AgdaPkt 2003-06-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A -35 Commissioner Radcliffe wanted to follow up regarding the Conditional Use Permit process — to be clear she asked, "If the neighbors are noted and there is a Public Hearing, we cannot deny the permit on what the neighbors say, is that correct? Mr. Passanisi said the decision is very limited on what you can or can not do. He said the State law states, "The Use Permit shall be granted if a Large Family Day Care home complies with local Ordinances of any prescribing reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control, related to such homes, and complies with subdivision and any other regulations adopted by the State Fire Marshal." He said that as long as they comply with reasonable standards the City has no choice but to approve it. Damien Brower, Assistant City Attorney informed the Commission that Mr. Passanisi was reading from the California Health and Safety Code, Section 1597.46, Subdivision A3, which talks about Option 3. He said based on the opinion of the City Attorney, who has reviewed the Council tapes from the meeting, where Option 2 was the intent of the Council, and that is what staff is recommending. He said if the Planning Commission wishes to recommend a different option, they have that ability. Commissioner Seybert said the difference between Option 2 and 3 sounds like Option 2 has the non - discretionary permit, and Option 3 basically brings to a Use Permit and a Public Hearing. He asked, "At the Option 2 level, what are the conditions placed on the center before they can open ?" Mr. Passanisi said usually Fire Department conditions, those of the general requirements, the basic standards. Mr. Brower said they were further specified on circled page 46, or at least the ones that are being proposed. Commissioner Seybert asked, "When a discussion surrounds a specific circumstance, are there other conditions that a staff person could add to it, because of extenuating circumstances, or are they pretty much bound to that ?" Damien Brower, Assistant City Attorney, said, not under Option 2. Commissioner Garcia asked Mr. Passanisi to refresh his memory regarding which one of the options the Planning Commission approved. Mr. Passanisi said the Planning Commission original reviewed and recommended approval of Option 3, per the City Council Subcommittee. However, when it went to City Council, staff presented Option 3, but also presented a variation whereby the applicant would notify surrounding property owners; staff changed it a little based on some discussion by members of the public and some internal discussions. The City Council had a choice of either choosing or adopting what was recommended by the Subcommittee and the Planning Commission, or the variation that was recommended by staff. He said they chose at that hearing, to approve what was recommended by staff, Page 13 of 26