06 ATTACHMENT 5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Attachment #9-- Incorrect rebuttals from the City The City has communicated the following rebuttals to the Millers, which are incorrect. • A hearing could be held First, the City will tell you that a hearing could be held and new conditions set. Yet we have consistently reminded the City that a hearing was held on March 25, 2009 —see Attachment 118. In that hearing, the City proposed 7 new conditions. Condition k2 requested the Masons to consult with "an acoustic professional" (AKA a sound engineer). The Masons refused to comply with this condition. The Millers attorney, Mr. Flashman, stated that there were consequences to the Masons' 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. • The City has granted similar uses to churches Second, the City has contended that other churches have been granted similar accessory uses to the Masons; however, the City has not identified any specific examples. The Millers reviewed some CUPs of churches in Pleasanton. Although hard to find, one church's CUP stated that the church was to be used for "members only," which is very different than what the Masons were granted —and actually, this is what the Millers would prefer for the Masonic lodge. If the City has granted accessory use conditions to similar entitles such as the Masons, the Millers would like to know of these — especially to contact the surrounding neighbors to create a united effort. And, if these other entities exist, is the City comparing apples to apples? That is, are similar circumstances being compared? Remember, the Masons' parties butt up to the Millers' fence —that is, there is no buffer. Do these other entities, if they exist, have loud noisy parties on the other side of a resident's fence without a buffer? ® The noise codes The problem with Pleasanton's noise codes is that they do not include human voices. Yes —this is true! If you, like us, are shocked by this, please read on. The Millers asked for a code enforcement with the City against the Masons for a party that exceeded the noise dba levels —but for voices only, that is, no music. Walter Wickboldt responded, "The code specifically prohibits noise created by 'machine, animal, device, or any combination of the same' but does not set any limit on non - amplified human voice noise. As such, children's voices measured in excess of 70 dba does not violate the noise ordinance. ...Since no violations of City codes were established, no enforcement action will be taken at this time." Therefore, the City has allowed a business to be next to a residence with no protection from the deafening roar of multitudes of people talking/laughing, and kids screaming —which makes the Millers' backyard unusable and even filters inside their house, making peaceful living impossible. This is unthinkable. Furthermore, just like the accessory use provision, the City is trying to use the noise codes to override violations of zoning codes. That is, meeting the noise codes do not allow the Masons to violate zoning codes and use permits. Page 16 of 18