06 ATTACHMENT 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

1977 Planning Commission intended to protect as evidence by their staff report which states in part, "It would be possible to design the structure so as to minimize any noise generated from within. This could be done by prohibiting opening to the north and west sides of the structure and therefore, activity would be focused away from the northern residences." Let's tie this back to the Pleasanton noise ordinance. The declaration of policy, the first line says, "It is declared to be the policy of the City that the peace, health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City require protection from excessive, unnecessary and unreasonable noises from any and all sources in the community." Noise from backyard activities, especially commercial activities in residential zone is excessive, unnecessary and unreasonable. If the City of Pleasanton stands behind this noise ordinance and if this Planning Commission stands behind the past actions, the CUP being considered tonight should not give the Masons the ability to hold large, disruptive parties on a regular basis in a residential neighborhood. I want to address quickly the idea that voices are exempt from the noise ordinance which has been brought up several times in this process, which going back to the policy it says "any and all sources." That does not exclude human voices. That includes human voices. People do not filter out voice frequencies. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. Our hearing is centered on a frequency band. We don't hear low noises, dog whistles. The frequencies we hear best are vocal frequencies. We're designed to hear voices. In fact, because hearing other people speak in an unwanted manner is so annoying, many noise ordinances include a 5dB penalty for noise ordinances. In other words, the limit for noise from voices is lower than from other noises. Finally, staff has stated that Danville, Dublin, Livermore and San Ramon "do not specifically regulate what the dB limit unamplified human voices." Well, guess what, those ordinances don't have any dB limits. They only have qualitative things to decide what a noise nuisance is. So again, it's not necessarily tied to a decibel level. It can be tied to disruption; in this case, the noise you've heard about from the Millers is very disruptive to them in the life that they have enjoyed for so many years before the parties began and they're simply asking you to take that into account in your positions. Thank you very much. Yinghai Lu: Hi folks. I live on Sequoia Court and its kind of right across the road from the Masons' structure. Basically I can see their backyard and the structure with no buffer. I'm here to just say that I'm very concerned about the recommendation that they are allowing outdoor activities. I'm very concerned about the noise level because as far as I know, there's no way to control or no regulation of human voices. I've lived in our community for about three years in a very quiet neighborhood and the one day that somebody has like six people in the backyard and has a party, you notice it. It's not very disturbing but you notice that because it's not quiet. So my point is if you have not 6 people but 100 people in the backyard partying, just the voices would destroy you. Maybe we live far enough that we would be disturbed less, but for the Millers I think that's detrimental and I really hope you guys can reconsider the outdoor activity regulation. That's all. Mingying Fan: Thank you Commissioners. I just wanted to share some points from the perspective of an expectant mother. Yinghai and I are expecting our first baby this August and we're both full -time employees so we can imagine that probably the most time we spend with our kids will be during the weekends and as I am expecting I always EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 22, 2016 Page 16 of 52