Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Council questions included explanation of any concerns of the Planning Commission that <br />should be pointed out. A question regarding the appeal process time lines arose and was <br />clarified. Council discussion continued with the subcommittee preference for site visits prior <br />to permit issuance. Further comments included need to provide the applicant with sufficient <br />information regarding requirements, particularly, the notification process. Hand outs of <br />sample letters and explanation of timelines were suggested. State mandate language and <br />reference to requirements having been met to obtain permit was also suggested. <br /> <br />Public Comment: <br /> <br />Pam Guardado, stated she was certain this amendment would affect her ability to provide <br />childcare as a large day care home provider. She stated if she were to purchase a home it <br />would mean a significant loss of income if a surrounding property owner objected and her <br />permit were denied. She suggested a concern with the proposed appeal process of <br />surrounding neighbors <br /> <br />Michele Sartain, representative of the San Mateo Family Day Care Association, is also a <br />concerned Redwood City large family child care provider and was the center of the property <br />dispute which prompted the proposal. She explained the dire need for child care in the area <br />and referred to the State Health and Safety Code section 1597 that insures adequate child <br />care within neighborhood communities of the State's cities. She stated the current <br />nondiscretionary permit process provides a good balance of encouraging home child care <br />while regulating their operation. <br /> <br />Veronica Glaser stated she was approved 3 weeks ago for a small family day care home and <br />received a letter from Community Care Licensing indicating she would most likely not <br />qualify for a large family day care permit under the proposal. <br /> <br />David Wolfskill stated be believed the proposed amendment is an improvement but is <br />considerably less improvement than the recommendation coming from the Planning <br />Commission. He gave the history of the Canyon Road dispute and stated he supported the <br />Planning Commission recommendation because it could protect against innocent neighbors <br />being blindsided by an applicant who might fail to take other concerns into consideration. <br />He summarized his letter provided to the Council and Clerk dated February 14, 2000. He <br />encouraged Council to consider the prospectives from which people express themselves. <br /> <br />Alice Bussiere, Managing Attorney of Child Care Law Center, supported the staff <br />recommendation. She stated her agency works with cities to develop zoning processes so as <br />to not cause any unnecessary barrier to providing child care and that Redwood City's <br />ordinance is used as an example for others. She further stated a requirement to provide <br />notice but not to require a full use permit process is a good balance. <br /> <br />REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br /> <br />FEBRUARY 14,2000 <br /> <br />PAGE 4 <br /> <br />.~.._._... '~"T"'- . <br />