Laserfiche WebLink
b B -38-33L <br />Mr. Passanisi said it could be a Code Enforcement issue and the City would send <br />somebody to investigate to verify any violation of conditions occurring. The City would <br />try to rectify and correct the situation. If not, technically the City could threaten to take <br />away the non - discretionary permit, I there were some health or safety violation Lf major <br />proportions. <br />Commissioner Paulson wanted to know where it goes from here, if the Commission does <br />or does not make an approval. (Mr. Passanisi pointed out they would be making a <br />"recommendation ", not approval). She said, "Does it go to Council and it is Council's <br />ultimate decision ?" <br />Mr. Passanisi said that was correct. He said the Council will either confine or decide to <br />change it. <br />Commissioner Garcia wanted to know if he was correct in understanding that in Option <br />2, the applicant had to notify the neighbors, that there was no Public Hearing involved? <br />Mr. Passanisi said the City Council, on February 14, 2000, actually approved an <br />Ordinance which stated that the applicant of a Large Family Day Care home would have <br />to notify the surrounding property owners. There is no Public Hearing involved with it. <br />Commissioner Garcia wanted to know, "What is the point of mailing a notification to a <br />neighbor when there is absolutely nothing they could say about it ?" <br />Mr. Passanisi said that is why they are recommending Option 2, where there would not <br />be any notification. <br />Commissioner Garcia said he could not agree with that logic of not notifying the <br />neighbors. He said that personally on this issue, he is going back to when they voted on <br />Plan B versus Plan 3. He thinks the neighbors are entitled to be notified, if all of a <br />sudden they are going to have something that involves 7 -12, or 14 children in their <br />neighborhood. <br />Commissioner Piulle referred to the red -lined report of 4/8/03 — Section 39.36 -7. She <br />asked to explain to her why the following language was removed ... "the facilities shall be <br />operated in a manner which will not adversely affect adjoining residences, and not be <br />detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood." <br />Mr. Brower said the State law does not provide for that under Option 2. Because of that, <br />the language could not remain in the Ordinance. <br />Commissioner Piulle questioned if it was not a discretionary item that the City could <br />adopt to put in the Ordinance. <br />Mr. Williams said that there was a lot of discretion associated with that phrase. He said <br />it leaves it up to a lot of individual judgment, looking as the particulars of the case, as <br />opposed to having a set list of criteria. (e.g., if it were identified more specifically, and <br />included more conditions that were more quantitative or specific for staff members to <br />review and respond to.) But this phrase was so vague and general that it really did not <br />fit as a non - discretionary type of criteria. He said if you would like to have that type of <br />criteria, it certainly fits within a Use Permit approach; or Option 3 type criteria, which the <br />State law allows. <br />Page 19 of 26 <br />