CCMIN081181 - Laserfiche WebLink

433 Mr. Levine presented his report (SR 81:266) dated August 5, 1981, regarding this matter. He also presented and reviewed a table regarding comparison of pos- sible nonconforming use ordinances. Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open on the application and the nega- tive declaration. Ms. Marcia Taylor, 125 Ray Street, presented a guide from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding radiation safeguards. Ms. Taylor stated she is concerned about passage of any revisions to Article 23 that would cause a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents living in the area of the Interstate Laundry, and reiterated her position that she felt this business Should be relocated. Mr. Stanley Rathbone, 325 Ray Street, stated his wife had worked at the Inter- state Laundry for over fourteen years and had never suffered any ill effects from radiation. Mr. Craig Connolly, representing Interstate Laundry Services, stated the guide presented by Ms. Taylor is for informational purposes only. He stated the first revision of Article 23 was not much different than the second revision. Mr. Con- nolly stated that Interstate Laundry has been on Ray Street for over 18 years and some employees have worked for them for 16-17 years, and there has not been any problems in that time. Therefore he did not feel this firm should be required to relocate from its present location. Mr. Craig Smith, consultant to Interstate Laundry, 1811 Santa Rita Road, and resident of Pleasanton, stated the magnitude of radiation hazards are very low relative to this laundry, and that it is not a hazard to the community, He stated that Article 23 seemed to be well written in its original form, and he questioned the reasons for possible revision to this ordinance which could be discriminatory and harrassing and not in the best interests of the community. Mr. Jerry Cohn, consultant to Interstate Laundry, 1811 Santa Rita Road, and resident of Livermore, stated it seemed the present action is directed at a single business who work with radiation, and not intended for general business. He stated that all businesses with radioactive materials are governed and monitored by State and County Health Departments, and this should be sufficient regulation relative to the health, safety, and welfare of a community. He stated he is concerned that an emotional preception would be a factor rather than the facts, and felt the laundry should be allowed to continue to operate at its present location. He urged that no changes be made to the existing regulations and to take whatever measures neces- sary to stop harrassment to law abiding businesses in this community. Ms. Debra Strong, Executive Manager of the Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber is concerned about potential abuses on behalf of all businesses. She stated that the change in the draft that abatement is not required is discriminatory. She suggested there may be a lot of businesses that could be placed in this category, and that it could have far reaching effects. She urged Council to reject the re- vision because of its implications. Mr. Jim Morrill, 73 Ray Street, stated that any change to this ordinance could complicate businesses already located in the downtown area, which he did not feel was justified. He stated the present law seems adequate. Mr. Chet Richards, 1045 Division Street, stated his firm had been in business at its present location for over 50 years and he felt any changes in the ordinance would be enfringing upon the right of private enterprise. 8. 8/11/81