16 ATTACHMENT 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Blank noted that the City's letter to cease operations was received December 31, 2007 which was New Year's Eve, stating that he must cease operations by January 4, 2008. Commissioner Fox noted that the applicant also did not comply with the conditions set forth in the February 13 letter from the City of Dublin. Chair Blank agreed with the first part of Finding No. 3 with respect to the inconsistency. He noted that the City of Pleasanton sent a letter to Mr. Pfund on August 17, 2007 requiring a second notice on September 25, 2007. He could feel comfortable with the inconsistency and multiple revisions during that time but did not feel comfortable criticizing the applicant because he was noticed on December 31, 2007 to cease operations by January 4, 2008. Commissioner Fox suggested striking that sentence and requested that staff substitute language regarding the violations in Dublin that had not been immediately corrected. She also requested that the City of Pleasanton letters be included as well. Mr. Roush noted that could be done, including referencing Code violations in Dublin that were not immediately corrected. Commissioner Narum stated that if the application was being denied without prejudice so that the applicant may have the opportunity to get a daycare license, she wanted to know what the remedy would be to cure the third finding. She noted that if the occurrences went back five years, the applicant did not have a remedy to fix those issues. Chair Blank noted that the applicant may return with the current issues having been remedied. Commissioner Narum inquired what would have changed regarding the applicant's prior history with the City of Dublin. Commissioner Fox suggested that the City of Dublin may be able to produce a letter stating that they lost Mr. Pfund's application, confirming Mr. Pfund's explanations.. Commissioner Narum expressed concern about this line of reasoning if the Commission would allow the applicant to return with the daycare license and did not see how Finding No. 3 could be made based on past history. Commissioner O'Connor believed that the applicant was also being asked to return with a new narrative, which would be another change. Mr. Roush acknowledged the dilemma experienced by Commissioner Narum and did not know whether it could be resolved other than to make a substitute motion to deny the application based on Finding No. 2. He advised that the Commission could vote on the motion on the table or that a substitute motion may be made. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 13, 2008 Page 18 of 19