HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOVEMBER 21,1989_2
I
I
31:0240
CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
ORD. & RES.
READ BY
TITLE ONLY
SENIOR j
CITIZENS'
COMSN.
(Don
Gathers)
SENIOR j
CITIZENS'
COMSN.
(Pat
Loechner)
l.
PUBLIC
HEARING
(Adoption
of 1988
Editions
of Bldg.
Codes)
( CONTINUED
to Dec.5,
1989)
,
M I NUT E S
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
and the
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 21, 1989
..~.
The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a regular
session at 7:30 p. m., Tuesday, November 21, 1989 in the Arcadia City
Hall Council Chamber.
Mr. Melvyn Reeves, President, Arcadia Stake, Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints
City Manager, George J. Watts
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Counci1members Gi1b, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler
None
It was MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Counci1member Young
and CARRIED that Ordinances and Resolutions be read by title only and
that the reading in full be waived.
OATH OF OFFICE
The Oath of Office was then administered by the City Clerk to Don
Gathers, incoming Member of the Senior Citizens' Commission. Mayor
Chandler and Councilmember Gilb then presented the incoming Commissioner
with his credentials, a City pin and welcomed him to the City family.
The Oath of Office was then administered by the City Clerk to Pat
Loechner, incoming Member of the Senior Citizens' Commission. Mayor
Chandler and Counci1member Gi1b then presented the incoming Commissioner
with her credentials, a City pin and welcomed her to the City family.
j
A public hearing for consideration of adopting the 1988 editions of
the Uniform Building, Uniform Plumbing, Uniform Mechanical, Uniform
Housing Codes and 1987 National Electric Code, including all changes,
additions and deletions as mandated by the State of California. It was
staff's recommendation to continue this hearing to December 5, 1989, to
allow additional time to prepare the implementing ordinance.
Mayor Chandler declared the hearing OPEN to provide anyone in the audience
who wished to do so an opportunity to address Council. No one came forward.
It was then 'MOVED by Counci1member Lojeski, seconded by Counci1member Young
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to CONTINUE this public hearing
to December 5, 1989.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Counci1members Gi1b, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler
None
None
11/21/89
-'1-
'i)'
o
~"('
2.
PUBLIC
HEARING
(Appeal of
P1an'g
Comsne
Resol.
No.1423 -
Fence Hgt.
Mod. - MC
89-074 -
1150 Fallen
Le af)
(APPEAL
DENIED)
T
R
A
N
S
C
R
I
P
T
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
31:0241
On October 31, 1989, Mr. Yee-Horn Shuai, an attorney on behalf of the
owners, Mr. and Mrs. Ching Huei Lin, filed an appeal of Planning Commis-
sion Resolution No. 1423 which sustained an appeal filed by Mr. Edward
Butterworth, and overturned the Modification Committee's conditional
approval of Case No. MC 89-074 for 6'-0" high brick pillars with 5'-6"
high decorative wrought iron fencing, and two decorative light fixtures
on the two pillars at the driveway entry at 1150 Fallen Leaf Road. Other
background information concerning this item is contained in the Planning
Department staff report of November 21, 1989.
Mayor Chandler opened the public hearing and the following persons
addressed the Council:
I
IN FAVOR OF THE~APPEAL:
Gordon Maddock
Baldwin Realty
900 South First Avenue
Albert Corrigan
517 Santa Rosa Road
Sheng Chang
1140 Singing Wood Drive
Yee-Horn Shuai
411 Scott Place
Frank Wu
Baldwin Realty
OPPOSING THE APPEAL:
Edward L. Butterworth
1145 Singing Wood Drive
Judie Draper, President
Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association
939 Hampton Road
Bob Henkel
1065 Singing Wood Drive
Mack Turner
1130 Fallen Leaf
Martha Turner
1130 Fallen Leaf
MOTION by Counci1member Gi1b to CLOSE the public hearing, seconded by
Councilmember Harbicht and CARRIED.
I
Following Council's comments the MOTION was set forth:
It was MOVED by Counci1member Harbicht, seconded by Counci1member Young
and CARRIED On roll call vote as follows that Council find that there is
no compelling reason to deviate from the Code; that to do so would not
promote uniformity of development, nor create an unreasonable hardship,
nor secure an appropriate improvement; and OVERRULE the APPEAL and
sustain the Planning Commission's denial of Case No. MC 89-074; and DIRECT
staff to prepare the appropriate resolution incorporating the Council's
decision and findings
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler
None
None
11/21/89
-2-
3.
3a.
FIN.ASSIST.
LOCAL BASE-
BALL
LEAGUES
(APPROVED)
~v
P'" ~
I
Iv~
.-\ ~
_~~>! 3b.
\. '\ PERSONNEL
RULE IX,
SECTION 1
AMENDMENT
(APPROVED)
-I
3c.
_ ~ PERSONNEL
~O 'CLASSIFICA-
. "UTIONS
'\..~l' ~ i(ASsist.Dir.
^ Rec.& Pers.
Tech. )
(APPROVED)
3d.
i)Q;) PERSONNEL
.1) O<;.GLASSIFICA-
\~. f TIONS MOD.
t?' (Rec. Su per.,
. l'<.
~ Senior Cit.
Super. &
Pump
Mechanic)
(APPROVED)
31:0242
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Funds have been budgeted in the 1989-90 Capital Budget to be used for
the maintenance and improvement of facilities used by local baseball
leagues. The leagues have agreed to purchase all needed materials and
provide all necessary labor and equipment to complete the various projects.
Requests are for National Little League - $1,700 - Longden Ball Field;
West Arcadia Little League - $1,700 - Baldwin Stocker and Longley Way;
Santa Anita Little League - $1,700 - Eisenhower Park; Coast Little '
League - $1,700 - Hugo Reid Primary; and Arcadia Pony/Colt Baseball,
Inc. - $2,500 - Bonita Park.
It was MOVED bY..,Counci1member Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Young and
CARRIED on ro1l'cal1 vote as follows that the requests for financial
assistance, outlined in detail in staff report dated November 21, 1989,
be APPROVED.
/
"I'
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Counci1members Gi1b, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler
None
None
Councilmember Lojeski commented that he was very much in favor of this
assistance; it is terrific when the City makes a commitment on behalf
of the young people of the community to help keep them in good, organized
programs. Somewhat related to this matter, he has been receiving phone
calls from members of these youth baseball leagues who are now being
asked by the Arcadia Unified School District School Board to pay hefty
fees to meet in the various facilities of these schools. However, these
leagues are not money making organizations and if they cannot exist
because they can't pay this rent, the money allocated by the City Council
will go for naught. He feels that it is a bad situation. Counci1member
Young wondered if the the School Board had considered that if the Inagues
cannot use the facilities, the City will not be allocating this money for
improvement of the facilities. Counci1member Lojeski further commented
that some of the facilities such as the youth huts have been donated by
the citizens or service leagues of the City, and now the School Board is
charging rental fees for use of these facilities for meetings, etc. The
Golden State Basketball League has been billed by Arcadia High School
$1,000; to be $3,000 next year; they cannot afford to pay these fees.
Jerry Collins, Director of Recreation, responded to questions from
Counci1members that he had only learned of these rental fees the
previous day. In response to request from Councilmembers, Mr. Collins
will investigate this and come back with a schedule of such fees now
being charged.
At its meeting of November 9, 1989, the Personnel Board approved the
amendment to Personnel Rule IX, Section 1, "Disciplinary Action:
Suspension, Demotions and Dismissallt, and forwards its recommendations
to the City Council.
Establishment of the class specification of Personnel Technician and
class specification of Assistant Director of Recreation. Both positions
approved through the budget process for the FY 1988-89.
"
Staff proposes modifications to three class specifications in order to
update the Classification Plan. These positions are: Recreation
Supervisor, Senior Citizen Supervisor and Pump Mechanic.
"
11/21/89
",
"
-3-
31:0243
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER LOJESKI, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GILB
AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS THAT PERSONNEL RULE IX,
SECTION 1; ESTABLISHMENT OF CLASS SPECIFICATIONS OF PERSONNEL TECHNICIAN
AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RECREATION; AND MODIFICATION OF CLASS SPECIFICA-
TIONS OF RECREATION SUPERVISOR, SENIOR CITIZEN SUPERVISOR AND PUMP MECHANIC
BE APPROVED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Gilb, Ilarbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler
None
None
4.
.,
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION t
Howard Klein, Riverside, CA, stated, in part, in connection with Chantr
Flats Park ... on October 31, 1989, sixteen year old Tanya Marie C1avey
was killed when she and three other occupants in her car went over the
edge of the road. This happened in the evening. There are three issues
he would like to address and would like to have them placed on the City
Council's agenda to make that road and park safer for everyone. Item 1)
Have the park closed at dusk and not leave it open until 10 p. m. at night;
2) Have the guard-rails repaired. At this point Counci1member Young in-
formed Mr. Klein that Arcadia does not have 100% jurisdiction over Chantry
Flats Road. Also there are private homes in that area and those people need
access. Mr. Klein said the Sierra Madre City Council will be addressing
the issue and the Sheriff's Department also. He indicated that the group
he represents is currently getting petitions signed by the area and surround-
ing communiies to try and get the gate closed somewhere around dusk. The
roads are not safe due to the poor lighting conditions. He has observed
also that people drink freely up there. He is concerned with the safety
of the community and the youth of the community so that there will no
longer be any deaths in that area. He is aware of the cabins in the area.
The young people picketing in front of the Council Chamber this evening
would like to save their friends and the children of Arcadia from any .
more deaths froln going off the cliff. In conclusion he asked if this
matter would be put on the agenda for fo1lowup? The Mayor responded .that
this is not automatic ... that it is up to Council to make a motion to
put in on the agenda.
Susan Clavey, 218 East Lime, Monrovia, mother of Tanya C1avey. Mrs. C1avey
displayed a photograph of Tanya and stated, in part, she would not like
to see any more people killed up there and would appreciate anything
Council could do to get the road closed down. She stated that she is not
being cruel "but one day it might be your son or daughter that gets killed
there or someone that you loved a lot ... and meant a lot to you". Just
closing the road down could curtail the amount of fatal accidents that
happen up there. The road is dangerous in daylight and should be closed
at night. She would like to spare other parents from going through this.
