply states that they cannot be located within a minimum of 300 feet of a personal wireless facility and provides guidelines on the location and landscaping of any State-mandated outdoor play areas. She noted that there are no current City, State, Federal definitions of tutorial or heritage schools but that at the time the application was filed with the City, it stated plans to operate an extended daycare program with a childcare license. She expressed confusion over changes in terminology and concern that the State is attempting to relieve itself of its obligations by issuing these exemptions. She asked Mr. Roush whether or not this proposal could be reasonably exempt under 1596.792. Mr. Roush explained that the State's evaluator manual regarding licensing requirements essentially equates private recreation programs with public ones in terms of qualifying criteria but the actual statute does not list the same specific criteria for both. The State has taken an expressed statute and applied it to a different program, and he suggested that one could question the authority to do so. Councilmember McGovern said that she also indicated that there are different exemptions for recreation programs and instructional programs; the recreational program exemption only applies if the hours of operation are during non-school hours and either 16 hours or less per week or a maximum of 12 weeks per year. She noted that this proposal does not comply with those limitations. Mr. Roush explained that this program could utilize both exemptions. During the regular school year, the proposed hours of operation meet the standards for recreational programs so long as the applicant uses a revolving 12 week enrollment. Summer vacation and school holidays would comply with the instructional program exemption which allows for unlimited daily hours but cannot exceed a total of 30 days in a 12 month period. Councilmember McGovern noted that the State's exemption letter only mentions private recreation programs and argued that even if it were to consider instructional programs, the application proposes more than 30 days of non-school day operation within a 12 month period. She suggested that a license would allow LIL much greater flexibility in its operation. Mr. Roush agreed that if it were to operate as a daycare facility most of the issues raised would not be a concern. Councilmember McGovern reiterated the increased flexibility a license would provide which would, in turn, benefit all parties involved. City Council Minutes Page 7 of 19 February 17, 2009