06 ATTACHMENT 5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Furthermore, the City made mistakes in granting the Masons' building permit and the use variance for the catering company. Instead of enforcing clearly defined codes, is the City iustifving its mistakes via the accessory use provision? See Attachment IS for a summary of the City's mistakes. 6. Current Status In 2014, the Millers indirectly become aware of a letter sent by the Masons to the City. The letter from the Mason's stated: (1) that Masons are not violating the CUP, and (2) that the Masons would rent the backyard area according to a schedule that the Masons proposed. Mr. Fialhos' response to the Masons did not correct the Masons that they were not In compliance with the CUP or the zoning ordinances but rather stated, "I appreciate the Lodge's efforts to be a good neighbor and Pleasanton citizen." Because of the pressure that the Millers are enforcing, the Masons' parties were reduced to several parties. However, the Millers: (1) live in constant fear that the parties may start again, and (2) the Millers must disclose noisy neighbors on realtor forms, which would include the letter from Mr. Fiahlo agreeing that the Masons are in compliance—therefore, the Millers' property value has been damaged by the City. 7. Additional Attachments Attachment #6 for details of the Millers requests. Attachment #7 for summary testimony of City officials who disagree with the Planning Staff. Attachment #6 for additional background from 2006 to Present. Attachment #9 for incorrect rebuttals the City has made to the Millers. Attachment #10 for mistakes the Masons made. Attachment #11 for rebuttal letter an acoustical consultant wrote regarding the noise codes (attached to email). Attachment #12 for a letter sent from the Millers' attorney, Stu Fiashman, to City Attorney, Jonathan Lowell, who is not returning Mr. Flashman's phone calls (attached to email). 8. In summary. we hope that you will agree to: Page sof18