18 ATTACHMENT 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT Ms. Decker replied that one of the distinctions was the length of time per activity and that the argument had been addressed whether the use was a bona fide daycare (1'/s hours per day or over 16 hours per week). Staff had taken great care to make that distinction and required sign-in/sign- out sheets. Staff believed that the children would be at this particular facility longer than those hours and would not meet the exemption. Chair Blank noted that there had been considerable discussion about daycare and its licensing and inquired about the cost and other burdens required to acquire a daycare license. Ms. Amos replied that staff typically did not ask those types of questions since the fiscal impacts were not considered in these matters. She noted that the PUD required a conditional use permit for recreational facilities and daycare facilities. Commissioner Fox agreed with Mr. Roush that this use did not follow the exemption criteria as a drop-in facility because of the issue with the waiver. She believed that in order for the use to qualify for the exemption, it must truly reflect reality that the drop-in requirements meant that the children may be free to come and go as they please. She believed this use required licensing in accordance with Health and Safety Code 1596.792 and 1596.793. Commissioner Fox moved to deny PCUP-200, based on the inability to make any of the conditional use permit findings. Commissioner Pearce seconded the motion. Commissioner Pearce noted that she had no doubt that Mr. Pfund was a good teacher and that the program taught positive skills. She could not make Finding No. 2 with respect to the current business plan and could not find that it was not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare because having the children free to come and go as they please was incompatible with the City's sign-in/sign-out policy. She noted that the applicant could continue to state that he did not provide care and supervision, but under the reading of the licensing requirements, since he provided structured activities, rules, instruction, care and supervision, a waiver did not repudiate those instances. She stated that she would like to see this business succeed and hoped that modifications could be made to the business plan. She noted that she could not support it with the way it was currently structured. Commissioner Olson noted that he had no doubt that this was a great program but had problems reconciling the statement that there was no care and supervision and the fact that the applicant picks the children up at school. He believed that at the kindergarten level, there should be supervision and care. He suggested that the way to solve the problem would be to get a license. Commissioner Narum noted that she could not make Finding No. 2 and could make Finding No. 1 with respect to the parking. She was uncomfortable with the motion on the floor and understood that the denial was based on the inability to make any of the findings. Commissioner Fox noted that she supported the motion with respect to parking because of the classification of the facility. She noted that as an indoor recreational center, one parking space would be required for every 50 square feet inside the building, which would require 67 parking spaces; that was further reduced to 45 parking spaces. She would prefer to support staff s DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 2-13-2008 Page 12 of 15