In response to a quesiton from Council, Mrs. Clavey replied that the
accident occurred at 10:15 p.m. ... she is requesting that the road be
closed at dusk. There is not lighting up there at night. She did not
know how often her daughter went to Chantry Flats or the other young 1-
people. She has seen a lot of young people at the Park whenever she has
been there. Further, although the gate is closed at 10 p. m., the lock
has been broken for six months and that is why people could still go up
there. Council responded that there are four agencies patrolling that a .'
Patty Brown, 9312 Broadway, Temple City, stated, in part, that Tanya lived
with her. The young people told her that the night they went up, the lock
on the gate was broken. The Arcadia Police Department informed her that
the lock was repaired the following day. She was present to plead with
Council to do something about the situation.
11/ /21/89
-4-
31:0244
I
Mike Zimmerman, 48 Woodland Lane, Bradbury, CA., stated, in part, that
his stepson was one of the individuals in the car that went over the
cliff; he is presently in Huntington Memorial Hospital and is progressing
well. The road in Chantry Flats was built in the 1930's and the guard-
rail installed at that. time. He understands that Caltrans, following
investigation, has allocated funds for replacement of the guard-rails.
Why has this not been done? He realizes there are a number of jurisdic-
tions which govern the road and that Sierra Madre is responsible for
locking the gate; however, on the night of the accident the lock on
the gate was broken. One of the residents in that area told him that
closing the road at 10 p. m. has been a major improvement in cutting
down the accident rate. The road conditions are not appropriate for
today's automobiles. He suggests that Arcadia coordinate with the
other jurisdictions to bring that road up to current standards, in-
cluding the installation of appropriate guard-rails.
Chief of Police, Neal Johnson (called forward by Mayor Chandler) responded
to questions that Sierra Madre has a problem keeping locks on the gates;
they are constantly repairing them. The accident in question occurred
shortly after 10 p. m. and the lock was broken that evening; it has
since been repaired. The reasons for the accident were speed, on
the wrong side of the roadway, etc. He cannot discuss it at length
because of pending legal action. He also answered there has been no
pattern showing that night is worse than daytime in terms of accident
rate in terms of access. He further responded that people living in
that area need to have access; some of them have keys; some not. He
also noted that he and the City Manager had met with representatives
of the other jurisdictions involved about four years ago,..atwhich time
it was agreed to close the gates at 10 p. m. The jurisd~ctions-_invo1ved
are: the Forestry Service; Sheriff's Departmet; Sierra Madre; Arcadia;
Monrovia, and Los Angeles County. It was the consensus of Council that
the representatives of the various jurisdictions should meet again and
corne to some decision as to how to cooperate to make this a safer area.
Perhaps locking the gate is not a solution, since it is frequently broken
open anyway. Mr. Klein noted that he had observed people drinking in
the area also; he would like to see no more casualties there. Counci1-
member Harbicht responded that Council would like to see no more casualties
there or elsewhere. He did not like the implication that the Council and
City were remiss in their responsibilities in this matter. Mr. Klein
replied they wanted to make Council aware of the fact that the road is
in ill repair and that drinking is going on in the area.
Eric Zimmerman, 9312 Broadway, Temple City, stated, in part, that he is
a young adult and has been in the area under discussion on several
occasions. He reiterated that the roads are unsafe; the guard-rails
inadequate and the lighting improper. Counci1member Gi1b noted that
no guard-rail will hold a car hitting it at high speed.
I
Mayor Chandler noted that the points made here tonight are clear and
that Council will bring the information to the attention of the other
jurisdictions involved. It is not Arcadia's responsibility to replace
the guard-rails; however,the City will make the responsible jurisdiction
aware of the existing conditions.
,
-5-
11/21/89
5.
6.
6a.
ROLL CALL
0-.
~ 6b.
t\:V DES IGN
",. REVIEW
, V' TIME
< EXTENSION
(127-139
AHa St.)
(APPROVED)
6c.
EMINENT
DOMAIN
PROC.
(156 E.
Santa
Clara
St.-
Franco)
VlIo"P'
:(1' RESOLUTION
~~ NO.ARA-146
~\ (ADOPTED)
31:0245
CITY COUNCIL RECESSED IN ORDER TO ACT AS THE
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Agency Members Gi1b, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler
None
Resolution No. ARA-126 establishes a one year period for any Agency
Design Review approval. Desarch Design Group obtained Agency approval
of its proposed condominium project at 127 - 139 A1ta Street on June 7,
1988. Desarch Design Group has requested an extension of the June 7,
1988 Design Review. They are currently well under construction on the
proposed project and contemplate no changes from the approved design.
It was then MOVED by Member Harbicht, seconded by Member Young and I
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Design Review for Desarch
Design Group for the project located at 127 - 139 A1ta Street, be ex-
tended for one year to June 7, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members Gi1b, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler
None
None
On September 5, 1989, the Agency adopted a Project Budget, set Just
Compensation, and directed staff to begin the acquisition process .for
the Northwest Corner Project. Offer letters were subsequently sent
to property owners. No response was received to the offer letter sent
to Maria Franco, owner of 156 E. Santa Clara Street on September II,
1989. Contacts with Mr. Arvisu, Mrs. Franco's negotiator, have not
resulted in any meaningful negotiations. As of November 16, 1989, a
counter offer has not been received. Resolution No. ARA-146 sets :a
hearing for January 2, 1990 on the proposed acquisition of the property
by an exercise of the power of eminent domain.
The Assistant City Manager for Economic Development then read the title
of Resolution No. ARA-146, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCADIA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING
THE INITIATION OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY (FRANCO)".
It was MOVED by Member Gi1b, seconded by Member Lojeski and CARRIED
on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No. ARA-146 be and it is
hereby ADOPTED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler
None
None
6d.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting ADJOURNED to 7:00 p. m., December 5, 1989.
7.
8.
8a.
HEARING
SCHEDULED
(Dec. 5,
1989)
CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED
I
CONSENT ITEMS
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 5, 1989 to consider Zone Change
Z-89-004 from R-O & D 15,000 to R-O & D 22,000 for the R-O & D 15,000
zoned lots located within the area bordered on north by Orange Grove
Avenue, on the eaat by Oakmeadow Road, Hacienda Drive and San Carlos
Road, on the south by Foothill Blvd. and on the West by Baldwin Avenue.
8b.
ST. JCSEPH Considered separately (see page 7).
r;..CY RESERVOIR
,().. PROP.
<, \, (Site
'\ Beautific'n)
(CONSIDERED -6-
SEPARATELY)
11/21/89
31:0246
.~v...
<;;f 8c.
5' e9-~tISMIC Considered separately (see page 8).
~f'." 'USlfUDY
eJ-" PROPOSALS -
~ WATER RESERVOIRS
(CONSIDERED
SEPARATELY)
\8'd~
(/J" LITIGATION
r:)( SETTLEMENT
. ,1\d(3uarez &
,,'. V' Corrigan
\.....
tf)t^~ v. Arcadia;
I Glisson v.
Arcadia;
Brannum
v.Arcadia)
APPROVED settlements of litigation involving Juarez and Corrigan .v..
Arcadia; Glisson v, Arcadia; and Brannum v. Arcadia (Workers' Compensa-
tion).
., ,
8e.
RR CROSSING Considered separately (see page 8).
IMPROV.- Htg.
Dr. & Second
Av.
(CONSIDERED
SEPARATELY)
~l.\3
y \
8b.
ST. JOSEPH
RESERVOIR
BEAUTIFIC'N
(APPROVED)
'\ / I'll
\\ q 0-
r'
I
THE ABOVE CONSENT ITEMS 8a AND 8b WERE APPROVED ON MOTION BY COUNCIL-
MEMBER LOJESKI, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YOUNG AND CARRIED ON ROLL
CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Counci1members Gi1b, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler
None
None
Consideration of recommendation to approve site beautification project
for St. Joseph Reservoir property. Counci1member Lojeski noted that he
could see no point in planting more trees. He also felt that removal
of the chain link fence and constructing a more decorative wall; sand-
blasting and painting the water tanks would be appropriate. A hedge
alone the City's side of the vacant lot would be an improvement.
Councilmember Harbicht agreed to delete the planting of the ten trees.
He understands the block wall will be built with a pivet hedge in front.
Both currently exist on the property in certain areas; it will take
several years for the hedge to grow.
It was MOVED by Counci1member Harbicht, seconded by Counci1member
Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the suggested
planting of the ten trees be eliminated; that a block wall be
constructed and a pivet hedge planted; and the three buildings on
site be water blasted and painted with acrylic masonry product.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Counci1members Gi1b, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler
None
None
11/21/89
-7-
.,.
~ ..'
,.,''it
,\\....
,
8c.
SEISMIC STUDY
PROPOSALS -
WATER
RESERVOIRS
(APPROVED)
0"\-<
S"..( "
S: c"fJ.- O\{l..::>
I( \j
~f' ~e-
e,s
\<.
8e.
RR CROSSING
IMPROV. - Htg.
Dr. & 2nd Av.)
(APPROVED
ALTERNATIVE
NO.1)
.....\.\3
(Is.>
31:0247
Many of the City's reservoirs are over 30 years old and it is . I~
advisable that an up-to-date seismic analysis be performed. The
engineering expertise required to perform the seismic analysis is
beyond the level of expertise of the staff. It is recommended that
a consulting engineer be retained to provide this service. The
project was previously approved by the City Council in the 1989-1990
Capital Program Budget.
Counci1member Harbicht inquired how concerned is the City about
these reservoirs? The proposed cost comes to $90,000; that is a
lot of money for such a study. Staff replied they are very con-
cerned about it because of experience and training through CSTI.
They were shown what happened to similar type facilities when earth- I
quakes occurred. These reservoirs in Arcadia go back to 1920; there
is great concern about their ability to withstand a strong earth-
quake. There is no way to know without expert advice. The $90,000
is a guesstimate. They are requesting authorization to solicit propos .
It was MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Counci1member
Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Water Manager
be AUTHORIZED to solicit proposals from consulting engineers for the
seismic study of the City water reservoirs. These proposals will be
returned to City Council for authorization to retain the recommended
consultant in approximately one month.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Counci1members Gi1b, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler
None
None
Pursuant to request of the Council at their regular meeting on October 17,
1989, Engineering staff conducted further study and considered four
alternatives for beautification of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
RR overhead bridge crossing at Huntington Drive and Second Avenue.
These alternatives are set forth in detail in staff report dated
November 21, 1989. After discussion of the four alternatives, it
was MOVED by Counci1member Harbicht, seconded by Counci1member Gi1b
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Alternative No.1,
which involves the painting of the bridge, concrete abutments, side-
walk walls, sidewalk soffit, railings, and concrete wing walls, be
APPROVED and funds in the amount of $61,000 be AUTHORIZED from CDBG
funds for this project.
