Loading...
PC MINS 198907110 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 11, 1989 The meeting was called to order at 7.35 p in by Chairperson Wike at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes. PRESENT: Von Hagen, Wike, McNulty, Connolly ABSENT: Ortolano Also present were Environmental Services Director Robert Benard, Planning Administrator Curtis Williams, Associate Planner Laurie Brigham, Associate Planner Carolynn Petru, Assistant Planner Lisa Marie Breisacher and Assistant Planner Bonnie Olson COMMUNICATIONS Chairperson Wike reported that a letter was received from Mr William Hassoldt formalizing his request for his item to be continued Staff recommends con- 441 tinuance e Chairperson Wike reported that she and all the Com- missioners received a letter from the Miialeste Homes Association as well as a letter from the Miralestei ---K —copy of—tfi-e—i�r—antDeed dealing with that same issue was given to Chairperson Wike by Cheryl Caughlin, representing the Miraleste HOA. At thel request of the Chair, a copy of the Grant Deed dealing with that same issue was received. Chairperson Wike reported receiving a notice from' �'—Ca-rff—orni-a—Cities regardingtheir prannual conf.erence CONSENT CALENDAR: which would be -e-sented later i -in- -- the �imeeting. A. MINUTES OF MAY 9, 1989, and B. MINUTES OF MAY 23, 1989. These items were removed by Chairperson Wike and discussed after Items C and D of Consent Calendar. During the discussion Mr. Benard explained that the reason for the unsatisfactory minutes for these _nieel,- ings was that the Recording Secretary had left without transcribing a full copy of the minutes. The Commissioners then approved the minutes, with Commissioner Wike opposed -,(stating they wereinadequateas they did not contain the names and addresses of those testifying). C. MINUTES OF JUNE 1, 1689 The minutes of June 1, 1989 were appioved unalli- mously D. P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 89 sustaining the appeal of Height Variation No. 596 thereby denying the project at 2022 Mendon Drive. This item was approved unanimously Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: July 11, 1989 2 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. ZONE CHANGE NO. 18, COASTAL PERMIT NO. TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 506; Transamerica Development Co., southwest corner of Palos Verdes Drive South and Yacht Harbor Drive Mr Benard informed those present that the notice for this item was. in error and --3 that corrected notices had been sent � out. He then stated that while it was preferable to give testimony at the piiblic hearing, those present to give testimony could do so at this time if they would_ be unable to attend the public hearing. Commissioner Von Hagen moved to continue to July 25, 1989 and the motion was seconded. Since there were no objections, this item was moved to July 25. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10 - REVISION, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 223 - REVISION; South Bay Archery Club (Bob Pinkerton) and Barry & Valerie Hon, Portuguese Bend Landslide Area. Associate Planner Laurie Brigham presented the staff report on the request to allow a rov- ing field archery range in the Portuguese Bend Landslide, Ms. Brigham stated that the Archery Club was originally granted approval for archery use in 1975 and utilized the area until the summer of 1986 when the grading for the landslide stabilization project began She further noted that. in February of this year the Planning Commission re -viewed a proposal to locate the club in the vacant quarrN, site off Forrestal, and that due to conflicts with existing uses on that site, the Commission directed the club to explore alternative locations for the range. As background information, Ms Brigham outlined the club's planned times of usage and stated that minimal disturbance to the site is proposed She pointed out that the club is sanctioned and insured through the National Field Archery Association which has strict regulations regarding the layout of targets, shooting lanes, trails and site distances. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. July 11, 1989 She noted that after discussions with the Public Works Dept., the Recreation and Parks Department, and the Trails Committee, Staff and these various de- partments and representatives from the Archery Club met at the proposed relocation in the landslide. Ms. Brigham stated that concerns of these depart- ments as well as the Fire Department have been incorporated as conditions for approval for the project She mentioned Staff's concern that the proposed range extends too far to the west and that Staff believes the western edge of the range should be defined by an area where the road and a drainage pipe converge, which creates a definite visual and physical barrier, and to further define this western boundary a split rail or other fence should be constructed. In conclusion Ms Brigham stated that Staff believes the proposed roving field archery range complies with the granting of a CUP in an Open Space Haz- ard Zone and recommends that the Commission approve the application