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
The introduction of the outdoor playground area, with up to 16 children at any given <br />time, and no significant sound attenuation, could result in increased ambient noise <br />levels during the hours of 2 PM to 6 PM. Consequently the staff Is recommending denial <br />of this portion of the proposal." <br />And please note that only one neighbor complained. <br />But why would staff not allow Young Ivy Academy their outdoor playground due to ambient noise <br />from 16 children with the nearest neighbor between 60 to 80 feet away, and yet see no problem <br />with the Masons' outdoor entertainment area creating noise from hundreds of people all hours of <br />the day and night, including weekends, with the nearest neighbor zero feet away on the other side <br />of the fence? <br />Please respond with your feedback. <br />12) The voluntary measures offered by the Masons are not code. <br />We are confused as to why you are referring to a document of voluntary measures that the Masons <br />have provided. The Mason's document is not code and does not supersede a CUP or zoning codes. <br />Furthermore, we did not agree to them. <br />Please respond with your feedback. <br />13) Conduston <br />It is clear that the 1977 documents of the CUP, staff report, and design review all provide a <br />compelling case, which specifically addresses outdoor activity and prohibits use of the backyard. The <br />1977 documents all point in the same direction, which is to protect residents from noise generated <br />at the Masons' building. One of the key elements of that protection is to maintain a buffer, which is <br />the land between the building and the residences, and that no activity occur in that buffer. This has <br />been clearly understood and enforced until the Masons illegally installed French doors on the north <br />side in 2006 and began conducting activities on the north and west side of the building <br />Furthermore, the Pleasanton Masonic Center, which is the entity renting the building to the public <br />and causing the noise nuisance, is a commercial business, which is prohibited from operating in a <br />residential zone. Finally, the City was extremely protective of residents who could hear noise from <br />the Young Ivy's proposed playground —the same consideration should be given to us. Given these <br />facts, why has the City not enforced the code relating to the event on March 31, 2016, which <br />generated a severe noise nuisance for the residences by conducting activities on the north and west <br />sides of the building in the buffer? <br />Please respond with your feedback. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.