PC 10/28/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

c. RZ-98-06. City of Pleasanton Application to amend the Pleasanton Municipal Code by modifying the zoning districts in which extrasensory consulting would be a permitted or conditionally permitted use and by modifying other extrasensory consulting regulations. Ms. Seto referenced the staff report and highlighted key azeas including background information, First Amendment issues, permitted uses, conditionally permitted uses, and religious extrasensory consulting. In conclusion, Ms. Seto stated that staffs recommendation is to recommend approval of Case RZ-98-06 to the City Council as set forth in Exhibit "A." Discussion ensued relating to retail uses for psychic businesses, the City Council deciding matters relating to police department permitting and licensing requirement, and other types of businesses required to register with the police department. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Pete Williams, 1515 Colorado Boulevazd, Los Angeles, stated he has never had any complaints filed against his psychic consulting business, and that his business is reputable and an asset to the community. He noted that he has complied with the City of Pleasanton's restrictions and will comply with further imposed restrictions. He sought clarification from staff relating to the timeline for license approval, the adequate number of pazking spaces for businesses, and the restrictions on walk-in clients versus clients who have an appointment. He concluded by stating he has no objections to the items proposed in the staff report. Matt Morrison, 5581-A Sonoma Drive, expressed his concurrence with staffs recommendation and stated that psychic businesses do not cause detrimental effects on noise and traffic. He requested that the Planning Commission approve the application in order to preserve First Amendment rights and to avoid the City being named in a lawsuit. Carl Pretzel, 3633 Glacier Court North, expressed concern with allowing psychic businesses in Pleasanton and stated in his view psychic consulting is not a harmless business. Further, he expressed concern with children's accessibility to the business and requested that a restriction be placed requiring parental consent for minors to solicit business. He concluded by stating if there were restrictions for parental consent and if areas used for psychic businesses were limited, he would support the application. Laura Aue, 1972 Paseo Del Cajon, expressed opposition to the amendment being approved. Further, she expressed disagreement with psychic activity being considered a religion and addressed morality issues. She expressed her concurrence with minors being restricted from soliciting psychic businesses and noted the ill effects on the City of Pleasanton for allowing psychic businesses to operate. Deborah Aue, 1972 Paseo del Cajon, expressed opposition to approval of application. Further, she noted that it is dangerous for teenagers to be soliciting psychic businesses and expressed concern with monitoring of minor issues. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 October 28, 1998