with conditions. Chairperson Wike asked for questions There were none. Chairperson Wike opened the public hearing. Speaking in support of the archery range was Mr. Bruce Primm, 17520 Elgar, Torrance,CA as a representative for Mr. Bob Pinkerton. Mr Primm agreed with the conditions in the Staff report, including the split rail fence, if necessary, and the telephone. He expressed confusion about a bound- ary discrepancy in the report. and Chairperson Wike asked Ms Brigham to explain the reason for the split rail fence Commissioners Connolly and Von Hagen addressed the issue of fire danger in the remote canyon and difficulty of policing such areas. Mr. Primm assured them that thea don't usually allow smoking during shooting except in the registration area.. He stated that the club preferred the remote area because, based on past experience, they found they could do their sport without being a. bother to anyone Commissioner Connolly was also concerned about interference with de -watering wells on the property and Ms. Brigham reported that there would be no interference. She also stated that the club would be aware of the short weekly inspections of the pipe running through the range and would not use the range at those times 3 The following people spoke against the approval Mrs. Daphne E. Clark, 10 Peppertree Drive, Portuguese Bend, CA, representing PBCA and Ms. Jean Smolley, 56 Limetree Lane, RPV, representing the six homes closest to the archery range. Their main concerns were the hazard to people in view of the increase of passive use of the area for ,dogging, hiking, walking dogs,etc., the use of firearms in the area, smoking, drinking, improper ,trash disposal and the danger to wildlife which was just beginning ,to come back after being disturbed when the city graded to stabilize ,the landslide. Mrs. Clark reported that there had already been one serious fire there. Mrs. Smolley pointed out that when the original CUP was granted, the residents were unaware of it. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 1989 4 She cited considerable consumption of beer during the past usage. Regarding firearms, she reported that the Sheriff's Dept.'s investigation of gunshots went as far as the paved road. She expressed deep concern about monitoring the condition prohibiting alcohol and firearms When questioned by Comnussioner McNulty about the possibility of other people who had access being responsible for the gunfire, Mrs. Smalley renhe-d-thatsince the Archery Clubjeft there had ___//' - been no gunshots, even though continued use of the area occurs. Responding to the concerns of Mrs Clark and Ms. Smolley was Mr Lynn Cicotte, 26447 Basswood Avenue, RPV, representing the Archery Club. Mr.. Cicotte wanted to clarify the beer situation. _ ge stated that although there was no question there was beer -drinking in the past, there has been a change in the regulations because of the insurance problem. In order to get insurance, they had to cut out the use of beer at all archery- tournaments in So California Beer is no longer allowed on the range, so is no longer going to be ZIN problem. ;Ile addressed the concern about people and wildlife being injured ulby arrows Mr'. Cicotte pointed out that the archers use tournament arrows which are not tipped with hunting arrows. The arrows are shot at straw bales and the shooting is strictly controlled. As far as people coming on the range, the club has never considered it a. problem or a. danger and welcomes anyone CfEl_wno wants to come '"te cited their unblemished record -not a single accident since the club was founded in 1951 Regarding firearms, Mr;. Cicotte stated ;that as far as the club is concerned, firearms are the worst thing you can bring on the range, and they are not allowed. A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing. Chairperson Wike closed the public hearing. Commissioner discussion Commissioner Connolly stated that he liked the information provided by those for and against In general he supported the club, but only with the condi- tion that it has the blessing of the Trails Committee, and suggested that the Commission get input from the Trails Committee. FIs. Brigham_ then informed the Commission that the chair of the Trai s Committee did go out to the site with representatives from the Parks Dept., Public Works Dept and members of the Archery Club. She stated that the trails. in the Trails Network Plan are above the archery range. The consensus was. that although it is an extensively used trail there was no conflict between the trail and the archery because the road really forms the boundary. They -saw no safety concern, but suggested that signage should be put up so people don't wander off trails into the archery area. 0 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: July 11, 1989 0 5 Commissioner Wike wanted signs to show where the trails are and where the archery range is so people won't wander into the range and she asked who would be responsible for installing the signs Ms. Brigham replied that the Archery Club would be, although the City would approve the exact languages and .19 cation s. - t Commissioner McNulty