Counci1member Young would like to see some brick work on the
trestle.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Gi1b, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler
None
None
Staff is DIRECTED to return to Council with report of cost of
the proposed brick work.
I
11/21/89
-8-
I
~
'"
9.
9a.
ORDINANCE
NO, 1916
(INTRODUCED)
9b.
RESOLUTION
NO. 5509
(ADOPTED)
~~~
v: \'d-Ci
9c.
CLAIM OF
J. KOSS by
S. KLOSS
(DENIED) .c.
\,J\\ ",\->
y~ V
10.
11.
ALFORD
(April 10,
1990 City
Election)
fl.54D
LOJESKl
(House to ./
Lot Size)
.,','
31:0248
CITY ATTORNEY
~ The City Attorney presented for introduction, explained the content
and read the title of, Ordinance No. 1916, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA APPROVING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD CHAPTER 9 TO THE
BUILDING CODE SETTING FORTH REGULATIONS FOR THE REDUCTION OF EARTHQUAKE
HAZARDS IN EXISTING BUILDINGS".
It was MOVED by Counci1member Young, seconded by Counci1member Harbicht
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1916 be and
it is hereby INTRODUCED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Counci1members Gi1b, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler
None
None
The City Attorney presented, exp1sined the content and read the title
of Resolution No. 5509, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-015
A PROPOSED RESTAURANT AT 430 EAST HUNTINGTON DRIVE (ARCADIA GATEWAY
CENTRE) WITH CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS".
It was MOVED by Counci1member Harbicht, seconded by Counci1member Young
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No. 5509 be
and it is hereby ADOPTED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Counci1members Gi1b, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler
None
None
On recommendation of the City Attorney, the claim of J. Kloss by S.
Kloss was DENIED on MOTION by Counci1member Gi1b, seconded by Counci1-
member Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler
None
None
MATTERS FROM STAFF
None
MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS
The City Clerk announced the Arcadia General Municipal Election will be
held April 10, 1990. Nomination papers may be obtained from the City
Clerk beginning January II, 1990 and must be filed with the Clerk by
5 p.m., February 1, 1990. In the event incumbents do not file by that
time, the date will be extended to 5 p. m., February 6, 1990. In order
to inform the Arcadia electorate of the election and these dates, the
information will be released through local newspapers.
Counci1member Lojeski announced that Counci1member Gi1b had a birthday
the previous week and wished him a "Happy Birthday".
Counci1member Lojeski directed Council's attention to the report Council
had requested of staff in connection with the percentage ratio of house
to lot size discussed at the November ]', 1989 Council meeting. The',
additional information requested could determine that the,Code should
be' changed to require less lot coverage. Also discussed was the fiye (5)
foot side yard se,t back requirement for second stories which' had
previously been approved.
11/21/89
-9-
YOUNG ,/
(Visit from
Newcastle
Students -
Dec.1989)
GILB
(Memory
of Nell J.
Becherer)
12.
ADJOURNMENT
(Dec. 5,
1989)
ATTEST:
31:0249
For Council's information, Counci1member Young, as liaison to the Sister
City Commission, reported that the Newcastle Grammer School and Concert
Orchestra will be in Southern California December 8 - 10, 1989. Fifty
persons will be with this group and have requested housing and some
transportation from the Commission. The Commission has no funds for
transportation and has communicated this to them. The Commission
presented the request for housing to the High School Music Club "Down-
Under Committee", and nearly all the housing will be provided by the
parents of the students who will go going to Newcastle in the Spring.
The Newcastle students arriving in December have indicated they would
be willing to perform in concert in Arcadia on Sunday the 10th of
December.
vi "I would like to close the meeting in memory of Nell J. Becherer who
passed away November 11, 1989, in Arcadia. She is survived by her two I
daughters, Tina Becherer and Jo Ann Scott, both of Arcadia; four grand-
children, Kim Scott of London, England; Brad Scott of Arcadia; Jenelle
and Kari Arendsen of Arcadia. Services were held at the Glasser-Miller
Lamb Chapel. Reverend Paul Johenk officiated and internment was in
Rose Hills Memorial Park. Mrs. Becherer, as you probably know, was the
mother-in-law of Phil Scott ...they owned Becherer Buick Company in
Monrovia, just over the line from Arcadia. So I would like to close the
meeting tonight in memory of Nell J. Becherer."
The meeting ADJOURNED at 10:15 p.m. to 7:00 p. m., December 5, 1989
in the Chamber Conference Room to conduct the business of the Council
and Agency and CLOSED SESSION, if any, necessary to discuss personnel,
litigation and evaluation of properties.
I
.r~,
,
11/21/89
-10-
I
J
T RAN S C RIP T
(Insofar as decipherable)
RELATING TO
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL
IN CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DECISION REGARDING A FENCE HEIGHT MODIFICATION (MC 89-074)
AT 1150 FALLEN LEAF (YEE-HORN SHUAI ON BEHALF OF MR. AND
MRS. CHING HUEI LIN, APPELLANT)
I
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 1989
I
I
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 21, 1989
ITEM 2
MAYOR
CHANDLER
PLANNING
DIRECTOR
WOOLARD
CHANDLER
COUNCILMAN
HARBICHT
CITY MANAGER
WATTS
WOOLARD
HARBICHT
WOOLARD
HARBICHT
CHANDLER
PUBLIC HEARING -' CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION REGARDING A FENCE HEIGHT MODIFICATION (MC
89-074) AT 1150 FALLEN LEAF (YEE-HORN SHUAI ON BEHALF OF MR. AND
MRS. CHING HUEI LIN, APPELLANT)
The next item of business is a public hearing in consideration
of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision regarding a
fence height modification and Mr. Woolard, can you please givel
us a brief overview? )
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, Mr. Shuai, an
attorney on behalf of the property owners, has filed an appeal
to the Planning Commission's decision which overturns the I'
Modification Committee's conditional approval for 6 foot high
brick pillars with 5 foot 6 inch high decorative wrought iron
fencing with decorative light fixtures for the property,at 1150
Fallen Leaf. On August 16, 1989 the Rancho Santa Anita Property
Owners Association Architectural Review Board approved plans for
a 6 foot high decorative wrought iron fencing with brick pillars'
subject to the city's approval of the height modification. At
this time the decision was not appealed. At a public hearing
held September 12, the Modification Committee approved the 6
foot high brick pillars with 5 foot 6 inch high decorative
wrought iron fencing. This decision was subsequently appealed
by Mr. Butterworth. On September 26 and October 10, the
Planning commission heard the appeal to the Modification
Committee's decision. The Planning commission subsequently
sustained the appeal and denied the requested modification. The
approval of this appeal would allow the property owner to
construct brick pillars with decorative wrought iron of the
design approved by the ARB up to heights of 6 feet for the
pillars and 5 foot six inches for the wrought iron with two
decorative light fixtures atop the two pillars at the driveway I
entry. Denial of this appeal would permit the property owners
to construct a fence up to a height of 4 feet and this would
also be subject to the ARB's review and approval. The findings
for approval or denial are set forth in the staff report. This
concludes my report, unless you have any questions.
Mr. Harbicht has a question.
I have a question here on this packet that was given us tonight
with all the photographs in it. Looking at page 3 - the one
that's numbered 3 - it's a petition. Do you know when the date
of that ...
We don't have copies of that, do we?
Ok, what you have is when they sought to get the approval of the
Homeowners Architectural Review Board, I believe the applicants I'
first went around to the neighboring properties and, I believe,
showed them what they intended to do and obtained signatures of
approval to those plans and that is part of the application form
that was submitted to the Homeowners Association Architectural -
Review Board.
OK, so this is 3 months old.
I
Yes.
OK. I just didn't know if this was something that was taken
around yesterday or 3 months ago or whenever. Ok, that was the
only question I had.
Are there any other questions from the Council before we go on?
1
CITY
ATTORNEY
MILLER
WOOLARD
MILLER
I CHANDLER
I COUNCILMAN
GILB
CHANDLER
GILB
WOOLARD
GILB
HARBICHT
I WOOLARD
GILB
COUNCILWOMAN
YOUNG
HARBICHT
YOUNG
HARBICHT
I YOUNG
GILB
YOUNG
I GILB
CHANDLER
GILB
CHANDLER
GILB
Concerning the item that was delivered this evening, was that
delivered to all the parties in this matter? Did Mr.
Butterworth receive a copy of that? It was an item, I believe,
delivered by the appellant. Is that right, Mr. Woolard?
I believe so. Yes.
OK. It should be clarified because if it's going to be part of
the record, in all fairness it should be delivered to the
parties to this proceeding. If not, it won't be part of the
record. Thank you.
OK. You have an extra then, do you?
May I ask a question?
Go ahead, Mr. Gilb.
This letter that Mr. Harbicht was speaking about that everybody
signed, is this the letter that was taken around to all the
residents to have them sign?
I believe it was. Yes.
OK. And it states in there that the City of Arcadia has been
granting permits for 4 foot fences on properties in the area for
the past 3 years and there are many other existing Code viola-
tions in the neighborhood. If this is it, there's no place in
here that this says that they want a 6 foot fence. It just says
that they've been granting permits - if this is - this is the
letter, isn't it? .
I think the thing they signed is page 3, which is the form.
Usually the surrounding owners sign the page 3 and the applicant
on the other parts of the form would submit his reasons for
requesting the ARB approval or Modification approval, depending
upon ....
Well, I got to believe this is - 3 of the 4 I think is the same
letter, isn't it?
No.
3 isn't a letter.
3 is just the neighboring ....... .
4 is dated November.
3 is just the neighboring people.
4 is the neighboring people. This is 4.
No, but look at 3. Those are just the people that live right
around ....
OK. Got it. Yeah.
Ready?
Yeah.
OK.
I got it.
2
CHANDLER
GORDON
MADDOCK
This is a public hearing. All those wishing to speak, first in
favor of the appeal, please address the microphone, state your
name and your address, please.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, my name is
Gordon Maddock. My address is 900 S. First Avenue in Arcadia.
