SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - Laserfiche WebLink

Annette Brecheisen Subject FW: Millers' rebuttal to staffs report for Sept. 20 hearing AND other important issues-- please read before Tuesday's hearing Attachments: CUP for Sept. 20 Council hearing.docx; Rebuttal to Sept. 20 council hearing staff report vl (1).docx From:Jenny Soo Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 11:58 AM To: Karen Diaz<kdiaz @cityofpleasantonca.gov>; Karen Gonzales<kg onzales @cityofpleasantonca.gov> Subject: FW: Millers' rebuttal to staffs report for Sept. 20 hearing AND other important issues--please read before Tuesday's hearing SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Provided to the City Council FYI After Distribution of Packet From: Darlene Miller [mailto: j 9/f y/�4j Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 2:16 AM Date / To: Jerry Thorne; Kathy Narum; Jerry Pentin; Arne Olson; Karla Brown Cc: Gerry Beaudin; Adam Weinstein; Jenny Soo; Julie Harryman; Dan Sodergren; • Subject: Millers' rebuttal to staff's report for Sept. 20 hearing AND other important issues--please read before Tuesday's hearing Hello Councilmembers, 1. Staffs September 20 report contains numerous errors and omissions. These errors and omissions are included in the attached document. 2. Also attached are the Millers' proposed conditional use permit. 3. But more importantly ... We have been asked, "Why do you think staff is refusing to enforce their own codes?"We do not know why—we may never know. But the fact remains that the staffs refusal to enforce the codes has created a tremendous cost for us—no different than a robber breaking into our home and steeling from us. Both our money and time were stolen. We have accumulated approximately $15,000 in legal fees and sound engineer fees—but that is only the beginning. Our time has been stolen as well. We have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours researching, writing documents, holding meetings with the City, and meeting with neighbors. This negatively impacted our careers, our ability to help others in our church, our stress levels, and even our health. This never should have happened to us. Staff simply should have enforced the codes. We should have been given the same consideration for"ambient noise"that staff gave the neighbors surrounding Young Ivy Academy, a school for children. In that hearing, staff recommended to deny the school their 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?We hope that council will demand an explanation for staff not enforcing their own codes. Even with the tremendous cost that we have paid, we are continuing our fight because this has become a righteous fight for us. We do not want staff to continue to operate in this manner. We are shining a light on staffs behavior in the hope that it will prevent other residents from going through what we had to endure. We want to make the council aware of how staff has behaved in the hope that the Council will demand an explanation for staffs behavior. We are grateful to God that we not only have the financial resources, but also the education and corporate experience to be able to carry on this fight. This fight has taken so many resources, which many people in this area simply don't have, and which prevents others from fighting a righteous fight when staff refuses to enforce its own codes—hence many of these fights go undetected. Pleasanton displays on the side of its police cars, "Pleasanton, a City of Character."We love our city of Pleasanton, but 1