Planning Commission wrestles with neighborhood issues
By Kelly Feser Eells

If the May 7 Planning Commission meeting had a theme, it was Disguising the Unsightly. And a near-standing-room only crowd came to participate.

In the first public hearing - a request for a modification of fence height requirements - the applicant, Robert Baskin, prevailed. At issue was the 10-foot fence Baskin constructed along the eastern portion of his Aliso Street property, where it abuts the Masonic Temple building.

The maximum fence height for the low-density, residential area is 6 feet.
Although planning staff concurred that exterior ducting at the rear of the Masonic building was unsightly, it noted that "most of the unsightly items are higher than 10 feet, anyway" and recommended denial of the (post-construction) variance on the grounds that it constituted special privilege.

Baskin disagreed. Though the Masonic building "towers over other residents' properties, I have a loss of privacy afforded other Aliso Street residents. In my view, granting this variance wouldn't constitute special privilege, but would merely restore privileges afforded other property owners in the area."

Commissioner Marge Fay asked Baskin if he'd discussed the fence with the owners.

"Yes, at length, and over a period of years. And with no luck. I was told they don't have any funding for ducting, and that I could screen it at my own expense."

Commissioner Craig Brown asked, "You state that the Masonic Lodge agreed to the fence height?"

Baskin stated that no written agreement had been made, and that "after it was constructed, there was a complaint from someone at the lodge," but that the reason for the complaint was "unclear. It may have been because of a 2-foot indentation of the fence, which was on their lot line, around a eucalyptus tree. But we fixed that."

Pleasant Avenue resident Ian Atkinson, who spoke on behalf of the Masonic Temple building owners, said, "We are going to be closing the lodge, although it's not on the market yet. We'll be converting it to a single-family dwelling, and the fence, well, it cuts off a lot of light; in the downstairs, especially. And the kitchen trailer will be moved; it's certainly not a permanent installation."

Brown made a motion to allow the 10-foot fence on a provisional basis, "until the trailer and ducting are removed, then we go to a six feet."
The motion passed four to two, with Commissioners Joe McAllister and Fay voting "no." Commissioner Ynez Arce was absent.

The next public hearing, a request for a modification of rear and side yard setback requirements for the "construction of a carport," did not go over as well for the applicant, Fulton Street resident Ajaz Khan or his spokesperson, local architect Jon Dieges.

"I think it's been 17 or 18 years since I've come before the Commission with something staff wasn't inclined to approve," said Dieges, referring to the staff report recommending denial of the project on the grounds that, combined with the requested setback reductions of 20 and seven feet, respectively, "the modification request also includes a lot coverage of 39.6 percent where 35 percent maximum is allowed." The General Plan designation for the site is medium density residential (three to four dwelling units per acre) in a single family residential zone.

"I'm here defending myself after ace defense attorney Robert Baskin," Dieges joked. "But I'm not here to do a Khan job on the Commission," he said, referring to the property owner's surname.

"With all due respect to staff reports," said Dieges, the "RV lot is already there." He indicated that the proposed carport would provide shelter for an existing RV that neighbors claim is being used as a residence.

"Regarding the occupancy of the trailer, it's my understanding from County ordinances that, as long as it's on wheels, and it's not to be a permanent building, people can stay in it."

"Not so," said Casias. "And, just to clarify, county ordinances do not apply to the City of Ojai."

Casias also pointed out that "lot coverage is nearing 40 percent with this proposal. Entire front yard and driveway are (already) concrete, and the carport, if created, would add to the impervious structures" on the property.

Fulton Street resident Dave Clark said, "I was sad to see that Jon Dieges was attached to this project, because I've got great respect for him. As for the RV, it's connected to electricity, water, etc., and I think it's disingenuous to suggest it's within code. Every wall was taken down (of the original structure), and it was, supposedly, planned as a remodel. But Mr. Khan's home is 42 inches from (neighbor Francisco Jojorcas's house), and there are 14 exterior lights on this property, including one very large one out front. Clearly, this was designed to be a group home.

The property is plumbed for three kitchens, and the existing garage is partitioned down the middle and has been furnished. It's my understanding that it's a licensed residential care home now" - run by Emerald Group Home facilities - "and that six juveniles and one or two adults will be living there."

McAllister prompted the audience's laughter by saying, "there's too much of this Mickey Mouse stuff going around, and it seems no one's paying attention to any of these codes."

The Commission voted unanimously to deny the request.
Next on the agenda was a discussion item concerning the adoption of the "required findings for denial" of a project that had been reviewed during the Commission's April 16 meeting: a 74,000 square-foot self-storage facility, to be located at 318 and 324 Bryant Street.
Casias explained that, due to a "three-three tie vote" on April 16, the motion for further review of the proposed project failed. "And now, staff has returned to the Commission with reasons for (its) denial."

Commissioner Paul Blatz said that, before he discussed the item, "I'd like to make it known that it's going to be my intention to make a motion to rescind the April 16 decision of the Planning Commission and ask that it reconsider this project."

Blatz, who was absent from the April 16 meeting, added, "I do believe the applicant should have had (the benefit of) a clear-cut majority" before the Commission moves forward to deny the project.
Cañada Street resident Larry Wilde said, "I'm very naïve (about these things), but I'm assuming that this project met all the architectural, setback, and CEQA requirements, so I wonder: Why was it denied?"
Adams indicated that the project was legally permissible, but that the reasons for its denial had already been discussed at length.

Brown said, "Basically, it was thought that the project was too large."
Robert Sawyer, a Santa Paula-based real estate attorney representing Kendall's firm, the Epic Group, elaborated. "The reasons for the denial of the proposal don't deal with architectural concerns; this use is permitted in an industrial zone and is appropriate. The reasons for the denial were that this project used a significant amount space, without proposing a (like) number of jobs. As a former planning commissioner for Santa Paula, I can sympathize - and I know that ambiance issues are very important to Ojai. But," he concluded, citing a similar case in Davis, California, "social and economic concerns shouldn't be addressed" in this format.

"The bottom line is, it would be far preferable for the Commission to reschedule a full public hearing (on the issue)."
Country Club Drive resident Michael Shapiro said, "I rarely speak before this Commission, but in this case, well ... I think this proposed project is a blessing from God in disguise. One thing I always notice when I'm taking my daughters to dance classes in this neighborhood is the eyesore that's next to the proposed facility. Maybe this project would put a little pressure on those people to clean up the dump next door. All it's missing is a couple of chained attack dogs to complete the picture."

Shapiro added, "for the last few summers, I've been taking the family out in an RV, and one of the reasons I haven't bought one is there's no place to store one. I already rent two separate storage facilities in Ojai, and the occupancy rates are high. I think honest competition would give consumers like me a break. And as for my friend Stan Greene's comments about traffic (made at the April 16 meeting), well, I'm typical of most people in that I visit my storage facility once, maybe twice a year at most."

Ojai resident Stan Greene said that, "While I appreciate Mr. Shapiro calling me a friend, what we have in this community is what I call the 'white knight' scenario. That is, rather than cleaning up areas like these, we argue that we can save the community from squalor by changing the nature of an area. Like the Emerald Iguana, for example. In my view, we should scale the project down so it doesn't use up all the income-producing land around it."

Blatz then made a motion to rescind the Commission's denial and schedule a new public hearing, with the original findings of denial brought before that as-yet-unscheduled hearing. The motion was approved unanimously.

© 2003 The Ojai Valley News

Back to the news