|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Pleasanton Planning Commission last week offered some regulatory relief to a beleaguered Jewish religious center, but not everybody was pleased.
The Chabad of the Tri-Valley, organized in 2005 by Rabbi Raleigh Resnick and his wife Fruma, bought the former Masonic Lodge at 3370 Hopyard Road for $2.5 million last year. The 8,000-square foot building now serves as a religious sanctuary with space for classrooms, community gatherings and food preparation.
There’s also about an acre of outdoor land, including a landscaped backyard that became a source of discord in the neighborhood when the Masons hosted parties there.
Those parties resulted in the city’s imposition of land use restrictions that are now hampering the new owners — the Chabad — from fully using its property.
At the 3-1/2-hour public hearing June 27, in a crowded City Council chamber, Resnick and other representatives of Chabad asked planners to change or cancel those restrictions.
Commissioners tweaked the restrictions to help Chabad without ignoring the opposition of Michael and Darlene Miller, whose Bryce Canyon home backs onto Chabad’s property. But Chabad’s attorney, James G. Schwartz, was not pleased.
“Unfortunately, there are still some conditions which Chabad cannot accept,” Schwartz told commissioners.
“Chabad is not prepared to relinquish one-third of its property with no uses allowed at all,” he said. “No other houses of worship (in Pleasanton) have such draconian measures. And many of their buildings and parking lots are a lot closer to neighborhoods than this one.”
“What is different about this property is only the people who occupy it,” he added. “We have a different player here, a different organization. One organization shouldn’t be held accountable because of some bad acts of another organization.”
Schwartz referred to a series of restrictions which commissioners voted 4-1 to approve that keeps in place a total ban on any outdoor activities on the grassy backyard of the Chabad building that extends north to the Millers’ property. Windows facing north must be kept closed at all times and the one door leading out to that backyard must be used only in emergencies. At one time, the Masons had French doors there for use during their backyard parties.
Planners agreed that Chabad can now operate a daycare/preschool for 48 children, but only on a westside patio/playground area that is no closer than 92 feet to the Millers’, and only during limited morning and afternoon hours and for no more than 25 children at a time.
City Planning Manager Ellen Clark acknowledged that the same type of daycare operation at Clare’s Episcopal Church, which shares a parking lot with Chabad, serves 76 children, is closer at 86 feet to another Valley Trails residence and has no playground or outdoor activities restrictions.
A survey by Clark’s staff also showed that daycare centers connected to six other Pleasanton religious groups serve more children with no city-imposed restrictions.
But the restrictions imposed by city planners June 27 went well beyond daycare. It also ruled that Chabad can hold only 15 outdoor events a year for its congregation and can use microphones and electronic amplification at only two of those, whether it’s for religious remarks or music. All other events must be held inside.
Again, Clark’s survey, as discussed at the Planning Commission hearing, showed that conditional land use approvals granted to other religious institutions have no restrictions on outside activities on their properties. These include recent permits issued to Crosspoint Church, St. Innocent Church and Ridgeview Hope Church.
“Who are these people to tell me where and how I can celebrate my religion?” asked Leonard Cooper at the hearing. “I believe you would be in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and I’m pretty upset about that.”
Said another speaker: “The services provided by Chabad at school and on the playground are a tremendous component for the people of Pleasanton. Limiting these activities or restricting Chabad in any way should be a wakeup call for other religious groups and preschools in this city.”
Another speaker, who said she’s lived in Valley Trails for 40 years: “I’m concerned that these rules will apply to other religions and affect outdoor activities for children. I’m concerned about Christians not being able to practice their religion as these rules are imposed.”
But the Chabad’s backyard neighbor Darlene Miller told the hearing: “We have a petition with 25 neighbors’ signatures asking that no outside activities should be allowed at the Chabad. Remember, noise does not distinguish the Masons from the Chabad. Noise is noise. It’s detrimental.”
Also at the rostrum June 27 was Darlene Miller’s husband, Michael, who said: “The question is what type of religious activities are going to be outside the building? Four have been identified as religious and we completely and totally support those and always have.”
“But they (Chabad) are asking for unlimited outdoor activities, both small and mid-size,” he continued. “There’s no religious justification of these at all. They are social activities. They can be very noisy and they can be occurring all day every day 365 days a year.
“Because they are social in nature with no religious connection, we would ask that you prohibit these from occurring,” Miller added.
Pleasanton’s community development director Gerry Beaudin said it was a tough decision.
