CCMIN010609 - Laserfiche WebLink

provisions for an E occupancy. If it was not a childcare facility, it would remain as a B occupancy and not require the two-hour fire separation. Also, it could be approved without a fire sprinklered system under a B or E occupancy depending upon the way the entire building is evaluated. Councilmember McGovern said there are more restrictive codes for childcare facilities under an E occupancy rather than B occupancy. For the safety of children, since there is a lacquering and coating suite in the same building, she would hope to look at the most restrictive requirements. Mr. Thomas agreed that they would look at the most restrictive occupancy in all four spaces and apply it to all of them. Councilmember Sullivan questioned whether any fire related improvements would need to be made if the Council were to approve the temporary exemption. Mr. Thomas said if there is no change in occupancy, then no improvements would be triggered until it qualifies as an E occupancy. He further explained that any improvements would need to be made before a childcare license is issued. Councilmember McGovern referred to access, whether or not all rooms are supposed to have direct access to the outside, and questioned gender specific bathrooms. Mr. Thomas said exiting requirements would be reviewed for an E occupancy, but the other tenant spaces would not need to provide the same exiting requirements. Regarding bathrooms, local jurisdictions enforce Title 24 provisions which cover accessibility, but not Title 22 which covers care facilities and this is why the State wants to inspect prior to receiving occupancy. Councilmember McGovern questioned how the applicant would utilize bathrooms, and Mr. Dolan said the applicant did have an arrangement with an adjacent tenant for the extra set of bathrooms which has been withdrawn; however, there are two other suites where they could have a similar arrangement. At worse, he would need to build a second set of bathrooms in his suite. Councilmember McGovern referred to Condition 13; the ability for the applicant to operate as a recreation facility. She questioned whether the applicant could return to modify conditions of approval and keep it as a recreation facility if the childcare license is not obtained by June 30, 2009. Mr. Dolan said for whatever reason the background check was still not completed, the applicant would have the opportunity to apply for any number of changes of the use permit. The Planning Commission wanted him to be aware of the end date for planning purposes and noted that all uses have a right to return for amendment but without guarantee for approval. Mayor Hosterman opened the public hearing. John Pfund, applicant, said he came to the City to teach martial arts to children and not to be a childcare operation. He runs an after-school program where children come and do martial arts after school. He described the process of obtaining approval, only to have it revoked; stating that the only reason the City found that he could not be a recreation facility was due to hours. He discussed his 30 years of martial arts training, questioned whether a childcare license would make him a better instructor or better regulated, and cited existing kids clubs exempt from licensing. He noted there would be a hearing on his background check and testimony would be received from supporters of his criminal case which was unfounded and dismissed. He discussed two previous background checks, said he did not want to go out of business and noted that staff has visited his facility and recommends approval. He noted that no Councilmember has visited his academy, four Planning Commissioners visited his facility and supported and voted for his operation, and Suzanne Bothwell, a 10-year veteran of the State Community Care Licensing office inspected and determined the facility was safe for children. City Council Minutes Page 5 of 9 January 6, 2009