06 ATTACHMENT 5 - Laserfiche WebLink

iv. A letter from the Millers' attorney documenting the Masons' violations in the General Plan, zoning codes, 1977 Conditional Use Permit, 1977 Staff Report and 1977 Design Review. v. A letter from the Millers' attorney documenting relevant case law in Los Angeles with another Masonic lodge in which the Court decided that commercial activities in a residential zone do not constitute an allowable (accessory) use and ordered that the Masons cease and desist commercial activities. vi. A summary of the Masons' tax returns documenting that the revenues from the catering company and party venue are 2 to 4 times the fraternity membership dues, and an estimate by the Millers that the building is used 4% of the time for lodge meetings versus 96% of the time for commercial uses as a catering company and party venue. These facts support that the "use" of the lodge has changed from a fraternity to a commercial business. f. Also, staff omitted all of the errors made by the City including, (1) in 2004: approving the Masons' building permit without design review; (2) in 2005: incorrectly approving the catering company without public notice; and (3) for the past 8 years: not enforcing the codes by demanding that the Masons stop using the backyard area. (See #24 in Attachment #1.) 2. The City omitted a precedent set in a recent similar noise nuisance hearing regarding a school for children, called Young Ivy Academy There is no mention in staff's Jan. 28, 2015 report of a similar noise nuisance situation regarding Young Ivy Academy presented to the Planning Commissioners in November, 2014. For Young Ivy Academy, staff was clearly concerned with the "ambient noise" impact to neighbors from the playground that the school wanted to build for 16 children. Staff stated, "The introduction of the outdoor playground area, with up to 16 children at any given time, and no significant sound attenuation, could result in increased ambient noise levels during the hours of 2 PM to 6 PM. Consequently the staff is recommending denial of this portion of the proposal." And please note that only one neighbor complained. But why would staff not allow Young Ivy Academy their outdoor playground due to ambient noise from 16 children with the nearest neighbor between 60 to 80 feet away, and yet, on the other hand, staff would allow the Masons their outdoor entertainment area to create ambient noise from 600 people with the nearest neighbor on the other side of the fence? (See Attachment #4.) The Millers' hope is that you, the Planning Commissioners, will implement consistent recommendations. Please note that our City's mission statement is, "Pleasanton, a City of Character" and that character is making consistent decisions. Also, Jeb Bing, Editor of the Pleasanton Weekly newspaper, stated in his editorial on February 13, 2015, "Is Young Ivy Academy in the wrong location ?" when Young Ivy wanted to expand its use to an outdoor playground. The Millers are also asking, "Are the Masons in the wrong location ?" if they want to expand their use from a fraternity to a catering company and party venue ?" 4