06 ATTACHMENT 5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Attachment #8— Additional Background from 2006 to Present • Between 2006 and 2009: The Millers, as did others, made numerous complaints about the noise generated at the Masonic building (including 1 gun shot in 2008, and a non - permitted "Naughty or Nice" teen party). The Millers begin meeting with City planners, including Brian Dolan and Donna Decker, about these issues. • March 25, 2009, a public hearing is held: -- The City proposed 7 new conditions. — Condition #2 proposed by the City stated: • "The Pleasanton Mason Lodge shall consult an acoustic professional to explore mitigations to alleviate noise level. The acoustic professional shall be one that is on the City's consultant with. The consultant's report shall include mitigations and recommendations, if the anticipated noise levels are found to exceed the Noise Ordinance and the General Plan standards. The report shall be provided to the Planning Division within 90 days from the date of the approval.... No non - lodge functions shall be held until mitigations in the acoustic study have been implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development." • On May 13, 2009, the Millers were notified by Mr. Dolan that the Masons refuse to comply with the condition to hire a noise consultant. — Note: The Millers' attorney, Mr. Flashman, stated that there were consequences to the Mason's actions to not do the noise study. Because the Masons did not comply with the conditions from the 2009 hearing, the original 1977 CUP is in effect, which the City should enforce. • In 2010, the Pleasanton Masonic Center lost both its tax exempt status and its non- profit corporate status, and therefore became a for - profit company managing the revenues from the catering company and its own banquet facility. That is, it was no longer a non- profit as required by zoning codes. • Between 2010 and 2013: — The City refuses to enforce the codes and instead requests mediation between the Millers and Masons. — The Millers hire an attorney specializing in land use and hire a second attorney specializing in tax law for non - profits. — The mediation resulted in conditions that the Masons sent to the Millers which the Millers rejected because they allowed activity in the buffer, creating a severe noise nuisance. • 2014 — The Millers indirectly become aware of a letter sent by the Masons to the City. • The letter from the Mason's stated: • The lodge is fully in compliance with the terms of the CUP (Note: This statement is false as demonstrated in this document.) • The outside area will be rented for public events. • Mr. Fialhos' response did not correct the Masons that they were not in compliance with the CUP or the zoning ordinances but rather abdicated the City's responsibility to enforce its own codes. — The Millers are now considering a law suit against the City if the City does not enforce the CUP and require that the buffer on the north side not be violated. Page 15 of 18