Our company, or my company, Baldwin Realty, represented Mr. and
Mrs. Lin in the purchase of the subject property at 1150 Fallen
Leaf in Arcadia and tonight, with their permission, I represent
them and the appeal. Just a brief history. You've been given
a lot of material here and I just want to go through just some I
key items that happened in the chain of events that led up to
tonight's appeal. When the Lins agreed to purchase the
property, our company, our representative Mr. Frank Wu and the
representative of the seller from the Herbert Hawkins Company,
Mr. Al corrigan, together went to the City Hall and checked thel
records on the property. It's sort of a standard practice for
us nowadays to try to be - disclose any violations of Code or
problems that somebody may have with a piece of property. And
they inspected the records and looked for any type of viola-
tions. It was discovered during that investigation that the
swimming pool had a permit taken out on it, but a final had
never been issued - 14 years ago or something like that. And
so, it was -they requested that that be brought up to final-
ization as far as the city. The permit was reactivated and the
City inspector went out and inspected the property. There was
nothing else in the file about fencing or anything else. It was
just simply the pool violation in a normal inspection - our
inspection of the City records. The pool permits were finalized
and the agents, as we normally do, tried to look through any
type of public record to see if there was any other violations
before the escrow itself was closed. When the escrow closed the
Lins, as they always had planned to, occupied the property as
th~ir personal residence. They wanted to secure and improve the
property with fencing similar to other properties in the area.
And I'm sure you have plenty of material and have driven by thel
area to see similar situations and why - and the piece of
property - the fencing that they chose was one at the southwest
corner of Hampton and Dexter, I think that's the proper piece
of property. It's about 6 foot high brick pillars with wrought
iron fencing in between and, I think, attractive. I guess
everyone has different opinions of things. But I think it was
an attractive selection by the Lins. The Lins, as I said,
desire to maintain this property as their personal residence.
They like a large piece of property, and this is a double lot.
They do not intend to split the lot. They want to keep one
large piece of property together. The rest of the information
that leads to the history of this thing is in your packet: the
homeowners' petition, that the Lins sought to go the Archi-
tectural Review Board, the ARB approval, the Modification
Committee approval and the appeal before the Planning Commis-
sion. What doesn't seem to be discussed or appear, which is
really of a great concern not only to the Lins, but to me as a
real estate broker in the community, is that not only did the I
request for a fence, which was not over and above what the Code
would allow on a piece of property, is that after that was
denied there was also a letter sent out by the city of Arcadia
saying, and take down the 6 foot fence, chain link fence, that .
is on the property out there. And they sent - cited a copy of
a letter 20 years ago directed to that property owner to take
down that fence. And it wasn't taken down and now it's thel
request of the City to take down the 6 foot fence that is around
the property, which is a surprise to not only the people that
look through the file, but to the Lins themselves. Mr. and Mrs.
Lin want to be good neighbors. I think that they have acted in
good faith and followed every rule that they were supposed to
in going through this process. They were diligent in their, as
we were in our inspection of the property prior to closing
escrow. They talked to the homeowners in the area. They saw
other fences and figured that that is a standard for the area.
3
I
,
I
CHANDLER
HARBICHT
MADDOCK
HARBICHT
MADDOCK
I
I HARBICHT
MADDOCK
HARBICHT
MADDOCK
And they didn't ask for any more than that. They asked just
simply for what existed in the area at the time. They don't
really want to be considered a cause of any kind of neighborhood
conflict which seems to get going in some of these situations.
So they make a proposal for your consideration and would like
to modify their request in the appeal. They would offer 2
solutions to the problem. One is to be able to replace the
existing chain link fence with a 5 foot high iron fencing and
5 foot high brick pillars. That's down a foot from the original
request of 6 feet, up a foot from what is required - or what
would be approved under the current Code. ' That would - they
would be willing also to include a corner cutoff, because that
is considered a blind corner there in traffic and if there is
some type of corner cutoff or distance it should be held back
from the curb to provide maximum visibility going around that
corner, they would be glad to provide that in the fencing. And
they would like the right to install one 5 foot high automatic
gate so they can get in and out of the property with a remote
control type of thing, rather than getting out of the car and
opening the gate. We're not sure tonight, but the pillar posts
on that - to support that gate - may have to be as much as a
foot higher than 5 feet, and that would be the only protrusion
over 5 feet that would be requested. But to maintain a 5 foot
gate, you might have to go a little higher for support. We
weren't sure when we came here tonight. Everything would try
to be maintained at a 5 foot level, except in that one case.
The second solution to the problem would be just the right to
leave the existing chain link fence as is, but with the right
to install an automatic opening gate, not wrought iron but just
a similar type of fencing to the chain link fencing that's
there. So, I think they've offered 2 fair options. They bought
this piece of property honestly thinking that they had fencing
there. They felt that the fencing that they had proposed was
more of a - a better replacement to what was there and in
, keeping with the neighborhood itself. And so I think that gives
you at least a choice that would make them happy and maybe solve
a problem that's been created here. So, I'm here to answer any
questions that I might be able to and hope you'll give this
-careful consideration.
Mr. Harbicht?
Mr. Maddock, maybe you could explain to me - the one thing
I don't understand here is why they want a 6 foot fence.
do they want a fence higher than the Code allows?
that
Why
Well, the 4 foot is the height that the Code would allow.
Right.
To go up one - if you've seen 4 foot fences, 4 foot shrubs and
so forth, any person - you probably feel a little more freer
going over a type of'fence like that. I know that in most back
yards, in any type of back yards, usually a fence is 5 to 6 feet
high because it more or less serves as a barrier of somebody
crossing that fence itself. 4 feet is just - if you've seen
them, they almost look like you could leap over them. 5 foot
just seems to keep you out and 6 foot seems to stop you
altogether.
So, you're saying for security?
Security. It's a large piece of property with a massive front
yard out there and security would be one of the considerations.
Yes.
Is there another?
Uh, to make it look - for appearance sake, too. In their eyes
the fence that is at the - the recommended fence they have
4
CHANDLER'
COUNCILMAN
LOJESKI
MADDOCK
LOJESKI
MADDOCK
LOJESKI
MADDOCK
LOJESKI
MADDOCK
LOJESKI
WOOLARD
LOJESKI
MADDOCK
LOJESKI
MADDOCK
LOJESKI
CHANDLER
MADDOCK
CHANDLER
MADDOCK
CHANDLER
ALBERT
CORRIGAN
selected, which is up down the street, is an attractive fence
.to them and that's something they would like to have at their
property.
Yes, Dr. Lojeski?
A couple of questions, Mr. Maddock. What is the height of the
existing chain link fence that's there?
6 feet.
That's 6 feet also. OK. So this - basically, this blueprint'
that we're looking at becomes null and void in discussion
tonight. Is that correct?
Well.
This is the one tha~ shows the ...
To be honest with you, I have not reviewed that blueprint.
This one shows the pillars at, really, 7 feet. The fence, I
believe, at - excuse me, the pillars holding the gate at 7 feet.
The regular pilasters at 6 feet and the fence, I believe, at...
Councilman Lojeski, this is what was, I think, presented and
approved by the Homeowners Association and submitted to the
Modification Committee. The Modification Committee approved it,
but did reduce the height of both the wrought iron and the
pillars to 6 foot for the pillars and 5-6 for the fencing.
OK. So, I guess that my question is, is the applicant in onel
of his proposed solutions is now saying, basically, lower this
whole thing to 5 feet. The pilasters would not extend any
higher than 5 feet.
Lower the pilasters to 5 feet. Lower the iron to 5 feet. The
only exception that we made is it may have to go a few inches
over on the gate itself in order - for support. We didn't know
that at the time. We don't know that tonight. But we may need,
I think we asked for 6 feet in that - for the 2 pillars that
would hold up the gate.
OK. In basic design, the pilasters and the iron work is this
style.
Yes, I guess that would more or less remain.
OK. I just kind of want to understand what's in front
No other questions.
of me" 1
OK. Thank you, Mr. Maddock.
Thank you. Do you want this back?
You might want to keep it if we don't need it. You never knOWI
if you'll need it back.
I'll leave it with the City Clerk here (inaudible).
Thank you. OK. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor
'of the appeal?
I'm Albert W. Corrigan.
represent the seller.
I live at 517 Santa Rosa Road and I
I just want to confirm the diligent
5
I
I ~DLER
EDWARD
BUTTERWORTH
CHANDLER
BUTTERWORTH
CHANDLER
BUTTERWORTH
I
I
I
investigation that we made of the file at the City Hall. I
wanted to just bring - I more or less went along with what
Gordon has just said. I would like to say that this property
is 70,300 square feet - 2 lots - big estate size property. And
I can't visualize a 4 foot fence. It wouldn't quite even fit
with the size of the property. These people, when they first
saw the fence that's there, the first thing they wanted to do
was get in and clear that up. And it has been there 21 years
and it wouldn't win an award as far as looks are concerned. So
they wanted to get right into this thing and go with the
neighborhood and improve the neighborhood. They went through
the routine that is required to make the change, faithfully.
And I think that this 5 foot fence would be aesthetically good
looking and I would vote for that. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of the
appeal? Seeing none, it is now time for those opposing the
appeal. Please step forward.
Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the Council,.Mr. city Manager
and members of the staff, and Madame Clerk, I'd like to, if I
may, present in evidence some 'more petitions against the
position of the applicant, mostly the neighbors immediately
surrounding the property.
Mr. Butterworth, would you please give your name and address.
Pardon me, sir.
Would you give your name and address for the record?
Yes, sir. My name is Edward L. Butterworth. I reside at 1145
singingwood Drive in Arcadia. I have 3 pictures here that I
think are relevant. One is the intersection showing how we live
up there with open yards and landscaping and shrubbery and the
other 3 pictures are the side fence of the applicant on this
subject property, which will be, I think, relevant to my dis-
cussion. I always believe in compromise. Practicing law for
a while, you can't ignore it. But let me put it in context.
They're offering to reduce this fence 6 inches. That's it. A
5 or 6 or 7 foot fence is an exclusionary fence. A 3 or 4 foot
fence is a decorative fence. I can't speak - they've known I'm
involved in it. This is the first I've ever heard of anything
like that. Why it would not be disclosed at an earlier time is
hard for me to understand. But I'd like to present my position
on it because I think it's a matter that affects the entire
Upper Rancho and I will get right to the point because I know
you have an agenda, everyone here. I have a preliminary matter
I want to suggest. You know, when an attorney takes an appeal
from, say, the municipal court to the appellate division of the
superior court and he files his appeal in the court of appeal
or the united States District Court or something like that, not
where he should with the appellate division of the superior
court and his time for appeal has elapsed, he's out of luck
because he hasn't followed the procedure on an appeal. Now, we
have an appellate statute here in Arcadia which governs appeals
from the Planning Commission to the City Council. And they had
an attorney in this case, Mr. Shuai - I'm not sure I've pro-
nounced the name correctly - but, his appeal is before you.
