03 - Laserfiche WebLink

facility or an agreement could be made for use of restrooms in a different suite within the building. No other comments or correspondence has been received to date. Please refer to the November 12, 2008 draft excerpted minutes which provides testimony of four individuals who have associated with the applicant for some time and support the request for the conditional use permit. No testimony was received opposing the proposed project. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Sections 15061(b) (3) and 15301 (Class 1), this activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Staff finds that there is no possibility that the activity in question will have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, this activity is not subject to CEQA, and no environmental document accompanies this report. CONCLUSION Mr. Pfund has modified his operations to address the City's initial concerns and is in the final stages of securing a childcare license. Staff believes that the modifications to the conditions of approval by the Planning Commission are reasonable and mitigate operational concerns thereby allowing Mr. Pfund to commence his business. The conditions would allow him to operate until June 30, 2009 utilizing the letter of exemption provided by the State and by limiting the hours of attendance to no more than 16 hours for children ages 5-12. The interim period would allow Mr. Pfund to continue the background check currently under review with the belief that it would be completed by the June 30, 2009 date. Furthermore, the Planning Commission conditioned the project such that if Mr. Pfund does not secure a childcare license before June 30, 2009, he would be required to cease all operations and sunset the use. Mr. Pfund would be allowed to submit an application prior to the date of expiration to modify the condition of approval if the State does not complete its review. Staff continues to support the approval by the Planning Commission as described in Option 3 in that the applicant has fulfilled the application requirements and followed through to meet the intent of the direction provided by City Council in May, 2008. The time that has been taken for the background check by the State is out of the applicant's control and there is nothing more that he can do to expedite the State's process. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's decision to approve the conditional use permit. Page 9 of 10