PC 111407 - Laserfiche WebLink

noting that she had already been undercut by a home-based bridal business in Castro Valley. She noted that the closest bridal shops that sold the style of dresses proposed by the applicant were in Modesto and Sacramento and that there were 112 Churches of Latter Day Saints within a 50-mile radius. She added that this business should be extremely successful in this niche with even only one bridal dress ordered from each of those churches. She presented a letter from the Pleasanton Downtown Association and signatures from Downtown business owners asking that this home use not be allowed. She stated starting a business includes a lot of investment and risk Deleted: s and suggested that the applicants reconsider going into business if they were averse to taking risks. Wilma Thomas, applicant’s mother, stated that she did not see their business as a threat to Downtown businesses and asked that they be judged on what they plan to do rather than what other businesses are doing. She noted that there is a lot of competition in any line of business in any location, including the Internet. She indicated that their neighborhood was fine with their business and that it would not create any negative impacts. She felt there is a good market in this area and would like to give this business a try. She noted that they are willing to cooperate with staff to make this work and requested the Commission to allow them to start their business in this manner. Ms. Andrus reiterated that she was willing to work with the Commission and was eager to get started with her business. She noted that there was competition everywhere and that she would like to be given an opportunity to open her business from home. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Blank inquired about a column of the table in the original staff report labeled “Required Conditions Not Met,” specifically how each case was handled through staff or the Commission. Ms. Mendez replied that the table listed the 12 conditions required for home occupation permits as spelled out in the Code. She added that any home occupation application that does not meet all of these conditions becomes a non-exempt home occupation application. Staff compared what the applicant proposed against these 12 conditions and determined that it did not meet four of the conditions. Chairperson Fox noted that the list of non-exempt home occupations on Exhibit H was incomplete and inquired what happened to the home occupation applications prior to 2001, such as the speech therapy application at the Sutter Gate Avenue residence. Ms. Mendez replied that it was difficult for staff to retrieve all the applications prior to 2001 because the data system then did not have a specific classification for non-exempt home occupations. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the number home occupations who did not approach the City for a permit or those that for which complaints had been filed with Code Enforcement, Ms. Decker replied that she did not have the figures for home occupations operating without permits precisely because these people did not come to the City for the appropriate permits. She noted that the City has processed approximately 360 exempt home occupation permits and between two to five non-exempt home occupation permits per year. She added that there is a small percentage of home occupation operators who come in either because PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 14, 2007 Page 9 of 34