Section 9291.2.8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code provides within
5 working days after such decision by the Planning Commission
the applicant or any other person agreed by such decision may
appeal therefrom in writing to the Council by filing such with
the City Clerk. Now, those are explicit methods of appeal, if
you're appealing from the Planning commission to the City Coun-
cil. Their attorney, Mr. Shuai - and the last day to appeal was
the 31st of October - we have a letter from the City to that
effect - they filed on the last day. And if you will notice the
appeal, it is directed to Mr. Papay of the Planning Commission,
not to the city Clerk nor is the city Clerk listed as any CC.
6
I am advised that did not drift down to the City Clerk until the
first of November. And I might say that the statute doesn't say
anything about drifting down, anyway. It says you file it with
the City Clerk. I would respectfully suggest to the Council
that they have an invalid appeal. One other preliminary matter
that I would call attention to Council, an appellate court will
usually sustain a lower court, even though members of the
appellate court, had they been sitting in the lower court, might
have voted the other way, they will sustain the lower court if,
unless that lower court has acted contrary to law or has acted
in an unconscionable or arbitrary and capricious manner. I I
can't speak, of course, for the concept of the Council at that
time, but I know for many years we followed that concept here
in Arcadia. If a Board or Commission rendered a decision, that
decision was generally upheld and supported by the Council, even
though members of the Council might have, had they been sitting I
on the Board or the Commission, might have individually voted
the other way. And they will uphold the Board or commission
unless' it has acted contrary to the law, the statutes of
Arcadia, or it has acted in an arbitrary and capricious and an
unreasonable manner. That is at least the concept I know that
had been ,followed. However, I want to say right now, the
Council has very wide discretion in these matters and I know
that you can do what you think is best. I want to address a
matter and I think I should address the matter of other,fences
up there. They have in the appeal and in this documerit that I
was handed - I have lost it here - I'll return it at this time -
they have - Mr. Shuai has cited in his appeal, I think, some 7
other fences in our area of, what, 200-250 homes up there. And
he says because there are other fences up there, it's not fair
that my client should not have the right to put up this fence.
And I think I should address that matter. But I'd like to state
it another way that I think maybe' puts it into context. What
he is, in effect, saying, Mr. Shuai in his appeal - he is saying
just the existence of those fences per se without the existence
of any other fact as to how they got there is enough to jUstifYI
his client to put up a fence in violation of our city statutes.
And I don't think that's so. I don't think just the mere
existence of a fence that might exceed 4 feet in the front yard
justifies these people putting up a fence in violation of the
City statutes unless you consider the circumstances under which
that fence in the front yard was put up. And let me illustrate
my point. One of the properties, one of these 7 properties they
cite, is the one up on Baldwin. I think the Council knows more
about this than I do and I'm speaking from hearsay. But we had
a man up there, as I understand it, who felt that he might be
assassinated and he was allowed to put up a fence in excess of
4 feet. A very compelling reason why that would be granted.
Does the fact that that fence went up, and that's one of the
fences that they cite, because a man felt he might be assassi-
nated, does that justify an inference then that the applicant
should be entitled to put up their fence in violation of the
City statute when no hardship, no compelling reason of any kind,
has been cited. Then there's 4 other properties that he putSI
in his appeal that are in those pictures, and there are 4 of
them, of the 7. If you look at the City files on these 4 fences
- and I haven't but the president of the property owners
association, Mrs. Draper, who is here and, I think, will address
the Council very briefly - 4 of those fences in the files show
that there was no building permit, no variance, no permission
of the City, no nothing in there to justify these front yardl
fences over 4 feet. And the inference arises, indeed the
inference is compelling, that on those 4 properties, those
fences were put up unlawfully and illegally, and which is not
all that uncommon in the city. There's an unlawful fence on the
subj ect property, put up unlawfully. And I - Mrs. Draper, - but
the point I think I'm making is that you cannot look at a fence
per se just without understanding the background and say, well,
here are 4 fences and they're up, therefore, I've got a right
to put a fenc~ up. And then, lastly, we get to this property
7
I
that they've emphasized quite a bit on Hampton and Dexter. I
don't know what the reason was why that was granted. I don't
know how far it got in the hearing process. I don't know if
anybody objected to it. I know that it was granted on the 22nd
of December, 3 days before Christmas, which I think is an
excellent time; if you have something like this, to bring up
before a determining body. But I want to say that it stands out
like a sore thumb out there. It is the only property with a
fence like that in blocks, and they think it looks very
attractive. I think most of the - I think it looks atrocious
and totally out of character with our area of open lawns and the
mesa oak and shrubbery and California outdoor living, without
these exclusionary fences. I think the point I'm making, in
summary, is that you cannot just bring before this Council the
per se existence of 7 fences and, without considering any other
facts, say, as they do say, here are 7 fences, they're over 4
feet, therefore I'm justified in putting one over 4 feet. I
know the Council has a long agenda and I'm going to get right
to the point and try to bring this to a conclusion, but I want
to call your attention to a document that I put before you.
It's called "Document A" and it's the 2 statutes that govern
this situation. I'm not going to read them. I'll go over it
very quickly, but I just want to point out what is before the
Council. The first one the top paragraph is. 9283.8.7 entitled
"Fences and Walls", and it provides in, I think, rather clear
language that fences and walls of not more than 4 feet in height
may be located in any front yard - not. more than 4 feet in
height may be located in any front yard - except within 25 feet
of an intersection. In which case the height shall not exceed
3 feet. Now, I think that's very clear language. That's your
ordinance that says it shall not exceed 4 feet in the front
yard. And this property is on an intersection and it is - what.
they want to put up is within 25 feet of the intersection and
so it must go down to 3 feet, according to the statute, and then
the statute goes on to say that even then if it interferes with
traffic, 3 feet isn't proper. Now let me go to the next
section, and again, I'm not going to read it, this is 9283.8.8.
Listen to the language in this. This is speaking of fences that
are used in the side yard or the back yard and they're fences
not in excess of 6 feet. But here's what the language says:
provided such fence or wall - and, again, they're speaking of
these 6 foot fences - or hedge does not extend into the required
front yard. These are words of prohibition in your statute.
The first one says it shall not be over 4 feet. The second one,
if there could be any doubt about it, says that the side and
rear fences of 6 feet, or up to that, shall not be extended into
the front yard. That's 4 feet. These are the ordinances of the
City. Mr. Shuai, who filed this appeal, says on page 2, "Why
should this fence be denied simply because of a few neighbors'
subjective point of view." I want to say that, indeed, all of
the immediate neighbors - Mr. and Mrs. Turner who are on the
south, the Butterworths who are on the north, Mr. and Mrs.
Agajanian who are across the street on the east, and Mr. and
Mrs. Yurich who are on the rear on the west - all of the
neighbors object to this. The Board of Directors of the Rancho
Santa Anita Property Owners Association has filed before you an
objection. The president of the Association is here. There was
no formal vote taken by the Architectural Review Board, but I
think I can say without fear of contradiction that the present
Architectural Review Board is also against anything in excess
of 4 feet in the front yard in the Upper Rancho. I recognize,
ladies and gentlemen, your zoning laws have to be flexible and
we have to act reasonably. You can't be hard, unadjustable on
these things. But I want to point out that what these people
are asking for is not just a little minor adjustment that many
times you see in these variances. What they're asking for, at
least in the appeal, 5 feet 5 - that is about a 38 or 39% excess
over the statutory allowance. And the columns that they want
at 6 feet is 50% ,in excess of what the statute allows. And when
you take it that they get within 25 feet of the intersection,
I
I
I
I
8
at that point it becomes 100% in excess of what your ordinances
provide for. What hardship is to be avoided in this case? What
compelling reason is there that they can come in and set these
statutes aside like that on a variance? Mr. Shuai, in his
appeal for the applicants, states it better than I could state
it. And this is the reason: "Mr. and Mrs. ching recently
purchased the property known as 1150 Fallen Leaf in Arcadia'with
existing 6 foot height chain link fence." And here is their
reason for why they are coming before this Council: "In the
spirit of beautifying their property and a better security, my
clients decided to initiate the process to replace the existing I
chain link fence." Ladies and gentlemen of the Council, that
is exact (inaudible) you to set the statute aside. And you can
contrast this with the application up on Baldwin where a man
thought he was going to be assassinated. They have not given
any compelling reason of any kind why they want to set aside a I
statute. I want to address the matter of security, because that
came up in this argument and I've got one more point, I'm done.
This Mr. Shuai, again, states in his appeal. He says, "It is
important to point out that my clients have every right to feel
secure in their homestead, as well." For the Modification
Committee there wasn't even the word "security" mentioned. Then
we get up before the Planning commission at the end, they think
maybe also they'd like this because of security without giving
any reasons of any kind in connection with that security. I
want to tell the Commission that Mrs. Butterworth and I have
lived there for 41 years on this intersection and we feel quite
secure in our homestead up there without the need of a 5 or 6
foot fence in our front yard. And I want to say that 98% of the
people in the Upper Rancho feel quite secure in their home-
steads, so to speak, without the necessity of these exclusion-
ary fences. And I'm certain that Mr. and Mrs. Lin, when they
move in there and become permanent residents, are going to feel
secure in their homestead without the necessity of an exclusion-
ary fence. I spoke to Mr. Ostashay briefly about a month ago
talking about security on these fences and how much security I
they provide. I think for an experienced robber or an exper-
ienced burglar, a 5 foot or 6 foot fence is not very much of a
deterrent. They can get over those things pretty easily and
once they get over, that fence, if anything, hides them from
public view. But I think in this particular instance to claim
security or to urge security as a reason has not got a lot of
merit to it. I have submitted 3 pictures up there. This
property is on an intersection and there is a wall fence - 5
foot 10, 6 foot brick fence, wall fence - that goes along
Hampton and, ladies and gentlemen, anybody - absolutely anybody,
even me - can get over that fence with no effort at all. So,
if you can get over a fence like that, what are we talking about
in the way of security by putting up a 5 or 6 foot fence. I
want to close with this one observation. This property is at
the southwest corner of Fallen Leaf and Hampton. Hampton is the
most heavily traveled street - interior street - in the Upper
Rancho. It carries a fair amount of traffic and it barrels
along there at a pretty good speed. We all have to take drivers I
license tests and we all know what a blind intersection is if
we've got a drivers license. But to refresh your recollection
on it very briefly, it provides - Section 22352 of the Vehicle
Code provides that when you are 100 feet back, you must be able
to see 100 feet in each direction. And if you can't, you have
a blind intersection. If you permit this fence to go up on this
intersection, you've created a blind intersection. But morel
than that, I think you have created the single most dangerous
intersection in the Upper Rancho. The traffic barrels along
there on Hampton. There isn't the slightest peradventure of a
doubt that if that fence goes up, and you look at the map
there I s some 22 or 24 columns and then these thick bars in
between, there's no way you have a clear and unobstructed view
of traffic coming up Fallen Leaf. Thank you for your patience,
ladies and gentlemen. These are the reasons why I respectfully
ask that the City Council sustain the position of the Planning
9
CHANDLER
JUDIE
DRAPER
I
CHANDLER
I
DRAPER
CHANDLER
DRAPER
CHANDLER
HARBICHT
DRAPER
HARBICHT
DRAPER
I HARBICHT
CHANDLER
DRAPER
CHANDLER
WOOLARD
I
CHANDLER
I BOB HENKEL
commission and the citizens.
