SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - Laserfiche WebLink

• Although a catering business was allowed starting in 2000, it had very restricted functions and therefore did not remotely resemble a true catering company. From 2000 to 2005,the caterer could only sell food onsite at lodge functions and not offsite to the public. Furthermore,the food could only be sold indoors, clearly indicating that the prior planning commission recognized that outdoor activities were not allowed. o On June 12, 2000,the City staff wrote a letter to a catering company, Royal Raspberry (which later became A Tasteful Affair), stating, "Catering establishments are not allowed in this zoning district. For this reason staff cannot approve the zoning certificate for Royal Raspberry at the proposed location." o On June 29, 2000,the City staff approved very limited functionality for Royal Raspberry, including, "... Internal consumption ... No food sold off site ... food sold indoors to Masonic Lodge members." o On February 4, 2005, the City staff approved very limited functionality for A Tasteful Affair(previously Royal Raspberry) for, "... No food sold off site ... All food sold indoors to Masonic Lodge members." • However, on November 18, 2005, the Masons wrote staff a letter requesting to expand the catering uses to offsite catering to the general public. o Ten days later, Planner Jenny Soo wrote the Masons a letter allowing catering to the general public and offsite.That is,Jenny Soo's letter overturned prior decisions in both 2000 and 2005. o The City staff refer to Jenny Soo's letter to cite the staff's approval of the Masons' requests despite the fact that no public notice was given,violating residents' due process rights, and despite the fact that no zoning certificate was provided. These facts are also omitted from staffs 2016 report. Furthermore,the Millers argue that since no public notice and no zoning certificate was provided by the City,that therefore A Tasteful Affair was never legitimately granted the expanded catering abilities, and hence should only be selling food on-site and inside the Masons' building. 2. On Page 3-4, staff omitted critical facts regarding the kitchen remodel. Staff lists that the site and building changes included: (1) patio, (2) double/French door, (3) fence, and (4)accessory structures. These changes exclude the kitchen remodel. Millers' response: (Previously communicated to staff in the Millers'June 22 hearing rebuttal) Staff omitted that$200,000 had been spent on a kitchen remodel. Fred Schwartz, Mason Board President, states in a letter dated November 8, 2005 to Planner Jenny Soo, "The Pleasanton Masonic Center has built a commercial kitchen, which is regularly inspected by the Alameda Board of Health. Funds were raised by borrowing from members.Total expenditure was in excess of$200,000."