expressed the opinion that the Archery Club takes safety very seriously and stated that he supports the usage as long as the conditions are met. Chairperson 'Alike agreed with Commissioner McNulty and reminded the Archery Club that there is a clause stating that if they fail to comply with any of the conditions such as alcohol, firearms, etc., the City has the right to revoke the privilege of operating in that area immediately Commissioner Von Hagen was not convinced that it's the best location, but stated that apparently there is no reasonable alternative. He was in favor of putting the strongest teeth possible into the enforcement of the conditions. Commissioner McNulty moved that the staff recommendation be approved with conditions and Commtsp,;�o g _yQg Haen.se-c onded the motion. Chairperson Wike suggested to Ms. Brigham that it may be wise to add that if signage is needed in other locations that that be included. The motion was unanimously approved. C. VARIANCE NO. 235, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 71; William Hassoldt, 203 Seascape Chairperson Wike stated that the Commis- sion has a letter asking for continuance to July 25 and asked if anyone wished to make a recommendation on this continuance. Af- ter checking with Planning Administrator Williams to make sure July 25 was. not be- ing filled up with continuances, it was moved and seconded to continue to July 25 with no objections. D. VARIANCE NO. 238, Tadaaki Fujima, 4222 Exultant Drive - garage encroaching 12 feet into required 20 yard setback. Assistant Planner Lisa Marie Breisa,cher pre- sented the Staff Report The encroachment would result in an 8 foot setback from the property line to the proposed structure Planning Commission Meeting Afinutes* July 11, 1989 6 After construction was underway, the plans were found to be inaccurate and a stop work order was issued for the garage portion of the addition. She noted that the error was not identified until the framing stage of construction and further noted that although the plan submitted by the applicant did not identify the vroi)ertv line correctly, Staff approved these plans in error.Based on a _p_r_QMaB_j_on in the code regarding administrative error, granting the variancel would not be detrimental to the public welfare or the surroundingi area, and would not be contrary to the objectives of the general plan. Staff recommends that the variance be approved and adoptioh of the resolution. Commissioner McNulty was concerned about better inspection and pointed out that the error should have been caught in the concrete or footing inspections. He asked if there were some kind of checklist Mr. Benard stated that at the time this _ u "Arse d,thelQ were-seN ral fall back inspections, but that there is no fail-safe system. He informed the Commission that as a result of this application, there will be a renewal of the training program with the building inspectors on some of the basics of the planning code so that they are sensitive to such things as setback placement. In response to a question about the '—pqssibility of changing the design, Mr. Benard replied that--they— had tried to find some way to modify the structure, but'that out- side of demolition there is no way to modify it. Commissioner Wike to - — asked if it wouldn't 15e wise conditions for an automatic. garage door opener on this so there would be just a little setback there. Mr. Benard stated that is the usual practice with short diive- ways and the condition can be accommodated. Commissioner Wike was also concerned about a covenant for vegetation. Mr. Benard said that Staff will add language for the rollup door and the landscape covenant and b— ring the item+ —back to the -T—omm ss on. Regarding the waiver matter, Commissioner Wike felt a waiver was warranted and asked if it wouldn't be better to leave the fee waiver matter up to the City Council Mr. Benard reported that in case of administrative error, the code does call for waiver through the department, but that Staff had opted not to recommend the waiver, in which case the applicant would have to go to CAN Council. It, was revealed that the applicant himself had drawn the plans Commissioner McNulty suggested that the applicant's contractor go to City Council. Chairperson Wike opened the public hearing Ted Nakasuji, 2273 Canehill Avenue. Mr. Nalasuji, a representative of Coast Construct ion spoke for the applicant He stated that the plans were drawn and submitted by the applicant and that his firm was just contracting to do the building itself He expressed his firm's willingness to go to City Council and go through the necessary procedures. