06 ATTACHMENT 5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Law Offices of Stuart M. Flashman 5626 Ocean View Drive Oakland, CA 94618 -1533 (510) 6524373 (voice & FAX) e -mail: stu@stuflash.com December 31, 2012 Mr. Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney City of Pleasanton Pleasanton City Hall 123 Main Street Pleasanton, CA 94566 RE: UsePermit for Pleasanton Masonic Lodge (3370 HoDvard Road). Dear Mr. Lowell: 1 am writing on behalf of my clients, Michael and Darlene Miller, to bring to your attention violations of the City of Pleasanton's zoning ordinance and improper and illegal activities taking place under the conditional use permit issued by the City to the Pleasanton Masonic Lodge (#321). The lodge's site, like my client's home, is zoned residential. Consequently, commercial uses are generally prohibited with limited exceptions. The uses currently occurring on the property containing the Masonic lodge facilities do not fall within these exceptions. The illegal and improperly authorized uses at that site are creating a continuing nuisance for my clients, for which they hold the City at least partly responsible. Their (and my) attempts to address this through the City's planning department and City Manager have been unavailing. I am writing to you in the hopes of getting the situation addressed without having to take legal action against the Masons and the City. As you may be aware, my clients have had a problem with continuing noise disturbances and light pollution emanating from the property where the lodge facilities are located, dating back to 2006. The problems relate primarily to two commercial business activities that began that year. a separately -owned catering business doing business as "A Tasteful Affairs and a commercial banquet and party facility, which is apparently being run by the lodge itself. In June of 2000 and February 2005, the Masons submitted informal requests to the City for "use variances" to conduct catering and banquet hall rental businesses on the site'. Those requests were denied. Later, in November 2005, the Masons submitted another letter repeating those requests. (Copy attached.) This time, the planning department, without anv public notice or hearing, granted the requests. in their letter, the Masons represented that these businesses were just expansions of the existing food preparation for Mason - related functions and building use for Masonic functions. They further represented that the building rentals would amount to one or at most two weekend nights per month, plus one catered luncheon per week. The letter made no mention of using the backyard of the lodge building, which fronts directly on my clients' back yard, as part of the banquet hall rental business. The uses have since expanded far beyond what the Masons requested in 2005. After doing a considerable amount of investigation, my clients have recently discovered that the representations made in the Masons' 2005 letter were neither true nor accurate. As it tums out, the catering business, "A Tasteful Affair," is not the ' In 1993, 2000, and 2002, the Masons submitted much more limited requests to allow catering services for internal Masonic events. Those requests were granted. (See below. under accessory use.)