“After the first hearing (on April 25), Chabad talked to the neighbors in an effort to come to some kind of an agreement on outdoor activities. But there was no resolution and, in fact, the two sides grew farther apart.”
One planner said he thinks it’s likely that the Millers or the attorney for the Chabad — or both — will appeal the Planning Commission’s decision. If that happens, the City Council can expect to hear many of the same comments when it takes up the appeal later this year.
It is understandable how the Miller’s want to limit activities of the Chabad and previously the Masonic Lodge. Noise can be very annoying, but we don’t live on large pieces of property and business often butt up to residential properties. Perhaps the Miller’s should not have purchased their house knowing it shared boundaries with a business. It’s like people who purchase homes near an airport and then want to shut down or severely limit the airports activities. It is wrong to limit one organizations use of their property, especially when similar organizations have not such limits.
It can be looked at the other way too, Chabad also knew about the noise issues that concerned the folks living there before they purchased….maybe they should have considered a different location too. The compromise seems reasonable.
The bottom line is, nearly every religious building in the City backs up to residential housing. If none of the others have restrictions, the City is looking to get into serious illegal territory if they insist on keeping these restrictions on the Chabad building.
I received a letter some months ago urging my attendance at this planning meeting in opposition to the Chabad. The letter extended well beyond the Millers’ concerns and bordered on what I considered anti Semitic, accusing the organization of being a bad neighbor for failing to upkeep and beautify the greater development beyond the perimeter of its land parcel. It made no sense as to why the Chabad should be held to a higher standard than any other organization or business in the community.
It sounds like Pleasanton needs to come up with some reasonable restrictions applicable to all residential neighborhood churches. The coptic church on Mirador doesn’t comply with these types of restrictions. I’m not complaining. They are good neighbors. But inconsistencies in restrictions makes no sense at all.
Fireworks were going off until midnight last night…that to me is a valid noise concern. Chabad is located right on Hopyard road. I would imagine that there is more noise coming from all the traffic on Hopyard than from gatherings that would take place at Chabad, social or otherwise. It doesn’t sound like Chabad is holding gatherings into the wee hours of the morning, so if they choose to have social gatherings, what of it? Have them all end by 11 p.m. or some reasonable time but to completely ban them seems to be over the line.
I agree with several of the point previously stated, the Millers bought knowing the commercial property was there, the rules should be for all preschools/churches in the city, not just this center. And I would suggest that Chabad be given the concerns of the neighbors and then left to use their judgement as to what makes a good neighbor. Perhaps limiting outside activities to 15/year with only two being able to use microphones is just a little too restrictive. Why is the new owner punished for the problems of the previous owner?
Actually to set the record straight, Mike bought the house in a private sale from a fellow church member well before he married Darlene, the hose next door sold in the same manner, we all attended the same church at that time, and yes the noise from Hopyard is ten times louder that anything from the Masons or Chabad.
“Why is the new owner punished for the problems of the previous owner?”
That is not necessarily why they have strict restrictions. Many comments on previous threads outlined the ways that the Resnick’s caused problems in their former neighborhood. A non-permitted day care, large and loud gatherings, a lot of their former neighbors gave first hand statements about their lack of concern for anyone else. If the planners considered those facts when making the restrictions then I applaud them. The Resnick’s were awful neighbors before and no one should expect any changes now. It’s not about religion! It’s about inconsiderate people!
“There’s no religious justification of these at all. They are social activities. They can be very noisy and they can be occurring all day every day 365 days a year. Because they are social in nature with no religious connection, we would ask that you prohibit these from occurring,” Miller added.
I have been attending Chabad of the Tri-Valley events since its founding in 2005, so I can say from firsthand experience that the above statement is patently false. Every Chabad event that I’ve been to during the last 13 years has had a religious connection. I come from a long way away and wouldn’t bother driving all the distance to attend a mere social event, as I could just as well do that near home with my secular friends. Whether it be the celebration of the long-ago release of a Chabad religious leader from a Russian Czarist jail, or the celebration of a birthday (which has religious significance) or a gathering of 10 or more men so that a mourner can say the Kaddish prayer, all events at Chabad are religious. Yes, of course they have a social aspect, but even the most holy observances on the Jewish calendar may look like a mere social gathering to the outside observer. Before I started attending Chabad events, I was only familiar with the major holidays that appear on a secular calendar. I have learned that there is a Jewish calendar full of religious observances that unfortunately have been all but forgotten about by most Jews in our secular society. I applaud Chabad for reconnecting me and other Jews to their religion through meaningful religious events, Torah study, and educational programs for children.
