06 ATTACHMENT 5 - Laserfiche WebLink

o The Millers believe that their efforts have motivated the Masons to reduce the number of outdoor activities, but without a resolution from the City, the Masons could resume activity at any time. o The leadership of the Masons could change at any time, and the new leadership may wish to pursue increased commercial activity at the site. o The Millers need to restore the damage to their property value. An appraiser estimated the damage to the property at 3% to 5 %, or possibly even 100% if the Millers could not sell at all due to buyers preferring homes without noise nuisances. At current market values, this is between $25,500 and $42,500, or possibly even $850,000 if the Millers could not sell at all. Note: noisy neighbors are required by law to be disclosed on realtor sales forms. o The illegal glass French doors installed facing the Millers are not sound rated and therefore, even if the Masons contain the parties inside, loud music still bleeds through creating a noise nuisance. These doors need to be changed to STC rated doors or solid doors if the Masons want to continue to have loud music in the dining hall with the "boom, boom, boom" bass sounds creating vibrations and noise. o The Millers are not only fighting for themselves, but for everyone in Pleasanton since this issue has far reaching implications for every Pleasanton resident. If the City allows entities in residential areas to violate their CUPs and morph into commercial establishments at will, no one who lives next to such establishments will be safe. o If Pleasanton is a City of Character, which is what we all want it to be, the City must keep its promises and enforce its codes. Otherwise, this is an empty slogan. 10. Page 4 -5 of the 2015 Staff Report discusses the 1977 staff report and states, "To direct noise away from the residential uses, the [1977) staff report suggested prohibiting openings on the North and West sides of the structure. The Planning Commission approval did not prohibit such openings but did state in Condition No. 1 '...that the buildings be designed so that activities will be focused toward the southern portion of the subject property. "' • The statement above by staff is incorrect. In fact, the 1977 Planning Commission approval did prohibit such openings. This was discussed in #2 above. • Furthermore, staff makes no statement as to how the City is currently allowing activities on the northern portion of the property when Condition No. 1 clearly states, "Activities will be focused toward the southern portion of the subject property." To be very clear, because this is such an important point, since the Millers house and the Masons backyard area are both on the north side, activities in the backyard area violate Condition No. 1, and should have been stopped 8 years ago. 11. Page 5 of the 2015 Staff Report discusses the 2003 building permit issued by the City, "In June 2003, a building permit was issued to remove the existing kitchen door on the north elevation and install a new double /French door on the north elevation at the dining hall (Exhibit F}." • The 2015 staff report omits stating that the building permit was incorrectly issued by the City's Building Department. Since the lodge is a building that required design review to be built, it therefore needs design review before any changes are made to the structure. However, the Masons did not seek a design review, and the City's building department 16