18 ATTACHMENT 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT Mr. Pfund noted that he had taken steps to add the City as an additional insured on his $3 million liability insurance policy. He noted that he took his responsibility as a Sensei very seriously and worked to instill positive traits in his students. He added that the strenuous workouts kept the children on the road to physical fitness, avoiding obesity. He added that the values instilled during the classes provided positive messages and role models to keep the children away from drugs and gang violence. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Pearce regarding whether he had asked the other facilities if the children were there more than 16 hours per week, Mr. Pfund replied that he did not ask that question. He noted that the items in the Health and Safety Code did not apply if he did not provide care and supervision to the children and that the hours and special programs would not apply. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether he ever left the children unattended because he did not provide care and supervision, Mr. Pfund replied that he never left any child unattended. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson regarding why lie did not want to obtain a license, Mr. Pfund replied that he was in the business of teaching martial arts, and was not in the business of providing care and supervision of children. Otherwise, he would have taken child development courses and taken steps to take care of toddlers. He noted that he had been involved in martial arts since he was 10 years old and that martial arts was what he did as a vocation. He noted that many parents were unable to bring their children to a martial arts academy and that he provided that benefit by providing transportation to the facility. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding the mention of "supervised homework time" on the exhibit from the website, Mr. Pfund replied that the portion of the website was outdated and was online for only a couple of days. He noted that the mention of supervised homework time had never been on the website since that day. He never stated that he provided supervised homework time, meaning that he would work on academics with the children. He noted that it meant that when the children were on-site, the instructors would be on-site with the individual children. Chair Blank noted that the applicant stated that he was always willing to work with the City and added that the staff report contained letters from the City of Dublin, reading in part: "In January 4, 2004, ... at the time of inspection, numerous code violations were observed. After reviewing the City of Dublin records, it was determined that your property was in violation of Chapters 7.28, 7.32 ... maintaining dangerous structures or installations was prohibited." He noted that the City of Dublin cited a "suspended ceiling grid, locking hardware at the rear exit, flammable materials, overrating and overloading electrical outlets, exposed wires, nonfunctioning GFCI (ground fault circuit indicators), shower installed without proper permits, apparent unauthorized use of space, an abundance of clothing, food products, personal products, including personal hygiene products, pistols, shoes and books, a couch...." He added that another letter was sent on January 27, 2004, following up on a letter dated January 13, 2004 and that a further letter was sent on February 25, 2004. He believed it seemed incongruous that the applicant was willing to DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 2-13-2008 Page 5 of 15