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: Juty 11, 1989 Commissioner Connolly moved to close the public hearing and Com- misioner Von Hagen seconded the motion. Chairperson Wike closed the public hearing. Commissioner Discussion Commissioner Von Hagen saw no reason to waive the fees and Commissioner Wike explained that the only reason she suggested it was because she could tell the plans were not drawn by a professional architect, which should have alerted Staff to look at them even more closely than usual. She felt that the applicant was entitled to have his fees waived because if it were not for Staff error the applicant would not be there requesting a variance Commissioner Von Hagen felt that the applicant should pay the fees because he is getting his garage Commissioner McNulty moved the Staff recommendation with the additional condition that there be a rollup automatic garage door instead of a kickout, and a landscape covenant. Commissioner Von Hagen seconded the motion. -he variance was ungnimqRsIX approved with the conditions that -were added. VI. CONTINUED BUSINESS: A. SEACLIFF HILLS DEVELOPMENT FENCE, WALL AND HEDGE GUIDELINES Chairperson Wike removed this item tern- porarily and placed it after item C of new business. 7 Associate Planner Carolynn Petru presented the Staff Report with Staff's recommemdation that the Planning Commis.sion adopt the Sea - cliff Hills Development Fence, .Wall, and Fledge Guidelines as proposed. Mr Benard informed the Commission that this was the fourth time the matter has come to the Commission, that the recommendations at the last meeting were very specific, and bad been incorporated Chairperson Wike's only objection was that she would like to see some restric- tion regarding multiple 42 inch fencing or retaining walls along PV Dave South. Mr Benard pointed out that that issue was discussed at the last meeting, but if it was the pleasure of the Commission, Staff would add that restriction. He stated that. Staff's only concern was that would be denying a development right that Staff feels goes beyond the discretion of the Commission; c 0 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: July 11, 1989 • Ms Petru was commended for a nice job on the project. Commissioner McNulty moved approval of Staff recommendation. Commissioner Connolly seconded the motion. The motion was ap- proved without objection. VII. NEW BUSINESS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23 "11", GRADING NO. 1253; Grant Wilson, 3407 Palo Vista. Assistant Planner Bonnie Olson presented the Staff Report of this application, which is a request to approve a revision to original foot- prints specified in Conditional Use Permit No. 23 for a new single family residence. M Ms Olson reported that this project complies with setbacks, height, grading and retaining wall standards Although the applicant has technically complied with the 20% open space requirement, Staff felt that the proposed residence does not comply with the intent of the Seacliff Hills Development Guidelines for open space and compatibility with the hillside emdronment. Staff also felt that the house would have a bulky and boxy appearance and that the applicant should be encouraged to consider more relief in the upper level by stepping or offsetting the building facade Staff also recommended considering other roof r:ffiies, reducing a 5 foot retaining wa to tenches zn eig t by backfilling in front of the wall and screening with landscaping to restore the slope's natural contour and mitigate the negative visual impact of the three proposed retaining walls in thefrontyard of the property. Staff feels that the project should be redesigned to ad- - - dress these concerns and recommends that the applicant be directed to redesignffi6__r_4i_side_nE_e_to address facade setbacks and roof line issues per adopted Conditional Use Permit 1123 Development Guidelines. Commissioner Connolly commended Ms. Olson on an excellent job in giving photographic summary of houses that don't meet the guidelines Mr. Grant Wilson, 5300 Fairview Blvd. Mr. Wilson pointed out that lie hired a, local architect because he felt be would be sensitive to the conditions of RPV. He felt that the home they planned is consistent with and in ---keeping with the character of homes already constructed and asked that consideration be given to approval of Alternate #1, their proposed design. Commissioner Von Hagen asked if the architect was not aware of the guidelines when planning started. Planning Commission Meeting Klin u tes: July 11, 1989 Mr. Tim Racisz, 3480 Torrance Blvd., Ste. 300, Torrance. Mr Racisz contended that, as Staff notes in the report, the house meets the guidelines, and that what was being discussed was a question of intent or degree -a subjective matter. He expressed his firm's willingness to meet the city's criteria as well as Mr. Wilson's but differed with Staff about the house not having, relief. 