Laserfiche WebLink
future, the ownership and/or the management is unable to control the activities of its patrons and such <br />as the bar is determined to be a nuisance to the surrounding uses or the City in general, the Planning <br />Commission may review and if necessary revoke the subject conditional use permit. The violation of <br />that condition alone should have been sufficient to revoke the conditional use permit. Over the past <br />years, he has registered a number of complaints with the Police Department about the illicit and <br />destructive conduct of the patrons of the Union Jack Pub. He has suffered a loss of revenue to his <br />property, which has impacted his business and the business of the present occupants at 719 Main <br />Street, which is not recoverable. He asked Council to come up with a solution that will provide the <br />neighboring businesses with a tenant that will be compatible for the downtown. <br /> <br /> Claudia Hess, a new tenant next door to 725 Main Street, emphasized that she would like to <br />enjoy the same opportunities to run a business. She took a risk in opening a business next to a bar. <br />She noted that the back area of the bar is an eyesore. The fact that it took a long time to remedy this <br />problem makes her nervous about having her business located next to a restaurant/bar. She <br />concurred with Ms. McGovern's suggestion to implement procedural steps that will immediately <br />address and trigger a review of a use permit, and if necessary, apply additional conditions to, or <br />revoke, the subject conditional use permit. <br /> <br /> Brenda Sauter, a Pleasanton resident, stated that she was a neighbor of the Crown Pub. She <br />was in favor of revoking the conditional use permit for 725 Main Street. She believed the travel in the <br />late hours of the evening and early morning from 725 Main Street to the Crown Pub would be an <br />additional noise issue for the surrounding residential neighborhood. <br /> <br /> Mayor Hosterman closed the public hearing. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky asked Mr. Straface if he anticipated remodeling the building to include additional <br />windows. <br /> <br /> Mr. Straface said that the addition of windows was not a condition of the Planning <br />Commission, but a request. He noted that every tenant that has looked at the property from a <br />restaurant standpoint is interested in adding additional lighting, moving the front door and making <br />substantial changes. He pointed out that the property was not a problem until there was a partnership <br />issue with the business. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan asked if the Pleasanton Downtown Association had weighed in on this issue. <br /> <br /> Mr. Iserson said the Pleasanton Downtown Association is in support of the use permit as <br />modified by the Planning Commission. <br /> <br /> If the conditional use permit is revoked, Mr. Sullivan believed a restaurant could be located at <br />this property but could not serve alcohol after 10 p.m. <br /> <br /> Mr. Iserson said that is correct. The business establishment would have to wait for a period of <br />one year before it could apply for that use permit. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky asked how the City deals with these types of situations where a conditional use <br />permit is tied with the property owner and a tenant is causing problems. He asked if there are legal <br />ways for the property owner to break the lease if the tenant is not meeting certain terms. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush noted that typically a written lease between a landlord and a tenant in a business <br />situation could not be terminated unless the landlord can show that there are violations of a local <br />ordinance. It is difficult to terminate a lease for anything other than failure to pay rent because there <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 15 04/05/05 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />