06 ATTACHMENT 5 - Laserfiche WebLink

if you are as shocked as we are about this, please read our sound engineer's statement in an attached document, including the following quote: "However. in Wilson thrlg's 48 years of operation in the San Francisco Bav Area. we have never heard of a city takingthe position that non - amplified. human voices are exempt from noise ordinance limits.... In our opinion. the Citv's skewed interpretation is technically unsupportable, and in our experience it is out of step with the noise ordinance interpretation of other cities in the Bav Area." • Second, this dispute has exposed the position of the current Planning Department — which is the exact opposite of the Planning Commission in 1977 as well as past planners in prior years, who werepro- neighbor. That is, these prior commissioners and planners protected the peace in residential neighborhoods, cared about the lives of Pleasanton's residents, and built Pleasanton into the great community it has been and was intended to be. The current Planning Department seems to think that the peace and tranquility of the people who live in Pleasanton is not important. I think you can see from the above two issues that the current Planning Department's position is not consistent with being pro- neighbor. After dealing with this for 8 years, the Millers are now fighting this on two fronts. • First, we are taking our fight to the people of Pleasanton— because we feel they have a right to know the change in position of this Planning Department versus prior Planning Departments. We have created a website— www. SavePleasantonNeighborhoods .com, we have presented to the Valley Trails Homeowners Association —who has written a letter to Nelson Fiahlo (available upon request), we have created flyers and are handing them out at candidate meetings, and we making realtor associations aware since residential property values are being hurt. in the future, we are contemplating posting on Pleasanton's Internet groups. • Second, we are making the Planning Commissioners and City Council members aware of this issue, and if needed, we will file a law suit against the City. The Millers believe that they have an excellent case given that there is a similar case law precedent in Los Angeles with another Masonic lodge in which the Court decided that commercial activities in a residential zone do not constitute an allowable (accessory) use and ordered the Masons to cease and desist commercial activities. (Honestly, we don't understand why the case law in Los Angeles has not put an end to this —see attached letter from attorney Stu Flashman, in which this is discussed.) 1. The Problem Pleasanton has long recognized that while fraternal organizations, such as the Masons, are beneficial, permitting them to locate facilities in residential areas, could result in damaging impacts on residents from noise nuisances if not regulated properly. Page 2of18