Any questions of Mr. Butterworth? Thank you, Mr. Butterworth.
I think there are none. OK. Thank you. Is there anyone else
in the audience who wishes to speak opposing the appeal? Seeing
none, we'll give the appellant the last opportunity..... I'm
sorry, you have to stand up and give your name. -
My name is Judie Draper.
ciation. I would just
Council ...
I'm president of the Homeowners Asso-
like to ask the Mayor and the City
Give your address, please.
939 Hampton Road. I would just like to ask if the Mayor and the
city Council received the letter that I delivered to the Council
Chamber this afternoon?
Yes.
Yes. And I just offered that as evidence to the exhibits that
were presented in Mr. Shuai'sletter of October 31.
OK.
Mrs. Draper, I have a question on your letter here. You have
over here modification - I assume that means whether or not a
modification was granted for that fence.
Yes.
What is the columns headed "building" mean?
If there was a building permit taken out.
Oh, a building permit? OK.
OK. This substantiates what Mr. Butterworth was mentioning
regarding that no permits were taken out on what? - 5 or 4 of
these fences, right?-
Yes.
OK. So they're done unlaWfully. OK. Thank you, Mrs. Draper.
I'd like to make a point of clarification in that respect.
Until about 3 years ago we did not require building permits for
fences that were 6 feet of height or less. And because of
problems like this and other problems with fences between
properties, we started requiring the permits about 3 years ago.
So, if a fence at one of these addresses was prior to that time,
there would be, probably, no record of a building permit issued
for it.
OK. Thank you. And as procedure goes, we'll give the appellant
a last opportunity to speak. Excuse me, we have another person
wishing to speak in opposition. Go ahead. Name and address,
please.
My name is Bob Henkel. I live at 1065 Singingwood Drive. I am
Chairman of the Architectural Review Board, the current one.
I was on the Architectural Review Board that approved the site,
or the fence. And I'd like to say that the current Archi-
tectural Review Board is not in favor of the fence and has put
off any decision until the Council would meet again. We have
before us the chain link fence and also the block wall. Some
of the reasons of the past fences that have been approved - you
know about the one which we approved for security purposes on
the - o~ vou approved for security purposes - on the corner of
Baldwin and Orange Grove. That fence was put up - actually
10
approved over the Architectural Review Board. We declined it.
We did not want the height and that was the reason it was
declined. The situation at the corner of Hampton and - what's
the other - Dexter, that was approved - I was on the Archi-
tectural Review Board. I approved a 4 foot fence and it went
through and received a variance and was built. I am not aware
of it going to the 6 foot height that it originally got to, but
I was on that Architectural Review Board. I think that living
in the neighborhood you'll find that the fences - the high
fences are not part of our neighborhood. And as far as the
Architectural Review Board, I think.I can speak for the Archi-I
tectural Review that we are not in favor of increasing the
height of the requirement of the - or the height of the fence.
The 4 foot is a decorative fence, as Mr. Butterworth puts it.
A 6 foot fence is a security fence and our whole area is very
secure, in fact, we probably have one of the least break-ins of I
the area. And it is secure. We do have homeowners - the
neighborhood watch, and we're very effective at keeping control
of that particular - that security issue. I would just like to
say that the Architectural Review Board is not in favor of the
fence.
GILB
May I ask a question?
CHANDLER
Yes.
GILB
Mr. Henkel?
HENKEL
Yes.
GILB
Did I understand you to say that you were on the Architectural
Review Board that approved this fence?
HENKEL
I was.
GILB
Did you attend a meeting?
In a lot of cases the meeting is done by telephone.
I
HENKEL
GILB
There was no meeting.
GILB
No. No formal meeting on that particular fence.
Did you see the plans?
HENKEL
HENKEL
No.
GILB
Did you vote for it? You didn't see the plans.
I think there was a few people on that Architectural Review
Board that did not see the plans.
I haven't met anybody yet that saw the plans.
HENKEL
GILB
GILB
OK. Let's go to that fence.
do~1
HENKEL
We voted in favor of the fence based on the fence that was
the street.
HENKEL
OK.
I
GILB
The one on Hampton and Dexter, right?
HENKEL Yes.
GILB
OK. That was approved by you, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Cooper and Mrs.
Viola. And I think you just said that ~ou only approved a 4
foot fence?
HENKEL
That's what I recall. I don't have the records (inaudible)
11
GILB
HENKEL
GILB
I
, WOOLARD
GILB
HENKEL
GILB
CHANDLER
I HARBICHT
HENKEL
GILB
I CHANDLER
MACK TURNER
I
Yeah, OK. When that came to the City, that never got past the
Modification Committee. The Modification Committee approved
that fence. It never came to Planning and it never came to the
Council. So if you approved a 4 foot, I'd like to know how it
got to 6. I mean, I'm just asking.
I don't know.
Mr. Woolard, do you have any idea? We've done a little research
on this. I mean, you and I have, at least when it went through.
But, if they approved a 4, how did the Modificationlcommittee
change it to 6? ,
I don't think the Modification Committee would have approved
something that was not approved by the Architectural Review
Board. I'd have to go back and look at that file, but I doubt
that would happen. .
Yeah, but it never did get past the Modification Committee. It
never got to Planning and it never got to the Council. So some
people say, well, the Council approved it. We never.saw it and
nei ther did .Planning. It went to it was approved by
(inaudible).
Doesn't that require - on a variance, wouldn't that be a
variance to ....
Well, it was approved by the Modification Committee and it was
Christmas, so you know how that goes. No, I'm just saying. I
don't know myself. I was surprised as you are when they started
building that thing, you know. OK. That's all.
Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Draper may have something to assist you. I
don't know. Yes, Mr. Harbicht?
I was just going to explain for those who don't understand that
often things are approved or disapproved at the Modification
Committee level. There's then the right of appeal to the
Planning Commission, which takes action. And there's further
right of appeal to the City Council, which has happened in this
case. For example, the fence at Orange Grove and Baldwin, I
don't believe that ever came before the City Council. I think
that that was approved by the Planning Commission. No one
appealed it, so we never saw it. And I think it's important
that people understand that not every one of these things comes
before the Council. It's only on appeal that they come before
the. Council. .
Thank you, Mr. Harbicht.
Thank you, Bob.
Thank you, Mr. Henkel. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition
to the appeal, please give your name and address.
My name is Mack Turner. I live at 1130 Fallen Leaf, the prop-
erty just to the south of the property in question. My wife
and I have lived there for 20 years and for 20 years have been
looking at an eyesore 6 foot chain link fence and, as Mr.
Butterworth so aptly stated, that was and is an unlawful fence.
We approached the previous owner on several occasions suggesting
that that might be beneficial to the neighborhood to take that
fence down, but to no avail. I'm an ex vice president of the
Association, and in that capacity I was told by Ann Cooper at
the time that the approval was given by the Architectural Review
Committee, that their decision was really based on this fence
is an improvement over the other one that is there. And I
submit to the Council that an unlawful fence over 4 feet, no
matter what it looks like, is not an improvement over a 6 foot
12
GILB
MR. TURNER
GILB
MR. TURNER
GILB
MR. TURNER
GILB
MR. TURNER
GILB
CHANDLER
GILB
CHANDLER
MARTHA
TURNER
GILB
illegal fence. From a personal standpoint, being a next door
neighbor, I take violent exception to living next to a prison-
like property and I would request your consideration of that.
The one on Hampton and Dexter to me looks like a prison. Thank
you.
May I ask a question?
Please.
Did you sign the paper originally to approve
real estate man brought it around?
this fence when thell
No, I did not.
Did your wife?
did on the basis that everybody else in the I
it, and so she didn't want to be the only one
didn't.
She did and she
block had signed
on the block who
Do you happen to know if she was ever informed that the plans
were to put a 6 foot fence up instead of a 4 foot fence, or was
it just to put a fence up?
Just to put a fence up and, if I remember correctly, and she can
correct me if I'm wrong, she was under'the impression that the
highest part would be 6 feet when she signed it and was
surprised when she found the pillars on the gate to be 7 feet
plus about a 2 foot fixture.
Was she - do you - maybe I can ask her. Please, cou1d'I ask her
up, please?
Thank you, Mr. Turner.
Could I have Mrs. Turner?
I
Mrs. Turner, please. Please give your name and address, even
though it will be a little redundant.
Martha Turner, 1130 Fallen Leaf. That's essentially correct,
Mr. Gilb.
Martha, when you signed the paper were you aware that the City
statutes held that there could only be a 4 foot fence up there
without a modification? Did you know that they were going to
put up a 6 foot fence ...
MRS. TURNER I don't know about ...
GILB
... in lieu of what was allowed at 4 feet. Did you know that?
MRS. TURNER I didn't know what height it was going to be, as I remember itoJ
GILB You were not aware of the city statute?
MRS. TURNER No, no, I wasn't.
GILB And did they tell you what the City statutes were? I
MRS. TURNER No, no there weren't any details given that I recall.
GILB
CHANDLER
Thank you. That's all I want to know. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mrs. Turner. Is there anyone left in the audience
wishing to speak in opposition? Seeing none, we'll move on with
procedure giving the appellant the last opportunity.
