PC 062216 - Laserfiche WebLink

the Chabad party recently from the inside of our upstairs bedroom. We didn't bring it tonight because our noise engineer said it wasn't calibrated but you could easily hear my voice in relation to the noise and you can hear the roar of the party inside our upstairs bedroom. I want that to sink in. Our property damage has been estimated to be 3% to 5% or possibly 100% if we can't sell it to anybody because of this noise nuisance behind our home. Point number two, staff clearly saw the problem of outdoor noise residence in the Young Ivy case. I know it's been discussed but let me remind staff of what they wrote in their own staff report. I will quote: "The introduction of the outdoor playground area with up to 16 children and no significant sound attenuation could result in increased ambient noise levels" and staff denied the playground because of that. Comparing Young Ivy to the Masons, Young Ivy has 16 children. The Masons has 115 to 600 people. Young Ivy has 60 to 80 feet away from the neighbors. The Masons has zero. Young Ivy has four hours of outdoor activity. The Masons have 12. It's obvious that staff can clearly see the problems with ambient noise. We are confused and that's putting it politely as to why we are not being given the same consideration as the neighbors of Young Ivy were. Point number 3: the City says that the CUP is not clear but we say the CUP is perfectly clear. The problem is that staff has not enforced this. The points of the CUP works is that we've lived next to the Masons for 20 years without complaints and the Masons made good money; $75,000 to $90,000 per year but they wanted more money so they rented out the backyard, very entrepreneurial of them. We are guessing that the residents in Pleasanton and maybe some of them can speak to this would also like to make a little bit more money by renting out their backyards. I'm sure that you've heard of Airbnb. Staff, have you heard of Airbnb, the Internet company where neighbors can rent out a room in their house for money? Well, we would like to suggest to staff that they create "air backyard" where neighbors can rent their backyards for parties. Oh, wait a minute, that's not allowed for residents, but the Masons can do it. Number 4: the goal of the CUP is to make the Masons act like a neighbor. Commercial parties in the backyard is not acting like a neighbor. Did you know that most Masonic lodges are in commercial areas? And that the very few who are in residential areas do not rent out their backyards? Your neighbor might have an occasional large party in the backyard, but the Mason's profit motive creates more parties and more people than a normal neighbor. Therefore, the Masons are not acting like a normal neighbor. The City is proposing a schedule for outdoor parties here with problems with it: (1) we have no protection from voices because of the City's interpretation of the noise code does not include voices. We are dumbfounded as to why the City would even consider putting this huge noise nuisance next to us without any protection; (2) There is no limit on the number of Masonic parties; (3) there's no way to monitor if the party is a Masonic or commercial party; (4) the City can override and approve additional parties. What this is saying is that the Masons can basically have parties every weekend of the year. Point number 5: who is profiting from the revenues from the parties in the backyard? It is not the public. The Masons lost their tax exempt status /non - profit status and Pleasanton business license. What this means is that their revenues are no longer posted on a public website by the IRS so that the public can see the benefit of their revenues. By the way Commissioner Nagler, we gave proof to the City of the links to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 22, 2016 Page 17 of 56