PC 062216 - Laserfiche WebLink

both the IRS and the Secretary of State to prove that those two things were lost and that document was not included in your packet. So who is profiting from all of the money from the outside parties? It's a private company and make no mistake about it that the health of our neighbors' neighborhood is not at stake here. It's the pockets of a private enterprise. What we want is the City to enforce and stop the Masonic use of the backyard. In conclusion, put yourself in our shoes please. You now have these commercial parties on the other side of your fence. Would you want this? Do you think this should be happening in a residential neighborhood? Just look into your heart and vote your conscience. We hope that you help the City get back on track so that we can all be proud of what it says on the side of our police cars which is, 'Pleasanton, a City of Character.' Derek Watry: I am CEO and principal of Wilson Ihrig, an acoustical consulting firm in the Bay Area. I've been there for 24 years. First, I would remind you of a couple of definitions that are fundamental here. Sound is simply the propagation of pressure waves through the air. Noise is simply unwanted sound. There's all there is to it. Regarding regulation of noise, every City is required to have a noise ordinance and Pleasanton of course has one. There's a wide misconception that all it does is limit loud noises, that there's a decibel reading and a limit that you can't go over, and if you don't you're not in violation of the noise ordinance. That is simply not true. Noise ordinances also address noises that are disruptive, whether or not they are particularly loud or not. I'll give you a good example of that. This is a pretty stayed meeting. People are behaving well, but I've been at meetings where people weren't behaving well. There was a lot of murmuring and talking in the backyard, with a lot of background noise. Commissioners get angry, Commissioners get irritated, they get upset and that's the reaction that people have to noise. That's the reaction that you get when you hear clearly with Darlene Miller's voice. When they're trying to have a party and the Masons are posting a party, they get upset. That's their reaction. So noise is not just about levels. The proposed changes in the CUP here tonight would introduce as you know, new noise in an area that's been peaceful and quiet, the peace and quiet of which in the 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 22, 2016 Page 18 of 56