PC 070809 - Laserfiche WebLink

get insurance. She added that she believes this would be a way to address whether or not certain facilities are child care facilities and suggested Parks and Recreation staff might attend a future meeting and talk about co-sponsorship details. Commissioner Narum then cited the Little Ivy League and Tri-Valley Martial Arts applications in reference to building occupancy and inquired what the unintended consequences might be that the City may not want to have. She noted that if most buildings are completely built and not necessarily for a day care license, she questioned if the City was unconsciously going in a direction it would not necessarily want to go. Commissioner Blank asked if it was possible for staff to identify which businesses do not currently have licenses that would have to obtain a license, and then determine how many would be affected by an “E” occupancy and would need to relocate to a different building. Commissioner Narum stated that she thinks there would have been issues for Little Ivy League and the martial arts facilities for Mr. Balch. She expressed absolute support for a posted disclosure of a licensed or non-licensed facility. She indicated that she recalled the Commission modifying a policy that allowed facilities with 20 or less students to obtain their zoning permits over the counter. She noted that the City had granted some by error because of where the business was going to locate and suggested incorporating a 24-hour “cooling-off period” prior to granting over-the-counter approvals to avoid any potential problems. Commissioner O’Connor agreed with most of what has been discussed and emphasized the need for the Commission to understand the unintended consequences before moving forward. He added that once this is known, he believes the Commission would guide the process by how it defines child care in terms of number of children, hours, etc. Commissioner O’Connor then referred to City liability and requested Ms. Harryman to address this issue should the City impose a higher standard than the State. Ms. Harryman stated that she sees this as two separate issues: (1) The City can have higher standards. An applicant; however, may make the opposite argument and feel they are pre-empted, as the State has occupied the field on when licensing is and is not required. She stated that she was not certain if there was case law on this, but the City’s position is that it can impose the requirement for health and safety reasons as has been done in the past. (2) Liability is a separate issue. She stated that once the City takes on a more active role in criminal background checks or those items listed in Exhibit B, from an exposure standpoint, the City may get sued if a child is injured; but when the case is litigated, the City has certain governmental immunities that would protect it. Commissioner O’Connor inquired if the exposure was due to the City processing background checks as opposed to the State processing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 8, 2009 Page 9 of 15