My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
06 ATTACHMENT 5
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2016
>
092016
>
06 ATTACHMENT 5
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2016 1:07:49 PM
Creation date
9/15/2016 3:40:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
9/20/2016
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
06
Document Relationships
06
(Message)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2016\092016
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
215
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
generated from within. This could be done by prohibiting openings on the North or <br />West sides of the structure and, therefore. activity would be focused away from the <br />Northern residences." <br />The staff report dearly gives insight into the intent of the commissioners. That is, that any noise was <br />to be contained within the structure and not create a noise nuisance by using the backyard, and that <br />activity would be focused away from the Northern residences. Having 100 people in the backyard, at <br />a dba greater than 70, violates this. <br />Please respond with your feedback. <br />1977 design review prohibits use of the backyard <br />The 1977 Design Review states, <br />"The entrance to the building would be on the south side. There would be no windows <br />in the other three elevations and the only other opening would be to emergency exits <br />(one on the east side and the other on the north side). Because the building would be <br />used for Lodge rituals, windows are not desired. Placing the entrance on the south side <br />of the building concentrates outdoor activities as far as possible from the bordering <br />residences. This is In conformance with the requirements of the conditional use permit <br />approval." <br />The design review clearly states to concentrate outdoor activity as far as possible from bordering <br />residences. Having 100 people on the other side of our fence violates concentrating "outdoor <br />activities as far as possible from the bordering residences." <br />Please also note that the sentence "This is in conformance with the requirements of the conditional <br />use permit approval" clearly communicates that "concentrating outdoor activities as far as possible <br />from bordering residences" is in compliance with the CUP. Therefore, 100 people in the backyard, <br />on the other side of our fence line, violate the CUP. <br />Please respond with your feedback. <br />51 Therefore, when one looks at all of the above 1977 documents in combination, a consistent pattern <br />emerges where the 1977 Planning Commission is protecting the residences from noise generated at <br />the Masons' property: <br />• CUP Condition #l: "...activities were to be focused on the south..." Formatted: Highlight <br />• CUP Condition 1120: "that the applicant provide an effective buffer between the development • Formatted: Highlight <br />and the single family residential area surrounding the property." _ <br />• Hearing Minutes: Commissioner Shepherd requested that some wording be inserted to <br />safeguard the residents from the facllityy by means of buffering Formatted: Highlight <br />• Staff report: "minimize any noise generated from within" Formatted; Highlight <br />• Staff report.: "prohibiting openings on the North or West; sides of the structure" <br />Formatted: Highhght <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.