My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
06 ATTACHMENT 5
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2016
>
092016
>
06 ATTACHMENT 5
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2016 1:07:49 PM
Creation date
9/15/2016 3:40:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
9/20/2016
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
06
Document Relationships
06
(Message)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2016\092016
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
215
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
if you are as shocked as we are about this, please read our sound engineer's statement <br />in an attached document, including the following quote: <br />"However. in Wilson thrlg's 48 years of operation in the San Francisco Bav Area. <br />we have never heard of a city takingthe position that non - amplified. human <br />voices are exempt from noise ordinance limits.... In our opinion. the Citv's <br />skewed interpretation is technically unsupportable, and in our experience it is <br />out of step with the noise ordinance interpretation of other cities in the Bav <br />Area." <br />• Second, this dispute has exposed the position of the current Planning Department — <br />which is the exact opposite of the Planning Commission in 1977 as well as past planners <br />in prior years, who werepro- neighbor. That is, these prior commissioners and planners <br />protected the peace in residential neighborhoods, cared about the lives of Pleasanton's <br />residents, and built Pleasanton into the great community it has been and was intended <br />to be. The current Planning Department seems to think that the peace and tranquility <br />of the people who live in Pleasanton is not important. <br />I think you can see from the above two issues that the current Planning Department's position <br />is not consistent with being pro- neighbor. <br />After dealing with this for 8 years, the Millers are now fighting this on two fronts. <br />• First, we are taking our fight to the people of Pleasanton— because we feel they have a <br />right to know the change in position of this Planning Department versus prior Planning <br />Departments. We have created a website— www. SavePleasantonNeighborhoods .com, we <br />have presented to the Valley Trails Homeowners Association —who has written a letter to <br />Nelson Fiahlo (available upon request), we have created flyers and are handing them out at <br />candidate meetings, and we making realtor associations aware since residential property <br />values are being hurt. in the future, we are contemplating posting on Pleasanton's Internet <br />groups. <br />• Second, we are making the Planning Commissioners and City Council members aware of <br />this issue, and if needed, we will file a law suit against the City. The Millers believe that they <br />have an excellent case given that there is a similar case law precedent in Los Angeles with <br />another Masonic lodge in which the Court decided that commercial activities in a <br />residential zone do not constitute an allowable (accessory) use and ordered the Masons to <br />cease and desist commercial activities. (Honestly, we don't understand why the case law in <br />Los Angeles has not put an end to this —see attached letter from attorney Stu Flashman, in <br />which this is discussed.) <br />1. The Problem <br />Pleasanton has long recognized that while fraternal organizations, such as the Masons, are <br />beneficial, permitting them to locate facilities in residential areas, could result in damaging <br />impacts on residents from noise nuisances if not regulated properly. <br />Page 2of18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.