18 ATTACHMENT 03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Planning Department did not receive the application by the stated deadline, the City's Code Enforcement Officer sent a second letter on September 25, 2007 reminding the Academy that an application for a CUP was required. (See Exhibit C for staff correspondence.) On September 28, 2007, John Pound, owner of the Academy, submitted an application for a conditional use permit. Based on the application, it appeared that the scope of operations differed significantly from what was indicated on the application for the Zoning Certificate, and specifically the September 28 application stated that the maximum number of children and adults at any given time would be 30 rather than 20. On November 7, 2007 staff sent Mr. Pound a letter stating that the business could continue to operate until such time as the CUP application is heard by the Planning Commission but that the Academy had to operate with not more than 20 students at any given time as stated in Pfund's initial application. The conditional use permit application was scheduled for the Planning Commission hearing on December 12, 2007, with a recommendation for denial because staff could not make the use permit findings based on parking and circulation. The item was continued, however, at the applicant's request in order to discuss with staff how the applicant could revise the application to meet the parking and circulation requirements. On December 18, 2007, staff met with Mr. Pound to discuss the applicant's written narrative. During this meeting, Mr. Pound indicated that the written narrative that he had provided was inaccurate and that he would like to re-submit a revised narrative that more accurately portrayed the scope of his operations. Although the Planning Department typically allows businesses to operate while applications are being processed, after meeting with the applicant, staff determined Mr. Pound must cease operations until a conditional use permit was secured. This decision was based on: the degree of inconsistency between the information provided that gave rise to the (rescinded) Zoning Certificate and the information that was later submitted with the September 28 application; staff's initial recommendation to the Planning Commission that the use permit be denied; the discussions with the applicant regarding the revisions; and the initial determination by the State Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division that a child care license would be required. (See Exhibit C for staff's letter to the applicant dated December 26, 2007.) Staff met with Mr. Pound again on January 4, 2008, to discuss his concerns regarding staff's decision to have the Academy cease operations pending his receipt of the CUP. During this meeting, the applicant provided staff with an additional narrative explaining his proposed use and requested staff to reconsider the directive to cease operations. After the meeting concluded, the applicant submitted the second written narrative (Exhibit A.1) outlining modifications to the previous written narrative. Staff found the operations described in the new narrative to again be inconsistent with how the applicant described the proposed operations during January 4 meeting and inconsistent with the description of operations in prior conversations with staff. Accordingly, staff declined to allow the Academy to operate until such time that the Planning Commission could consider the application for a conditional use permit. PCUP-200, Tri-Valley Martial Arts Academy Planning Commission Page 3 of 16