06 ATTACHMENT 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

attorney's letter to the Planning Commission. And, unlike here, the difference there is the Scottish Right's organization had stopped using the facility. They weren't using it for their Scottish Right's activities. They stopped using it in 1993 or some years back. They weren't using it at all and they were just renting it out. So here, it's my understanding, and I could be wrong, that the Masons still hold functions there and also rent it out. So there's a mix that's common and allowed. Commissioner O'Connor: But is it the same organization having those meetings and they've lost their non - profit status and they're not really acting as a lodge? I know you're saying that you don't verify that, but if I came to you and said I'm a such and such lodge and I want to open up the building and I want to have commercial activities, would you allow me in an RM -2,500 zone without verifying what I'm telling you? Harryman: That's a difficult question to answer and it's just being raised now. My understanding is the Masons have been the Masons acting as a lodge and maybe hopefully someone's here from the Masons that can talk more to what they're doing there. I can't say whether in 1977 we checked if they submitted their paperwork to the State or not. I think at some point we might be concerned, but my understanding is, and again, I'm hoping the Masons are here, is that they have been acting as Masons whether they have their paperwork, tax returns properly filed and all that, I can't speak to that. That's not necessarily our focus but I suppose that after a certain amount of time if they were just venturing into commercial and they said they weren't who they said they were and it had changed then maybe at some point in time we may look at that. Commissioner Balch: Could I jump on that? So if you get an entitlement to operate a commercial business at a location and then you decide that you're going to change your business operations to something else and not that type of use, your entitlement doesn't go with you, and theoretically the process to ask is that you would come back to the Planning Commission to get an additional entitlement for that area or that location for what your operations are, correct? Harryman: Generally speaking I would say yes. One thing we talked about is that I don't know why the language in the code says "non- commercial lodge, religious facilities ". I don't know why they're non - commercial. I don't know what kind of a lodge other than lodging would be a commercial lodge, so I'm not sure why. One thing we talked about is cleaning that up in the ominous bill is to remove the commercial part because if you read it in context, it's that type of lodge and religious institutions; I don't think we use religious institutions there, but churches, etc., so I don't know why that language is in there. Commissioner Balch: But the premise is that if you're operating a business and then you start to operate a church that has an assembly of people in the same location, that is not going to be an entitlement you're allowed. You've got to come back through the process. Harryman: Yes, and if tomorrow the Masons stopped using the facility altogether like the Scottish Rights folks did down in Los Angeles, then that would be a problem. If it was purely commercial and they weren't having Mason functions there as an accessory use or ancillary use, then yes, that would be a problem. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 22, 2016 Page 3 of 52