16 ATTACHMENT 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson regarding why he 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 indicated that does not appeal to him. 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 he does it in a unique way. He stated that many parents were unable to bring their children to a martial arts academy because they are working and that he provided that benefit and a little perk and offered transportation from the schools to the facility. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding the mention of "supervised homework time" in the applicant's narrative, Mr. Pfund stated that he never said "supervised homework time." Commissioner Fox referred to page 9 of the staff report which referred to statements regarding "supervised homework time" and that the employee would be monitoring the program in the blue book provided to the Commission. Commissioner Pearce added that this was also on the exhibit from the applicant's website stating "supervised homework." Commissioner Fox asked why the applicant's website refers to "supervised homework tune" when the applicant says he is not providing supervision. She noted that the word used is "supervision." Mr. Pfund replied that he would respond to the question in two ways. He indicated that staff provided the Commission that portion of the website that was up for a couple of days and then taken down, so it is outdated and was online for only a brief time. 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, addressed to John Pfund on 7223 Regional Street, 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 and others ... and 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 February 13, 2004 and that a further letter was sent on February 25, 2004. He believed it seemed incongruous that the applicant was willing to work with the City but that it seemed his experience in Dublin was not as successful, based on the City of Dublin's perspective. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 13, 2008 Page 7 of I9