SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - Laserfiche WebLink

2. The City staff omitted the Masons' violations of the relevant zoning codes now that the Lodge has morphed from a fraternity into a commercial business. a. General Plan The Masonic Lodge is operating in a General Plan designation of"public and institutional,"which prohibits commercial businesses. b. Zoning codes The Masonic Lodge property is designated as RM-2500, which is Multi-family Residential.The Masons are allowed in RM-2500 because of provision "J" of zoning code 18.36.040, which states that the lodge must be non-commercial. However,the lodge has now morphed into a commercial business. 3. The City staff omitted relevant case law regarding a Masonic Lodge in a residential area in Los Angeles. a. The Los Angeles court case is about a similar Masonic Lodge in a residential area that also morphed from a fraternity into a commercial party business (which was discussed in more detail in a prior email sent on Sept. 12). b. The court agreed that the City could order the Masons to stop their commercial party business because it was not related to any religious or non-profit activity, and therefore was purely commercial which is not allowed in a residential area. 4. The City staff omitted their decision in a relevant case—Young Ivy Academy. The Millers should have been given the same consideration for"ambient noise" that the City gave the neighbors surrounding Young Ivy Academy, a school for children. In the Young Ivy hearing,the City recommended to deny the school their outdoor playground to protect the neighbors from ambient noise. Why could staff be empathetic to ambient noise for neighbors next to a playground, and not empathetic to neighbors next to the Masons? Especially when the Masons' noise nuisance is so much greater than Young Ivy's noise nuisance?That is, Young Ivy's proposed playground is approximately 60 to 80 feet away from neighbors with only 16 children, versus the Masons' outdoor entertainment room,which is zero feet away from neighbors with a capacity of up to six hundred? 5. The City staff omitted that the Pleasanton Masonic Center lost its tax-exempt and non-profit statues. While the Masons claim that their non-profit status is being restored, the official IRS and Secretary of State Sites still list their status as revoke, as it has been since 2010. 6. The City staff omitted that the Pleasanton Masonic Center (PMC) does not have a Pleasanton business license.The Millers are dumbfounded as to why the City is allowing them to operate without a Pleasanton business license. 7. The City staff omitted that four times they have changed their reason for allowing use of the backyard. (See Attachment#1.) 8. The City staff omitted that the Millers and their attorney disagree with the staff's current interpretation of the noise codes excluding voices.