06 ATTACHMENT 5 - Laserfiche WebLink

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