PC 111302 - Laserfiche WebLink

- music on Thursdays and Saturdays. He added that the building and business owners felt that the Downtown is intended to be an active area and that live entertainment was necessary to maintain the viability of both the business and the Downtown; moreover, they pointed out that a small group of neighbors should not influence what goes on in the Downtown as a whole. Mr. Iserson also noted that the staff from the Building and Safety Division indicated that instead of mitigating noise, the structure of the building amplified it, and mitigation measures such as modular panels and mobile devices used in recording studios to absorb the sound and vibrations may not be very expensive. He stated that one of the Building Inspectors also went to vicinity on an evening that the band was performing and measured the noise level at the residential front yards, which ranged from 64 to 78 decibels with traffic and 50 decibels without traffic. He noted that while the Noise Ordinance allows 60 decibels at the property line and police officers called to the site indicated that the noise level was not excessive, 45 decibels could prove to be a nuisance at night when neighbors want some quiet to sleep. --- Mr. Iserson stated that a second neighborhood meeting was held in September, at which time the business owner indicated that due to financial constraints, she would not be able to install the mitigation measures proposed. Mr. Iserson continued that further noise mitigation measures were recommended, including the installation of a self-closing mechanism for the patio door; however, it was realized that further meetings would not be fruitful given the business owner's limited resources. Mr. Iserson stated that the meetings concluded without any formal agreement or compromise; nevertheless, the group had laid the framework for a resolution to the problem. Mr. Iserson indicated that the Sergeant Darrin, Davis, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, inspected the business today and noted that the self-closing door mechanism had been installed. Finally, Mr. Iserson commented on the nature ofland use interface in the Downtown, with the City's goals to encourage a thriving, vibrant, and diverse Downtown commercial area and the General Plan's policies to protect the neighborhood and its character by minimizing impacts such as noise and parking on it. He stated that the City tries to condition businesses so that negative impacts do not affect the neighborhood and added that while Downtown's immediately adjacent neighbors benefit from being in the Downtown, these same neighbors should nonetheless be afforded a peaceful and quiet atmosphere. He advised that the Pleasanton Downtown Association is aware of the issues and its Executive Director, Pam Stoddard, was supportive of the neighborhood group process since both business and residents are constituents of the Downtown; however, it has not taken any formal position or given any formal recommendation on the matter. Mr. Iserson then presented the four following options for the Commission to consider: 1. Take no action. This is not recommended because it would not resolve the problem, and what is allowed or not would remain unclear. - 2. Modify the use permit with respect to the operational time oflive music as well as the type of music to be allowed. This is not recommended either because of the disagreement between the neighbors and the business owner over the issues. Mr. Iserson noted for the record that the statement in the staff report regarding the addition of a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 13, 2002 Page 10