CC Min 2000-02-14 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

care home. Another proposal offered was for the applicant to notify surrounding property owners and the City only require proof. Upon proof and agreement to comply with the standard provisions, approval would be granted. Unlike the Planning Commission recommendations, there would be no public hearing or fees associated with the permit. In summary, the approach presented would take less time, be less expensive but still provide notice to the surrounding property owners by the applicant. Council questions included explanation of any concerns of the Planning Commission that should be pointed out. A question regarding the appeal process timelines arose and was clarified. Council discussion continued with the subcommittee preference for site visits prior to permit issuance. Further comments included need to provide the applicant with sufficient information regarding requirements, particularly, the notification process. Hand outs of sample letters and explanation of timelines were suggested. State mandate language and reference to requirements having been met to obtain permit was also suggested. Public Comment: Pam Guardado, stated she was certain this amendment would affect her ability to provide childcare as a large day care home provider. She stated if she were to purchase a home it would mean a significant loss of income if a surrounding property owner objected and her permit were denied. She suggested a concern with the proposed appeal process of surrounding neighbors Michele Sartain, representative of the San Mateo Family Day Care Association, is also a concerned Redwood City large family child care provider and was the center of the property dispute which prompted the proposal. She explained the dire need for child care in the area and referred to the State Health and Safety Code section 1597 that insures adequate child care within neighborhood communities of the State's cities. She stated the current nondiscretionary permit process provides a good balance of encouraging home child care while regulating their operation. Veronica Glaser stated she was approved 3 weeks ago for a small family day care home and received a letter from Community Care Licensing indicating she would most likely not qualify for a large family day care permit under the proposal. David Wolfskill stated be believed the proposed amendment is an improvement but is considerably less improvement than the recommendation coming from the Planning Commission. He further stated his perspective that the Canyon Road dispute was not "minor" and he supported the Planning Commission recommendation because it could protect against innocent neighbors being blindsided by an applicant who might fail to take other concerns into consideration. He summarized his letter provided to the Council and Clerk dated February 14, 2000. He encouraged Council to consider the prospectives from which people express themselves. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING February 14, 2000 MINUTES PAGE 4 MINUTES Book No.58 Page NO.32