9 Upon discovering the names of the other two houses Mr Racisz designed, Commissioner Von Hagen stated that both those' houses had some of the same questions. There was a need to soften the stark rigidity of :ibe walls. While admitting that the guidelines are subjective, he pointed out that the, issues raised in the Staff Report are the very issues for which they felt the guidelines were necessary He felt that the issue would have to be dealt with on this application tonight if the guidelines are going to be effective Mr. Benard stated that the points Commissioner Von Hagen makes are really germane to what the concern is regarding the deNelopment of this tract. Staff's main concern was to get a facade that was relieved to the rear, not one that, went straight up two stories. He pointed out that the Commission has full discretion on the design and felt they had full discre= tion on the interpretation -of how the guidelines should be employed. Chairperson Wike directed the attention of the applicant's architect to Ex A #5 and asked if his client had any future plans for adding a swimming pool or spa because they are already at maximum lot coverage and further reduction of open space would be frowned on She mentioned that there has been a great deal of difficulty with Seacliff Hills in regard to following the guidelines There was a discussion about reducing the slope of the driveway. Commissioner Connolly agreed with Chairperson Wike's recommendation to see if the slope of the riveway could be reduced. During the discussion, Mr. Benard expressed Staff's willingness to have the project include addi= tional grading in order to get a lower slope. Chairperson Wike expressed the opinion that it might be better to keep the slope of the driveway as is rather than to cut into the slope farther and have more retaining walls. Commissioner Connolly moved Staff alternative #3, directing ap- plicant to redesign and address setback. Commissioner Von Hagen seconded the motion. Unanimously passed.�___ B. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 589- APPEAL- Elwood and Emily Culp (Appellant), Andreas and Clarinda Kotowski (Landowner), 2315 Sunnyside Ridge Rd. Associate Planner Laurie M. Brigham pre- sented the Staff Report, disclosing that Height Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. July 11, 1989 10 Variation 589 was approved based on Staff's findings that no significant impair- ment would result from any portion of the addition over Win height This approval was appealed by Elwood & Emily Culp, who reside next door Ms Brigham noted that the project had been approved with three conditions 1 height. reduction, 2 that a landscape covenant be recorded, and 3 �1+ window be relocated to protect the privacy of an adjacent neighbor The s applicant's property has a panoramic view of the ocean harbor to the mountains, including city lights which can be seen from the living room, dining room, master bedroom and yard, with the dining room and adjacent deck being established as the primary t viewing area. Staff recommended dismissal of the appeal and up- holding Staff_approval with conditions.. In the discussion that followed, it was established that the family room had been mis-identified in the Staff Report as a dining room The following people spoke for the appeal. Mr. Robert E. Lewis, principal speaker for the Culps, Mr. & Mrs. Culp, 2321 Sunnyside Ridge Road, RPV, Mr. lrasnk Politeo, A.I.D., 809 So. Gaffey Street, San Pedro, CA and Mrs. Edie Pearson, 2618 Sunnyside Ridge Road. The points they raised were view blockage, identification of the primary view- ing area different from Staff's, CC& R. restrictions, site constraints on the lot, single -story neighborhood, lowering of property values because of view blockage; burden of proof resting with the applicant because this is a variance, that the addition significantly impacts the primary view because it changes the orienta- tion of that view -they lose the panorama and the city scene which relates to the -harbor and geta s.tilte�7c�harbor ocean view; and that the Home- owner Association denied the second story because of view impact. Mrs Culp read a letter from a neighbor who was unable to attend this meeting, expressing concern about 2nd story additions in the neighborhood and stating that the strong appeal of the neighborhood was that each neighbor had an unobstructed view Mr Politeo remarked that he had refused to do the 2nd story addition for the Kotowski's as well as others in RPV because of the city's restrictions regarding view blockage. Mrs Pearson's concerns were fear that approval for this 2nd story addition would set a precedent and that with additional 2nd story additions the character of the neighborhood would be changed The following people spoke against the appeal. Mr. and Mrs. Andy Ko- towski, 2315 Sunnyside Ridge Rd., RPV, Mr. John Absmeier, Archi- tect, 85 Rockinghorse Rd., RPV, and Mr. Vince McManus, 2443Sun- nyside Ridge Road, RPV. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 1989 11 The Kowtowskis' main concerns were the need for more room for a growing family, their conviction that there would be no impact at all on the Culp's primary view; their efforts from the beginning to minimize any possible impact, including lowering the roof, eliminating a ridge line and trimming trees to avoid blocking the Culp's view; and the fact that no measuring devices were placed on the Kotowski property by the Homeowners' Associa- tion to assess how high the addition might go before turning down the addition. Mrs. Kotowski reported that they had bought without knowledge from the previous owner that they had ever attempted to —add on. The Kotowskis mentioned that they have received support from individual homeowners in this matter. They requested that the Commission allow this project to proceed. Mr Absmeier felt that the Kotowskis had stated their case pretty clearly. He