PC 04/13/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

He asked how they are to respond to noise levels hurting people on the outside. Mr. Sennyes stated he does care about how the neighbors feel about his business. Commissioner Michelotti again asked if the company would voluntarily come forward for a conditional use permit. Mr. Sennyes stated he would have to ask management located on the East Coast. Commissioner Wright indicated that besides the noise abatement issues, the hours of operation are also an issue. He inquired of Mr. Sennyes if he would cut down the hours of operation. Mr. Sennyes responded that the hours of operation are dictated by his customers and the flow of business. Mr. Iserson, responding for the City of Pleasanton as the applicant, stated they stand by their staff report. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CWSED Commissioner Wright stated the reason for the ordinance change is because this one business has taken so long to voluntarily mitigate their noise problems. He supports the code amendment. Commissioner Hovingh supports the amendment stating it provides the City with a tool to control what is going on within the City. He also stated his belief that this amendment can be abused as well as be helpful to the city. Commissioner Michelotti believes the impetus behind the code amendment is to get businesses who should have come forward for a conditional use permit to get a use permit. Further, she believes that the sooner the INS corporate management would be willing to get the conditional use permit process started, the better. Chairman McGuirk supports the ordinance amendment, feeling that businesses that cannot abide by neighborhood conditions will be dealt with by the City. Commissioner Michelotti stated her belief that a use that makes a concerted effort to conform to the use permit conditions should be given every right to continue. If it doesn't work, then the conditional use permit provides the vehicle to pull the permit. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 April 13, 1994