My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
06 ATTACHMENT 5
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2016
>
092016
>
06 ATTACHMENT 5
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2016 1:07:49 PM
Creation date
9/15/2016 3:40:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
9/20/2016
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
06
Document Relationships
06
(Message)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2016\092016
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
215
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment #4— The City's justification of the code <br />violations via "accessory use" is not valid <br />The City is overriding zoning codes with Accessory Use <br />Provision 18.08.595, which states: <br />• "'Accessory use means a use which is appropriate, subordinate, and customarily incidental to the <br />main use of the site and which is located on the same site as the main use." <br />• That is, the "accessory use" provision allows exceptions qualified by "appropriate, subordinate and <br />customarily incidental." <br />The "accessory use" provision is invalid because: <br />Case law conflicts with the City's- decision <br />A. There is case law in Los Angeles with another Masonic lodge in which the court decided that <br />commercial activities in a residential zone do not constitute an allowable (i.e., accessory) use and <br />ordered that the Masons cease and desist commercial activities. <br />"Appropriate, subordinate & customarily incidental" conflicts with <br />the City's use <br />B. A catering company and banquet facility are not an "appropriate" use for a Masonic Lodge whose <br />primary function is non -profit meetings for members only. That is, how do loud parties with alcohol <br />support the Masons' primary function of holding meetings to impart moral teachings to its members ?' <br />(See the Masons' website.) Furthermore, the Los Angeles court, as detailed above in "A :, upheld that <br />the mere fact that the funds collected might eventually help support an allowable use did not convert <br />the commercial use of the property from a nonconforming use into an allowable use. <br />C. A catering company and banquet facility is not a "subordinate" (of lesser importance) and "customarily <br />incidental" (not a major part of something) use for a Masonic Lodge when the revenues and hours of <br />use for the catering company and banquet facility far outweigh that of the Masonic use. Commercial <br />revenues are 2 to 4 times the revenues from member dues (estimated from tax retums –see <br />Attachment 3), and commercial hours of use are 96% of total hours versus 4% for member meetings <br />(estimated by the Millers–see the next,paae). That is, the catering company and banquet facility are <br />the major use of the lodge, which has overtaken the use of the lodge for member meetings. (Should <br />we change the name from the Masonic Lodge to the Masonic Catering Company and Banquet <br />Facility ?) <br />' No one is safe—this has wide- reaching implications for residents <br />0. The interpretation of 'accessory use' used by the City would allow a church to open a furniture store <br />and a school to open a car repair shop. <br />E. If the City's interpretation of accessory use holds, no Pleasanton resident is safe who lives near a <br />church, school, private lodge, etc. This has wide reaching implications for the residents of <br />Pleasanton. <br />But more importantly, this issue has exposed the philosophy of the current Planning Department, <br />which is the exact opposite of the Planning Commission in 1977 as well as past planners in prior <br />years—who were pro - neighbor. Today it is the Millers' fight with the Masonic lodge, but tomorrow <br />who knows how the current Planning Department's philosophy will impact citizens of Pleasanton. <br />. And finally, Mr. Dolan's own words, in a 2011 letter to the EV Free Church, would instruct the City to <br />not apply the accessory use code in a way that conflicts with the General Plan. <br />Page 10 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.