CC Min 2002-04-22 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

water. He stated that earlier today, City and SBSA staff met with State representatives for a tour of the SBSA facilities and the current operation sites. A working lunch occurred that proved extremely helpful, the application will be the first for the new Proposition 40 funds which will be a commitment of $5M of the $22M with a companion loan at a very reasonable rate for the balance of the project. Staff is committed to completing the application over an extremely short timeframe. 8.D. Council Member Howard referred to Consent Calendar item 7.2C relating to City employees on active military duty. She stated that several employees were deployed to New York and Washington D.C. after September 11. She further stated that Police Sergeant Keith Harper is still serving in Washington, D.C. in a military and intelligence capacity and wanted to send regards to him. 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS- None 10, PUBLIC HEARING - A. Appeal of a permit approval for a for large family day care home at 1232 Maxwell Lane; (603) Council Member Hartnett stated that in reviewing and discussing this matter with the City Attorney, it appears that the Council is at a point of both a procedural and substantive legal problem. He stated that there has been substantial information from both the applicant and the appellant regarding the conditions of the approval. Underlying the decision is the legal ability of the Council to make a decision. He further stated that although not legally problematic, the acknowledgement must be made that the ordinance properly adopted and published is different from the ordinance that was published for general public consumption in the Zoning Ordinance which is accessed on the City's website. This caused confusion to those people seeking to comply with the ordinance in terms of the application process and those exercising their rights in contesting the permit. Council Member Hartnett stated that more importantly, from the legal point of view, in reviewing the ordinance it appears that when the ordinance was enacted the provisions that were added in the non-discretionary permit selection from State Law went beyond Council authority. Specifically, when Council added items not required by State Law such as notice to the neighborhood and creating a hearing process, upon legal review, appear to be beyond Council authority. If so, the conclusion would be that Council does not actually have the legal right to make a decision on the merits of the appeal because of not having jurisdiction to do so. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 2002 MINUTES PAGE 5 MINUTES Book No. 59 Page No. 141