Need any proof that a Chabad event isn’t just a mere social event? Aside from celebrating an individual’s birthday, marriage, or mourning for a departed family member, the event is likely being celebrated at the same time by several thousand other Chabad houses around the country and the world. That is not a mere random social coincidence.
I think the city of Pleasanton should take a close look as to whether the planning commission’s recent decision is tantamount to restricting the free exercise of religion. Certainly arbitrarily restricting the number of events – or number of people who can attend the events – without any regard for the religious nature of the events seems to be a violation of the very first amendment of the constitution.
@PP, I don’t think RW is trying to say that all events are beyond regulation because they are religious. I think he or she is responding to no name’s statement that many of the uses are not religious.
As the Supreme Court has affirmed, day care and similar uses are religious to the extent that they afford the group the right to raise children as they wish according to their religion.
I think a good way to think about it is to imagine someone saying that Sunday Church is merely a pre-football game activity. Christians would be rightly offended. And for that, RW’s restraint is noteworthy.
I don’t think that religiousness is an excuse to be much louder than anyone else. But that’s not the argument here. It’s just to allow equality without prior restraint.
I personally don’t know what goes on there and I don’t quite care. So long as any other similarly situated group would be allowed.tlnhave a similarly loud event in similar areas, the city has no right to stop this group.
As for the zoning question, this is about a conditional use permit. A CUP let’s the city zone something for one use but waive it and allow another, which is fine. But when they use it to create non-zoning custom restrictions that targets one specific property without taking into account similar allowances eksewhere, they run the danger of abusing the CUP process, as I think they here.
You’re mostly correct Grumpy. However, I was responding to the quote by Michael Miller in the article, not no name’s comment. There was also a quote that said “Four (activities) have been identified as religious and we completely and totally support those and always have.” That sounds like they picked up a secular calendar and counted how many Jewish holidays were in there, and then concluded that if it’s not in the calendar, then it must not be religious. If that is their and the planning commission’s basis for deciding how many events to allow, then it is a flawed way of making that determination.
You hit the nail on the head with your analogy of someone saying that Sunday Church is merely a pre-football game activity. As I mentioned in my previous comment, it’s quite a drive for me to attend Chabad events in Pleasanton, but if I had to choose between driving to an event or going to a social gathering near home, I would probably choose to drive to Pleasanton because there is a religious and spiritual dimension to the events at Chabad that the social gatherings lack.
No name mentioned about how there were a lot of comments in a previous thread alleging that the Resnicks caused problems in their former neighborhood. Well, some of the neighbors there weren’t exactly angels. I had the unpleasant experience of being verbally assaulted by a neighbor with four-letter expletives when I walked back to my car which was legally parked around the corner from the Resnick’s house. This was completely unprovoked and occurred not long after the Resnicks initially moved in. Most of the neighbors seemed to be friendly and would greet me in the street, but there were a few that seemed bent on encouraging the Resnicks to move on. Now that they have, they’re facing opposition from a small group of neighbors again. It reminds me of people who move to a neighborhood that was built around an airport, and then they try to get the airport closed.
As I’ve mentioned before I live behind Chabad and know the people involved and my personal opinion is that we’re talking about NIMBY’ism and personal bigotry. When my previous dog got out thru an unlocked gate a few years ago Ms. Miller freaked out and sent an email blast throughout Valley Trails about the dangerous dog in an army jacket.
When we bought our house 32 yrs ago we knew it backed up to Hopyard and that eventually noise would be an issue, but we bought here for the schools and security. Now that Hopyard is a racetrack and my truck has been robbed of 3k worth of tools we will decide whether we move or not.
I do not see how the petty wishes of one couple outweighs the rights of 2 churchs. I think it’s time to pull up the big kid pants and practice those professed Christian ideals of loving thybrother.
Re-posted from another thread, same topic.
The opposition to Chabad activities says: “Noise is noise. It’s detrimental.”
According to this article, a City Planning staff survey “showed that daycare centers connected to six other Pleasanton religious groups serve *more children* with no city-imposed restrictions” and “conditional land use approvals granted to other religious institutions have *no restrictions on outside activities* on their properties. These include recent permits issued to Crosspoint Church, St. Innocent Church and Ridgeview Hope Church.” [*emphasis mine]
It sure looks like the only “noise” that’s “detrimental” to a few of Chabad’s neighbors is the “noise” of Jewish children playing, or Chabad families gathered socially in celebration.