13
MADDOCK
I
,
I
CHANDLER
I
SHENG CHANG
I
It seems that one thing is clear to me that the Lins followed
the procedure. There at the Homeowners Association level, they
spoke to the people that they thought they were supposed to be
speaking to. They obtained the approval of the people that they
thought they were supposed to obtain it from. Each - when I
talked to the city of Arcadia about a violation of the Code in
the case of a fence or a hedge or something like that, that
sticks into an area, were told that you don't have the ability
to police something like that and it kind of comes up on an "as
called for" basis. Somebody complains about it, and then you
do something about it. And I'm sure that we don't want things
like that to start happening around here. But, the Homeowners
Association are now - I've just heard tonight and I think this
is new to us - that there's a new Board, they've had a meeting
on this particular piece of property already and I don't think
the Lins have been noticed of that, or we haven't, and the -
everybody has the obligation, if they don't like something up
there - the 6 foot fence that's been up there for 20 years - is
to do something about it if it's such an eyesore and so forth.
So, when the Lins come to you and say, look, we don't care which
way you go, we want an option. We bought this property in good
faith. We said - we looked through the records. We even had
inspectors on the property to come out and see what was wrong
out there and now we have to take down a fence that we thought
was something that was legal there. They would like to leave
the fence up. They would like to put an automatic gate in so
they don't have to get out of their car to go in their driveway,
like other people do. If you don't want the permanent colors
and wrought iron, that's why the option is there, to say, look
it here, we'll build a 5 foot fence. One foot higher than what
the Code requires. One foot less than what the fence is there,
as a new fence. And we would be satisfied with putting our
money into something like that. That would be something that
we like. But, I said it before - I, as a real estate broker,
with all the liability that we have nowadays on disclosure, it
scares me to death to think that - ah - of the violations on a
piece of property that aren't reported by homeowners associa-
tions, which have responsibilities to do that and/or City people
to take down something that isn't legal. And I could be - I
could end up being liable for not disclosing a material fact on
a piece of property. And I'm worried about that. And, so, we
have, I think, some problems here. But, anyway, the bottom line
is the Lins want to be good neighbors.. They would like to just
live in the property the way they bought it and what they
intended it for and they really don't want the problems with
their neighbors. They would like to be able to leave the fence
up, or have a fence of less than what they would apply for, a
little bit greater than the Code. That's all. .
Any questions of Mr. Maddock? We have an opportunity - come
forward and give your name and address.
Sheng Chang, 1140 Singingwood. I like to - I heard a lot and
I learned a lot. I like to make a comment - make a few comments
in terms of questions. To make a long story short, Mr. and Mrs.
Lin bought the property and after they bought - a few months ago
- and after they bought the property, they spent a lot of -
spent thousands of dollars to improve the interior of the
property and now they plan $30,000 more to build, build fora
fence - a wrought iron fence. Now they run into these problems.
As you are aware, that the chain link fence is - looks terrible
.and is illegal. So that they look around and saw, ah, there is
a beautiful fence over there at the corner of Dexter and
Hampton, so they want to copy the fence and even make it more
beautiful with the same height. However, after they passed
through the Architectural Review Board and they run - they have
some problem in the Planning commission, as you are all aware,
now they will - my understanding is that they will go along with
whatever the reduction of the height of the fence to 6 and 6 vs.
5-1/2. Now, my question here is that - ah - if we approve the
14
GILB
CHANDLER
GILB
CHANG
GILB
CHANDLER
fence structure over in the house at Dexter and Hampton, how -
how come we cannot approve the fence structure - the similar
fence structure in the Fallen Leaf and Hampton they are all at
the corner and physically, I mean geologically - physically they
are really compatible. They are at an intersection. And they
now even request, as I say, 6 and 5-1/2. And if you - if we
approve the one at Dexter, why we can not approve this one in -
at issue? Now, I just learned that the city Council didn't -
had not approved the one at Dexter. Now, suppose that let's
retroactively want to approve that. First of all, I want to
know the - how that they could build the fence at Dexter and I
Hampton just by passing through the Architectural Board? Now,
let's go on to the next question that if we - at this time the
Council want to retroactively approve or disapprove this fence
over at Dexter - if we want to approve that, then why we cannot
approve this one? If we do not want to approve that at Dexter"
what we are going to do with that? Now, we - I just - I learned
that in the beginning all the residents - all the neighbors of
this house in issue all agree with the iron - the wrought iron
fence structure. Then afterwards they change mind. Now, people
change mind all the times, but I don't know how in this setting
we can change mind from one day to the next day. After you sign
the paper. OK. Now, I just also learned that the Review Board
president indicated that now the Review Board would deny the
original request. Again, the question is that if the original
Board - if the Architectural Review Board original approved that
fence structure, how come they can come back and say we don't
approve that? And then tomorrow they may come back and say we
approve that again. So how we are going to do with this?
That's all. Thank you. .
I could answer his question.
Yes.
I could answer some of your questions. The one that's at thel
corner, among other things, the one that's at the corner of
Hampton and Dexter has 4 stop signs. It's a regulated traffic
intersection, number 1. In the first place, the wall - if it
had got to the Council, it would never have been put up. But
it never got here, it went to Modification. During the movement
of this application of this application that you're talking
about tonight, it has a certain sequence it goes through. And
it wouldn't make any difference to this Council if everybody
approved it, if we thought it was a traffic hazard and every
resident was in favor of it. If it's a traffic hazard that's
going to cause a possibility of death in traffic, that is our
responsibility. so, the people approved this around the
neighborhood to be good neighbors on an intersection that has
no stop signs, that would create a blind corner for anybody
entering on Hampton and those coming up Fallen Leaf to look
through that area, and that would be one big problem. The one
down at the other end has 4 stop signs parked there. That's the
two difference in the two intersections, basically. As to WhYJ
people change their mind, I really don't know. But I do know
that this went to Modification and as soon as it went to Modi-
fication it was appealed. It was appealed to the Planning
commission and the Planning Commission and then it was appealed
here, which is the normal step. It is not - it would not have
been approved by just the property owners liked it and that was
the end of it. That's why we have City government. And that'sl
why this fence came before us. This basically is all I can tell
you.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Thank you, Dr. Chang. Yes, sir? step forward and give your
name and address, please.
15
YEE-HORN
SHUAI
I
,
I CHANDLER
HARBICHT
I 'HUll
I
My name is Yee-Horn Shuai, located at 411 Scott Place, Arcadia,
and I happen to be the attorney who drafted that up here. And
after I heard Mr. Butterworth attacking my appeal and procedure
things, I think that I need to address on those issues. First
of all, I guess, we have letter dated October 12, '89 from the
City - actually from Assistant Planner James Kasama, that tells
us exactly that we have 5 days after the resolution is adopted
to file the appeal, which he indicated that's October 31, 1989,
and that's the date that I filed the appeal. And the reason why
we waited for so long to file the appeal was that Mr. and Mrs.
Lin were trying to be good neighbors and negotiate with the
Homeowners Association, with the help of the past president -
sorry, I've forgotten his name - which is Chris Brown. Somehow,
looks like they have some changes in the governing body. But,
anyway, as to Mr. Butterworth's attack on my appeal saying that
I've been asserting that my client has the right to get the
higher fence and that's partly wrong, because all I have been
trying to say is that we wanted to be treated fair. There are
many fences being approved in the past. And the Planning Com-
mission has indicated in the past approvals that open wrought
iron fences have been consistently approved within the front
yards, things like that. You know, we just felt that why in the
past these kind of fences were approved 'consistently and
suddenly stopped at our point. That's just something we want
to bring it up to the Council for your consideration. You know,
all we were trying to get is fairness. Certainly I would agree
that if there is some other compelling reasons that this shall
not be allowed, we will obey to that. Certainly I would
respectfully request you, City Councilmen and woman, that con-
cerning my client's compromising fence that they are willing to
lower the fence just to show their good faith trying to be good
neighbors in the area. Thank you.
Any question of Mr. Shuai? Yes, Mr. Harbicht.
Mr. Shuai, let me respond to something you said there and give
you. an opportunity to speak further to the issue. I keep hear-
ing in your letter, in your comments and some of the other com-
ments that have been made, that there are no compelling reasons
not to allow this. And - but what you're asking for here is for
us to deviate from the law. And so, we shouldn't be looking for
compelling reasons not to deviate from the law. We should ex-
pect the applicant to have the burden to show compelling reasons
why we should deviate from the law. And I frankly haven't heard
anything - any compelling reasons why we should deviate from the
law. I mean, it all seems to be based on there's some other
fences that are this high and the person happens to like a 6
foot fence and some concern about security. And I frankly don't
find any of those compelling reasons to deviate. And, so, I'm
telling you this because I want to give you the opportunity to
give me some compelling reasons.
Um, yes. They've been talking about compelling reasons. You
know, it depends on how you look at this term "compelling
reasons". My client felt that they wanted - they are from Tai
Wan, in a sense, you know, somehow they felt that a little bit
higher fence make them feel more comfortable, more secure. And
besides, that's a big yard, as explained by Gordon. You know,
if it's a low fence, just doesn't sound high. You know, somehow
they felt that, hey, with such a big yard, with such a lower
fence, it doesn't feel good - doesn't fit in well, OK? And
whether you think that's a compelling reason, that's really not
up to me. That's really up to you. And that's the reason. And
I am not saying that, hey, there's a compelling reason for the
city to approve such a deviation, OK? But, what we are trying
to say, why in the past are the City Planning Commission has
been saying that these kind of fences have been approved
consistently in the neighborhood. And now, it would not. And
16
CHANDLER
MADDOCK
CHANDLER
FRANK WU
CHANDLER
BUTTERWORTH
CHANDLER
BUTTERWORTH
it becomes inconsistent or it does not - is not comparable in
the area. Just we don't understand that. What we're trying to
say is that, hey, if it's been consistently approved and it
would be fair to approve it for us, since we copy it exactly the
same as the neighbor only about a block away, that's all we are
aSking, you know? But if you do think that there's compelling
reason or you have good reason that it shall not be approved,
we will accept that. But certainly we're taking a compromise
as it stands here that we will accept lower fence in order to
please everybody.
Thank you, Mr. Shuai. Return, Mr. Maddock? II
If we have the opportunity, let me - maybe, Bob, I can - you can
find some compelling reasons in past decisions that caused the
Councilor the Commission to approve some of the fences over ,
feet in height in that area. In M86-161, one finding of th
department was wrought iron fences have been consistently
approved in the front yards. Another one is walls that exceed
the maximum height have been consistently approved with an
adjacent resident's approval. In M87-118, findings - the 6 foot
high fence is being requested for security purposes and the
applicant has received approval from the Rancho Santa Anita
Property Owners Association. The Committee determined that the
approval of M87-118 would secure an appropriate approvement.
