AgdaPkt 2003-06-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8-A other proposed Research and Development type facility. He said he would defer to the City Attorney as far as any conflicts. Mr. Williams said as far as the child care facilities go, there is a whole State process for licensing all these facilities. If they are not licensed, they are in deep trouble as far as the State goes. As far as the City goes, it requires a permit to comply with City requirements, but the State law does supercede the City, it tells us we have to allow these things and then they have to get a State license to operate; that is the bottom line. Chair Foust said staff would get back to him on his second question. Chair Foust wanted it to be noted for public record that Mr. Hoffman called her earlier that day to let her know that he was going to do a presentation that evening at the meeting; asked her if she received the background material, which the other Commissioners have received, and he asked if he had a time limit. She told him it would very much depend on the number of people in the audience. He told her on the phone that it would be approximately five minutes. She asked him to please address the Ordinance. Mr. Robert J. Hoffman, Redwood City resident (1228 Maxwell Lane), wanted to refute what Mr. Passanisi said in his opening remarks regarding legislative intent when the present Ordinance was enacted in 2000. He had factual documents that refute what he mentioned. Mr. Hoffman said, "This issue surrounding the issue of Large Family Day Care permits is the most bizarre and shocking example of abuse of bureaucratic power that he and his wife have ever witnessed." He said it is not a social issue about Large Family Day Care homes; the real issue is truth in government. He referred to page 8 of the Staff report on the issue as being "incomprehensible fiction attempting to vindicate the myth of a non - discretionary permit adopted by the City Council on February 28, 2000." He said that because of a problem on Canyon Road, the Planning Commission formerly studied the permitting process in conjunction with a City Council Subcommittee, and decided that some notification of the neighbors was desirable before an expansion permit was granted. He said that under State law (containing the strongest child "do" language), it tells the entity to "shall do" something. He said that "shall do" language says ... the only way this can be accomplished was to adopt Option 3, which provides for a use permit, notification to neighbors, hearing and appeal. Mr. Hoffman said the Planning Commission prepared an Ordinance containing the exact language of Option No. 3, but the staff recommended that it be slightly modified to require notification by the applicant instead of the Zoning Administrator, and eliminate the hearing before a Zoning Administrator. He said there was no change in the wording from the State law requiring a Use Permit, and there was no mention of a discretionary permit in the Ordinance that was submitted by the Planning Commission. Mr. Hoffman said he had a letter from the City Attorney to the City Clerk dated, April 10, 2000, which said, "Enclosed please find a red -lined version of a proposed Ordinance Form 10B. The enclosed document shows the difference between the version recommended by the Planning Commission and the version recommended by the staff. Please enclose the enclosed document for the packet for the Council's convenience." Page 10 of 26