CCMIN120198 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Seto said the uses are being characterized as office uses. Staff is trying to treat this use as it would treat a permit for an office use. Mayor Tarver understood if Council wanted to say this was a permitted use in industrial zones then all the other planned unit developments would have to be modified to also state this. Ms. Seto said that was true unless the use is incorporated by reference. For example in the Valley Business Park, all the uses that are permitted in an IP District are allowed in the business park and all the uses that require a conditional use permit in an IP District are not allowed in the business park. So if Council changes extrasensory consulting to a permitted use in an IP District, then by reference it would be allowed in the Valley Business Park. If Council leaves the use as a conditional permit use, it would not be allowed in that Business Park. Mr. Swift felt every planned unit development would not need to be amended. By amending the IP or C list, the changes would be automatic in the various planned unit developments. Ms. Michelotti asked if someone could operate this business in his/her home and if so, are there any in existence? Ms. Seto said the use is allowed as an exempt home occupational business. The business can only be operated by telephone or the Internet, and no customers are allowed to visit the home. There is one business that is licensed currently to operate in this manner. Mayor Tarver declared the public hearing open. Ginny Almond, 4327 Fairlands Drive, #2, described her work experience with Tough Love International and Womens Globe Group as a spiritual guidance counselor. She said there might not be a noise problem or traffic problem with this use, but it will affect the children in the community. Garry Sinna, 4169 Churchill Drive, thanked staff for its hard work. As President of the Pleasanton Ministerial Association he requested that Council not expand the borders of extrasensory consulting within the community. The Association feels this use is not consistent with the General Plan. If this use is allowed it will grow and create a negative impact on the surroundings. He read some of the definitions listed in the ordinance. He understood the First Amendment rights. The current zoning allows these rights to be exercised in a section of the community. He wanted it to stay this way. He said Council is supposed to monitor the development within the city and hoped it would expand this monitoring regarding these uses. Laura Aue, 1972 Paseo del Cajon, opposed expanding the areas where such a business could locate within the community. She said their beliefs or moral code are unknown. This business is selling ideas, but ideas based upon what. There is no scientific evidence supporting Pleasanton City Council 22 12/01/98 Minutes