The kicker? “[T]he same type of daycare operation at Clare’s Episcopal Church, which shares a parking lot with Chabad, serves 76 children, is closer at 86 feet to another Valley Trails residence and has no playground or outdoor activities restrictions.”
I guess Episcopalian “noise” just . . . isn’t.
—o0o—
Frankly, to me, the imposition of restrictions on Chabad that no other religiously-associated daycare has feels like passive support of the kind of policy the hate-driven politics espoused by holocaust-denier John Fitzgerald would drive. The time to stand up and say “Not in my town!” is now.
[see PW Topic: “Danville: Congressional challenger Fitzgerald is open Holocaust denier”]
Wait guys, this doesn’t add up.
If the neighbors (or specific family) is sensitive to noise – claims of nimbys, then this is a noise issue and they would be equally irritated by st Claire noise vs chabad, as they are only complaining of chabad, then that suggests the noise generated between the two is different. Again the complaint about noise, not religion. The neighbor complaint about the dog supports the millers may just have a low tolerance on neighborhood interactions- nothing religion based.
Now they may be hyper sensitive, but again, we should not address bigotry as the issue if noise sensitivity really is the problem
The Millers: “The question is what type of religious activities are going to be outside the building?” . . .”There’s no religious justification of these at all. They are social activities.” . . . “Because they are social in nature with no religious connection, we would ask that you prohibit these from occurring.”
“no outside activities should be allowed at the Chabad”
—
The Planners: “Chabad can now operate a daycare/preschool for 48 children, but only on a westside patio/playground area that is no closer than 92 feet to the Millers’, and only during limited morning and afternoon hours and for no more than 25 children at a time.” However, “the same type of daycare operation at Clare’s Episcopal Church, which shares a parking lot with Chabad, serves 76 children, is closer at 86 feet to another Valley Trails residence and has no playground or outdoor activities restrictions.”
—
Pleasanton Parent: “this doesn’t add up” . . .”as they are only complaining of chabad, then that suggests the noise generated between the two is different.”
PP, you’re right. It doesn’t add up. It’s discrimination hiding behind a “noise” complaint.
Children are inherently noisy . . . especially when they’re healthy, happy and in a safe environment. But in no way do 25 (or even 48) Jewish children make more “detrimental” noise than 76 Episcopalian children.
Any social gathering, whether overtly “religious” or not, has some attendant noise. Any social gathering hosted by, held at, or that is a part of synagogue/church/mosque/temple life has some intrinsic “religious” aspect – whether it’s held inside or outside. While conceding that 4 activities Chabad held were “religious” and that they “completely and totally support those and always have”, the Miller’s bottom line is that “no outside activities should be allowed at the Chabad”.
PP, you’re right again. Chabad is “different”. It’s Jewish.
Just a reminder that, although slippery slope arguments aren’t usually true, they can be and are in questions of fundamental rights.
If we let the city take the rights away of one religious group unreasonably, we are at risk of them taking it away from others just as unreasonably.
As I said before, I hope the city has some good sense to undo this before it becomes a major problem.
Is there a legal difference between zoning restrictions and restrictions mentioned in the article? I don’t agree that this location should have different zoning restrictions than St. Claire’s or the other Church / Daycare center across the parking lot. I would however support individual (temporary) restrictions placed on the ownership based on bad behavior – that would be reviewed and removed if certain criteria were met over time.
Which is the case here?
Road Warrior,
If I go back to my religious roots, it was a “religious act” to take shots of whisky and shoot guns during a wedding.
Point being, at the center of all religion is faith, beyond that circle is people, any gathering of people to celebrate a unified event (birthday, wedding, religious holiday) can therefore be defined as religious in nature. That in itself doesn’t take precedents in zoning limitations or restrictions based on past incidents.
I agree, if there are zoning differences between the Chabad Center and St. Claire’s (outside of architectural driven limitations) then you’ve got a good complaint here. If however, these restrictions are based on previous noise violations and complaints, and the issue isn’t the type of event but that the noise it creates as a result (i.e. control the noise, and hold the event) this makes sense if a limited restriction that is monitored and opened up given performance against.
………and to continue, if I’m correct in what I think is happening, you’re choosing the right to make “noise” over the “coming together” which is more of the importance of the religious event – sorry for oversimplifying, but I think you follow the point.