06 ATTACHMENT 5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Mark Dennis et al. 6/15/2016 Page 5 voices, but only from mechanical sources. Yet that limitation is not evident from the ordinance itself, which states that No person shall produce or allow to be produced by any machine, animal, device, or any combination of the same, on residential property, noise level in excess of 60 dBA at any point outside of the property plane, unless otherwise provided in this chapter." ((PMC § 9.94.030(A).) The City's current position also runs counter to the noise ordinance's fundamental Declaration of Policy, which states that, The citizens of the city require protection from excessive, unnecessary and unreasonable noises from any and all sources in the community. (PMC § 9.04.010 [emphasis added].) The plain language of the noise ordinance makes it clear that it applies to all noise produced, or allowed to be produced, by human beings. That includes human voices, as well as musical instruments or mechanical devices. It should be noted, however, that if the Lodge's outdoor activities were moved to the property's northern frontage, as the Use Permit clearly intends, the need for noise ordinance enforcement would likely disappear. 9. THE LODGE'S PROBLEMS EXTEND BEYOND ITS VIOLATIONS OF THE USE PERMIT AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE. It should be noted that the Pleasanton Masonic Center, the holding company for the property and the actual legal owner for both the land and the building, appears to have failed to file its required tax forms for a number of years and has had both its federal tax - exempt status and its state corporate status suspended. Having lost its nonprofit corporate status, the Lodge must now be considered a commercial business, which is not allowed in a residential zone. In addition, the Pleasanton Masonic Center operates its commercial activities without a Pleasanton business license. This gives it an unfair advantage over law- abiding Pleasanton commercial businesses.. CONCLUSION As the staff report for a past Planning Commission hearing on these issues, which has been continued multiple times, noted, my clients have attempted to resolve their disputes with the Masonic Lodge on multiple occasions, including my involvement as a facilitator and the City's involvement as a mediator. Those attempts have unfortunately failed, as the Masonic Lodge has steadfastly refused to acknowledge the limitations on its activities that the sites zoning and use permit require. My clients ask for nothing more than the protections that the City's zoning ordinance and the use permit granted by the City to the Masonic Lodge were intended to provide. All my clients request is that the City enforce its own laws. Anything less would be an unconstitutional denial of my client's right of equal protection under the law. Most sincerely, Stuart M. Flas man cc: City Manager (via e-mail) J. Soo, Associate Planner (via e-mail) Planning Director (via e-mail)