Santa Fe Springs planners press developer over uncovered stockpile, sagging fencing and recurring graffiti at proposed site

Community Development Director Kwan told the Santa Fe Springs Planning Commission that staff observed a mix of improvements and continuing problems at the development-plan site covered by case 10011 and tentative parcel map 84116.

"Good news is, as you know, the adjacent wall was painted," Community Development Director Kwan said, presenting photographs and weekly inspection reports that show the painted wall but also repeated recommendations to reinstall protection around a large soil stockpile. Kwan said the applicant submits weekly reports to the state but that the fencing around the stockpile remains unsecured in multiple, successive reports and in staff photos from September and again in October.

Kwan also reported ongoing graffiti at multiple locations along the site perimeter and a recent instance of trash dumped at the entrance that staff did not find on a prior inspection. He said the applicant has cameras with heat sensors and that staff receives four different weekly reports from the applicant; the photographs shown were intended to document existing conditions and outstanding corrective actions.

Commissioners raised questions about timing and enforcement. When asked when on‑site work would begin, Kwan said the applicant is completing plan checks and coordinating with the water board about on‑site wells and that staff did not have a firm start date. Kwan stressed the applicant’s position that certain soils "have to be reused on-site," which staff said affects disposition of the stockpile and therefore options for removal.

Commissioners repeatedly pressed for stronger perimeter measures and remedies that would limit dust and trespass. Chair Sarno suggested the city’s graffiti crew could proactively remove tags and that staff explore charging the applicant for recurring graffiti‑removal responses if the applicant does not maintain the site. Sarno also urged more formal documentation when staff attempts to contact the applicant, saying email records would be important if enforcement action is needed.

Staff said the applicant’s weekly reports and photographic records would be used as evidence if the city pursues revocation of the development approval. Commissioners discussed possible follow‑up steps that include requiring the applicant to cover or tarp the soil pile while it remains on site, tightening or replacing sagging mesh fencing, and asking the applicant to respond promptly to staff inquiries.

There was no formal action taken on the item. Chair Sarno closed the discussion and moved the meeting to the consent calendar.

Votes at the meeting: none on this item; discussion only.

What’s next: staff will continue to document conditions, communicate enforcement expectations to the applicant and consider adding specific maintenance or reimbursement conditions if problems continue.