verified that they had done a lot of work to make things compatible with the neighbors and he felt that any impact on the Culp's view would be minimal in view of the fact that the Kotowski's home is 22 feet below street level. Mr. McManus presented a, letter signed by several of the neighbors supporting the Kotowski's position. In the discussion that followed, Mr. Benard expressed the opinion that because a number of points raised do create some question and some confusion in the minds of all the parties, and because a number of things had changed including some administrative practices relating to identification of the primary view, he felt that it might be better to direct the matter back to Staff for further anal- ysis. Commissioner Wike concurred with this suggestion as did Commissioner McNulty and Commissioner Von Hagen. Mr. Von Hagen felt there were two relevant issues- the question of whether or not there is a significant impact on primary viewing areas and secondly, could that impact be cumulative. Com- missioner McNulty addressed the changing attitude of the City Council as one of the reasons to review the matter. Mr Benard emphasized that the determination of primary view is vested with Staff and they do it based upon a review of the floorplan of the house and a review of the view that's gained from the floorplan. He stated that. Staff has to male that determination under the current code and then make that recommendation to the Commission. Chairperson Wike asked Mr. Benard if it was at all possible to look at the roolline to see if any changes could be made Mr Benard assured her that all possibilities would be looked at Commissioner McNulty moved to continue to the next available date. The motion was seconded. The item was unanimously continued. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: July 11, 1989 Chairperson `Nike announced to the audience thateveryone who has turned in a pink slip will be notified of the next hearing. She further informed them that if they do not like the decision at that time they will have a. chance to appeal it to the City- Council C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 132 - EXTENSION; Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District, 6245 Via Canada Concerns private uses at Miraleste Elementary School. Associate Planner Laurie M Brigham gate the Staff Report.CUP No. 132 was approved by the Commission in December, 1987 and was valid for one year The Commission granted a six-month extension and the appb- cant is now requesting that an extension be granted for an indefinite period. Ms. Brigham reported that several of the conditions of a.ppro-'al hate not been met, such as building trash enclosures, submittal of a sign program and maintaining the property in a clean, orderly manner hi regard to this last item, Ms. Brigham reported that the grounds are fairly neat, but that the outside of the building still needs painting Staff believes generally that. the School District has made a. good effort to comply with the conditions, but since several conditions have not been met Staff recommends extension for a six month period only. In the lengthy discussion that followed, Commissioner Wike disclosed that she visaed the site with the President of the Homeowners Association who gave her a copy of a letter describing the offensive features, plus a. packet of photographs and a copy of the Grant Deed Commissioner Von Hagen disclosed that he received the same package and met with Ms. Cheryl Caughhn on the site and looked at the 8 items. Mr. Von Hagen felt that, except for some slurry coating and some striping, the School District had not fulfilled any of the items the Commission conditioned in granting the last extension He requested Staff to notify the Sheriff's Dept. that a white Chevy van appears to be abandoned on the site and to take whatever legal measures are necessary to have the vehicle removed. Commissioner McNulty stated that it was obvious from the photographs and from looking at the site itself that it was a mess. While acknowledging that the School District has financial burdens and problems, he questioned why some of the people who rent the property can't clean it up He felt that since the site is restricted to go back to PV Homeowners Association, he did not see how- the City could be involved at all without their involvement IN Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: July 11, 1989 13 Commissioner N'01) Hagen's main concern was with the condition that. the prop- erty be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. He felt that was the most severe area of negligence. Both Commissioner McNulty and Chairperson Wike questioned whether the Commission should be dealing with this issue tonight if the property is going to be turned over to the new school district, but Commissioner Von Hagen disagreed, he did not see that what EPEC may or may not do was relevant. He suggested going to the City Attorney and have him look at the matter to see if the Council should look at this as a public nuisance. fie was convinced that the time to take action is now and not let this deteriorate into a severe blight