06 ATTACHMENT 5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Design Review, during the eight years that the Millers have been fighting this issue through meetings, emails, and phone calls with the City, and most recently through a comprehensive document emailed on Sept. 26, 2014. The Millers' attorney also made the City aware of these violations in a letter dated December 20, 2012 to the City Attorney, Jonathan Lowell with copies to Nelson Fialho and Brian Dolan. o The City omitted this information in the 2015 staff report to you. V. The Millers' attorney, in the same letter mentioned above, made the City aware of 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. o The City omitted this information in the 2015 staff report to you. VI. The Millers provided proof that the use of the lodge has changed from a fratemity to a commercial entity by documenting both the revenues and the hours -of -use of the building for fraternal activities versus commercial activities. The commercial revenues are 2 to 4 times the membership dues from the fraternity (as documented by the Masons in their tax returns), and the building is used 4% of the time for lodge meetings versus 96% of the time for commercial uses (as estimated by the Millers). Therefore, the building is no longer a Masonic fraternity but rather a commercial business which rents its building to the Masonic fraternity for a minor level of use. o The City omitted this information in the 2015 staff report to you. VII. The Millers not only claim that the Pleasanton Masonic Center is violating the City's codes but also that the City is violating its own codes. o In 2004, the City incorrectly approved a building permit, without design review. This allowed the Masons to break through the back wall of the banquet room to add glass French doors and access the backyard. But more importantly, this allowed the Masons to make the building changes without any public notice or hearing, that is, without public scrutiny. This action violated the due process rights of residents, denying the Millers and other residents in Pleasanton the opportunity to comment on the significant use change. o In 2005, the City incorrectly approved, without public notice or hearing, a commercial catering company to reside in the building. In fact, the only documentation granting the Masons a catering company is a letter sent by Planner Jenny Soo without the normal use variance form, that is, Application for Zoning Approval. This action violated the due process rights of residents, denying the Millers and other residents in Pleasanton the opportunity to comment on the significant use change. o Most importantly, the City is not enforcing its own codes. For the past eight years, the City has not told the Masons to stop using the backyard area. Instead of enforcing the codes, the City has mediated. Mediation is not appropriate when there is a clear violation of the codes. How would you respond if while you are driving your car, you are hit by another car who has ran a red light, and the officer says, "Let's mediate," instead of enforcing the traffic codes and writing a ticket to the other driver? 22