SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - Laserfiche WebLink

"March 2009 to April 2010—Staff continued to work with representatives of the Masonic Center and the Millers to seek resolution to issues raised by the Millers. David Austin, an attorney retained by the Millers, indicated that the Millers would have their own consultant prepare an acoustic study to document the noise levels associated with events at the Masonic Center. Staff forwarded the Millers a link to the Masonic Center's event calendar. Staff has not received an update from the Millers regarding the study. Millers' response: (This is the third time the Millers have corrected staff on this point.This was previously communicated to staff in the Millers'June 22 and Jan. 15 hearing rebuttals.) Staffs statement is incorrect. The Millers were only hiring a consultant to ensure that the Masons' noise study was performed fairly. 5. On Page 6,staff states: Page 7 of the 2015 Staff Report continues discussing the proposed changes by the Mason on April 16, 2010, and states: "The Millers indicated that they would review the proposal, but no formal reply was submitted.The Millers continued meeting with staff to discuss their concerns related to the use of the rear yard area and the existence of the rear double/French door at the Masonic Center." Millers' response: (Previously communicated to staff in the Millers'June 22 hearing rebuttal.) This statement is incorrect.The Millers' attorney, David Austin, had left his practice and so the Millers were in the process of hiring another attorney. A formal reply was eventually submitted in 2011; however, the Millers did respond verbally to the City staff as verified in the next sentence that "the Millers continued meeting with staff to discuss their concerns." 6. On Page 6,staff states: "October 15, 2011—the Millers notified the Code Enforcement Division about a baptism held at the Masonic Lodge between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM on a Saturday with the double/French door open,during which music was played.The Millers stated that they took noise readings and that the noise exceeded 60 A—weighted decibels (dBA), which they believed violated the City's Noise Ordinance.The Millers did not specify the location of the noise measurements.Staff notes the daytime noise threshold of 70 DBA; thus, no violation was found."