03 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT Chair Blank inquired how it can be ensured that the applicant stays motivated to continue his quest to obtain the childcare license as opposed to simply operating under the exemption, which caused the issue in the first place. Ms. Decker replied that staff has done similar check-ins with large family daycare centers. She added that the Commission may wish to have Mr. Pfund re-appear before the Planning Commission after six months to check in and grant him a permit for up to nine months. Commissioner Fox inquired what would happen if the State denies him the childcare license. Mr. Dolan stated that the Commission can get where it is going by adding one line to two difference conditions: one is relative to reducing the hours back to the 16 hours - "Until such time as a childcare license is obtained, no student 12 or under can attend." And for Condition No. 10, change "Prior to occupancy" to "Within 'x' months of approval, Tri-Valley Martial Arts shall obtain a childcare license." Mr. Dolan added that in terms of if Mr. Pfund is nearing the end and the State is not moving, at some point along that timeline, Mr. Pfund would need to make the decision as to whether or not this is a lost cause or whether or not he should apply for an amendment to these conditions. Chair Blank inquired if the modification to Condition No. 10 could say that within seven months of approval, Tri-Valley Martial Arts would obtain a childcare license from the State Department of Social Services. He further inquired, if he does not obtain the childcare license and continue business under the rest of the conditions of approval, if the City could revoke the CUP on the basis that he did not obtain the childcare license. Ms. Seto said yes to both inquiries. Mr. Dolan inquired whether this would be a revocation of the CUP, and Ms. Seto confirmed that Code Enforcement would not be needed as the use would expire as conditioned. Chair Blank stated that if the condition is not being met, Code Enforcement would officially have to inform the applicant, giving them the opportunity to correct, with all the timeframes and ministerial processes. Ms. Seto stated that technically, the Code Enforcement Officer would need to go out and see that they were actually operating and not meeting that condition; then there would be a possibility for the applicant to ask for a modification of that condition. Chair Blank inquired if the Code enforcement process would be required to issue an initial letter that the business is in violation and should shut down, followed by 30 days to correct the violations. Ms. Seto replied that it would depend on the type of violation: some are correctable and would most likely require only one letter. uRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 11/12/2008 Page 22 of 25