AgdaPkt 2003-06-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

B.A -33 He made reference to the City's Website, the zoning book in the Library, and zoning book in City Hall, not being up to date. He said that they strongly recommend that the Planning Commission vote no on the current staff request, and recommend that the adoptitn of the original Planning Commission Ordinance as proposed to the Council in February 2000. Mr. Hoffman made comment on credibility gap. He said the Staff Report to City Council dated, April 15, 2000, page 2 states, "The Ordinance adopted by Council is a valid Ordinance"; page 4 states, "The Ordinance follows Option 2 ", when in reality if followed Option 3. He said Council made some bad decisions based on that staff report. Mr. Hoffman said the May 6, 2003 Staff Report, page 8, said, "The Ordinance is invalid because it follows Option 3 ", which is contradictory. Which one do you believe? Mr. David Wolfskill, Redwood City resident (751 Canyon Road), said he had a keen appreciation for the issues at hand, and a strong desire to help fix the process so that no one in Redwood City will ever again need to go through what he and his wife endured. He said given what happened in their case, as well as on Maxwell Lane, there was ample evidence for the need of a provision (in whatever Ordinance is adopted) for neighbors of the site in question to point out issues and concerns, which may otherwise have been overlooked by the permit - granting authority prior to the granting of the permit, and that have become known after the permit has been granted. He said it is important to recognize that circumstances can change over time. In an effort to prevent a recurrence of the "travesty of justice" he and his wife suffered, Mr. Wolfskill suggested periodic reviews at reasonable intervals be provided, and also ensure that any conditions placed on the permit are enforceable, and that there is a willingness to enforce them. Ms. Sally Cadigan, representing Child Care Coordinating Council of San Mateo County, advocated not over regulating child care facility development, because of the increase of the staff cost and cost to the provider. She said many cities in San Mateo County allow Large Family Day Care by right, with no problem (e.g., San Carlos, Burlingame, and Menlo Park). She said she is urging the Commission to support the revisions relating to the Child Care Facilities in the Ordinance. Mr. Paul Sanfilipo, Redwood City resident (961 Woodside Road #D) spoke to his history with the issue as a Planning Commissioner. He said he remembered approving and recommending Option 3, the Use Permit approach. He asked how many childcare facilities had business licenses. Chair Foust asked staff to provide Mr. Sanfilipo with the answer to his question. Ms. Shannon Leigh Collins, representing the San Mateo County Family Child 'Care Providers Association said she was here to support any steps being made to rectify the Public Hearing Ordinance relating to the non - discretionary permit for Large Family Day Care homes. Mrs. Spangler again spoke to the Maxwell Lane issue. She felt the Ordinance should allow a Use Permit. MIS: PiullelGarcia, to close the Public Hearing Motion passed. Page 11 of 26