Commissioner Connolly agreed. Ms. Cheryl Caughlin, 6412 Via Canada, Miraleste spoke against the extension She reminded the Commission that six months ago the homeown- ers in the area came as a group as a court of last resort and begged for the Commission's support. This resulted in the Commissions' giving the Board six months to complete improvements. She strongly disagreed with Staff Re- port saying all conditions had been met except for painting. She expressed two concerns: 1. The Board had not met the Commission's criteria 2 There are more than 90 homes located below Miraleste Elementary site There are two access streets; and none of the homes are accessible without going by this blighted area. She claimed it is a visual nuisance and lowers property values and ambience of the area. She stated that if it were a private home or business the Commission would do something about it and did not see why they don't do something about this site. The Commissioners then questioned Mr Capaleuto from the School District about the situation He said that the School District had honestly felt they had made an effort to comply with the conditions He felt tbat failure to comply with the trash barrel enclosure condition was a misunderstanding; they thought the problem was visibility, so they moved the trash barrels to a location where they would not be visible from the street They are willing to enclose them if necessary. He addressed the problem of painting saying that they have a couple of quotations, but neither has been taken to Board for approval, so no bids have been accepted He stated that they were ready to pursue a bid when the situation regarding the possible takeover of the site by the City came up They decided to hold off painting in case the City took over and decided to remodel the building to make it suitable for community recreation Regarding the grounds, Mr. Capaleuto informed the Commission that the School District has reorganized their rounds -keeping creme with the result that he site is -getting 300% more attention than previously; it is now getting the same attention the other school sites get. Mr. Capaleuto asked the Commission to grant the CUP extension Planning Commission Meeting Minutes- July 11, 1989 14 When questioned about the Miraleste site being transferred to EPEC if it should prevail, Mr. Capaleuto stated that it was anticipated that the decision would be made at the State Board of Education meeting Thursday and Friday If the east side is successful in getting the approval of the Burdtosecede Mr. Capaleuto stated that all school property east of Crenshaw would go to the east side unless the State Board of Education determines otherwise based on equity ' The Commissioners then questioned Mr Capaleuto about the new District's hazing the money to operate the site. They were told that the new district would get an immediate initial allocation to be spent on anything the School Board determines they ought to spend the money on Commissioner Connolly stated that he was prepared to deny the CUP extension to force the issue and get some action. Commissioner Von Hagen seconded the motion and added that if Mr.Connolly agreed, he would stipulate that the City Attorney should take a look at perhaps declaring a public nuisance and seeing what relief can be sought at the Council level. Commissioner Connolly assented. Commissioner McNulty said that, although he agrees with everything that was said, he was not interested in going nose to nose with the School District because the District could then declare themselves free from the City's laws, which they haN,e a right to do. He did not want to force them to make that decision over a six month extension. Chairperson Wike stated that since the conditions had not been met, she would support Commissioner Connolly*s motion to deny the CUP The motion to deny the CUP and to instruct the City Attorney to in- vestigate nuisance abatement procedures passed with Commissioner McNulty dissenting. VIII. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE There were no questions. IX. REPORTS A. STAFF Mr Benard announced that a, Fences, Walls and Hedges_ Tp ur is scheduled for the late morning and early afternoon of July 29 whish is, the date of the Community Leaders' breakfast. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: July 11, 1989 The City Council has asked that the Commission be invited to that tour He explained that the purpose of the tour is to look at various areas throughout the city where the rear yard and side yard views would be of by walls and hedges. B. COMMISSION Chairperson Wike announced that she has re- ceived in the mail a notice of the League of California Cities annual conference Oct 22 through 25 in San Francisco. She directed anyone interested to see Mr. Renard. Commissioner Connolly announced that the Mayor has accepted his resignation effective immediately following the July 25th meeting. Chairperson Wike stated that the Commission was sorry to see Mr. Connolly go, and said that he has been a real asset to the Commission. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was duty adjourned at 1125 P M. to July 25, 1989. 15