On another one, M88-008, the granting of this will not be detri-
mental to the public health, welfare and so forth. Approval of
this would secure an appropriate approvement. The appearance
of the fence with landscaping would be compatible with the
neighborhood and so forth. so, I don't see that - and I've been
around for a while - that the absolute compelling reason that
you're looking for usually is real clear all the time. I think
in this case here the compelling reason for them to make the
request, as others have, is (1) for security and (2) for their
opinion of what the property will look like when improved.
Thank you, Mr. Maddock. Yes, sir. Please step forward and givel
your name and address.
My name's Frank Wu, working with Gordon at Baldwin Realty.
(Inaudible) say here. When we went out to get signature of
surrounding neighbors within 100 feet, all the neighbor, 10 of
them include Mrs. Butterworth and Mrs. Turner, sign it. And now
we got this problem and we went back to the same neighbors and
try to ask their opinion now. Did you receive the letter from
the City, from the Homeowners Association? Now, if you read
them now, what do you think of that new fence? And here I got
signature of 7 out of the 11 properties and they agree to what
we applied. They've all considered a chain link fence is ugly.
The new fence would improve the proper - the neighborhood and
the property and they liked the idea. They signed it also last
week. So, that all, please. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other people wishing to speak in favor,
of the appeal? Did you have a pressing need to speak, Mr.
Butterworth?
I'll have a nervous breakdown if I don't.
OK. Well, there's a new piece of information YOU'd perhaps like
to look at. J
I haven't seen that. No. But what I have to say I can say i
one minute. But I want to tell - say this to you ladies and
gentlemen of the Council. If these people, for the reasons
which they have - well, just looking at this - Mr. Agajanian's
on here. Mr. Agajanian is against it. He's - you have one in
front of you, so this is one of the earlier ones. What I want
to say is this. If these people, for the reasons they have
assigned, are allowed to put up a fence in excess of the
17
I
, CHANDLER
GILB
HARBICHT
CHANDLER
GILB
CHANDLER
GILB
I
I
I
statutory limits, ladies and gentlemen, then anybody in the
community could put a fence up in excess of the statutory
limits. Anybody can if these reasons are sufficient. And if
anybody can, you have effectively visciated your statute. And
that's not the way, I don't think, a city ought to run. If
we're going to have 6 foot fences or 5-1/2 foot fences, the way
to do it, if I may respectfully suggest it, is to have an
ordinance allowing 6 foot fences in the Upper Rancho. At that
point the people in my area can come down here before the
Council and tell the Council what they think about it and how
they feel about it. This is going through the front door. And
then if the Council votes 6 foot fences, that's the law and
we'll stand by it. But the way they're doing it now is through
the back door. They're visciating the statute and it's done
under circumstances where a very limited number of people know
what's going on at a given time.
Seeing no ...
Mr. Mayor, I move we close the public hearing.
Second.
OK. We have a motion and second. No objections. The public
hearing is closed. Do we have ...
I'd like to start.
Mr. Gilb?
'Mr. Mayor, I was on the liaison to the Planning Commission when
this was heard over there and I have some - first, I would like
to say the real estate people, you know, they went out and did
everything they thought they were supposed to and the people who
bought the property, in all good faith, went out and got signa-
tures from the neighbors to put this fence up. But at that
time, in my opinion, the people that signed this approval for
the fence didn't real ize it was in excess of what the City
allows. The fence down on the corner of Hampton and Dexter,
I've already discussed that. No one seems to know how that got
up, which is kind of the point. Just because one was put up,
you don't have to put them up allover town if this one slipped
through. Now, as far as the process is concerned, I went
through that a moment ago that the process is really the appli-
cation. And then they go to the Architectural Review Board and
this Architectural Review Board was approved by the chairman,
without a meeting. And it seems like at that time that the
Architectural Review Board could, according to all of the peti-
tions that we've had signed, was out of step with the neighbor-
hood in this matter. I don't know how to say it any other way.
The real estate people got ahold of Mr. Brown, Chris Brown, who
then was the president of the Association. And they tried to
negotiate something with him and tried to mediate something with
him at that time and is probably the reason, as they explained,
that the 5 days took to get to the appeal process. I even
talked to some of the folks on the phone and they were trying
to work out something. At this time I have to say very candidly
that I am going to find against the appeal for the reason that
that is a blind intersection and I don't want a wall up there
of 6 feet. Now, I have to congratulate the people for wanting
to take down that chain link fence and put up a nice wall, but
a 4 foot wall, to me, will accomplish just as much as a 5 foot
wall or a 5-1/2 foot wall will. The fact that people go over
a wall, as Mr. Butterworth pointed out, there's 90-some per cent
of the homes up there don't have any walls in front of their
houses. They've never had any problem. We've all got alarm
systems and we've got an excellent pOlice department that
patrols the area. And, so, if the security is the thing, then
I can't base it on that. As far as the aesthetic value, I think
a 4 foot wall over there would look very, very nice and, as you
18
CHANDLER
HARBICHT
probably know, at the Planning Commission level, and it was
brought up, the people were instructed to take down the chain
link fence. Now, the chain link fence has been up there
illegally for 20-some years. NOW, you could come and ask the
question, say, why wasn't it asked to be taken down before?
Well, I don't know the answer to that, but what happens now is
that, you know, we have a certain amount of time and I don't
think anybody's going to push everybody to take that down. So
what happens now is that the people who live there can appeal
to the Architectural Review Board to leave the chain link fence
up and have a hearing, because it's been instructed by thel
Planning commission that it should come down. Or they can
resubmit this plan that they have to a 4 foot fence on that
corner. The corner is a very viable thoroughfare through that
property. And I have to tell you honestly, the way the traffic
travels through there, it would be crazy to put 4 stop signs UPI
there and then 4 stop signs down the street. But if you put the
wall up there and it starts growing, and even a 4 foot was going
to have to watch hedges, on that corner it is a blind corner for
the traffic traveling north on Fallen Leaf Road.. And' it is
going to be one big problem on that corner. I have to tell you
very honestly, I feel for the people who have done the - who
bought the property. In my opinion they've done everything that
they were supposed to do. But we have, in the City, have
followed through the process that we are supposed to. And that
is, go before the Architectural Review Board, go before the
Modification Committee, appeal to the Planning Commission,
appeal to the Council. So as far as my vote is concerned, I
think a 4 foot fence or wall up there that they would put up
would be just as decorative, just as aesthetically compatible
as a 5 foot. It will meet the City Codes. And unless they put
up a 4 foot - agree to put up a 4 foot wall and take down that
chain link fence, I am going to find against the appeal and in
favor of the Planning Commission's decisions.
Any comments from the Council? Mr. Harbicht? J
Well, as I mentioned, that I think that what we need to do her
is .look for a good reason to deviate from the standard. That's
really what's before us. And the two things that have been
presented are (1) security - I don't find that a compelling
argument because most of the houses in Arcadia don't have
security fences in their front yard, certainly not 6 foot
fences. And I don't see where there's any more of a security
problem at this particular address than at any other address in
the immediate area or in the entire City, for that matter. And
I think a good point was made. If we were to grant this on the
basis that this person needs this to feel secure, then essen-
tially we've granted that right to everybody in the city,
because it's only a person's feeling of whether or not they feel
secure and, essentially, it would set a precedent. The second
argument is appearance. And I don't think there's any question
that taking down that chain link fence and putting up this wall
would improve the appearance there. I mean, this would be nicerl
looking fence than the chain link fence. At the same time, we
usually don't - we have lots of non-conforming uses and we
occasionally get applications where somebody says, well, I'm
going to - I want to continue to have a non-conforming use, but
I want to make it a nicer looking non-conforming use. And we've
consistently denied that. The real question is, will a 4 foot
wall look better than this chain link fence. I think the answel
is yes, it will. And I really can't see any reason why w
should deviate from the standard to go to 5 foot or 6 foot. Th
- someone said they can't visualize a 4 foot ,fence around this
yard, that this would be out of proportion. There's plenty of
yards that don't have any fences and I see them with other kinds
of fences. I personally don't see where a 4 foot fence is out
of proportion, certainly not to the point where I find it a
compelling reason to approve it. I think it is unfortunate that
the way this has happened is the applicant did go through
19
I
,
I
YOUNG
CHANDLER
YOUNG
I
I
channels, did everything properly, got the signatures and - but
the fact is that the people who signed this have the right to
change their mind. New information comes to light, apparently
it has in this case because a number of people have recanted.
It's gone through the various levels and obviously someone who
felt some way at one point in time has the opportunity to change
their mind as they get to another level or another consideration
here. And I will say one thing, that I'm a little disturbed
that all of a sudden the current fence has become an issue and
that they've received an order to take that fence down. The
fence has been there, apparently, for about 20 years. And it
seems to me there ought to be some kind of statute of limita-
tions there. I think that's kind of playing a little dirty.
Someone was trying to do what was right, trying to do what they
felt needed to be done, and as a result o~ that I think they're
being victimized a little bit by that order. And that's a
separate issue, but I just wanted to make that particular feel-
ing known. I think that it's important to also point out that
,we've got a number of examples here of overgrown bushes and
things that are just as much a traffic hazard. And I think it's
important to understand that if someone were to go around this
City with their polaroid camera and look as hard as they could
for every minor violation, you'd find a bunch of them. And the
reason you would is that we don't have a pol ice state here.
We're not going around sticking our noses into people's back
yards or looking for problems. If we find an obvious problem,
certainly we're going to move against it. But we enforce most
of these on a complaint basis. And if someone feels strongly
that there are problems at an intersection with visibility and
they bring it before the City, a simple call to the Code
Enforcement Department will get somebody out there. They'll
look at it and we'll take action. And I know' this has happened
in many, many cases and I've had people come to me and say, gee,
we've got a problem. A p~rson's bushes are growing out at a
certain corner. And I just make a phone call and the next thing
you know, it's taken care of. But we don't have people that go
around looking for those kinds of problems. We have - they're
obviously aware if they see a problem that is a significant
problem, we're going to take action. So, the fact that you can
find some places where there are bushes that are higher than 6
feet or extending out over the curb really isn't justification
for ,consciously approving something that deviates from our
ordinance. So, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to vote to -
I don't know if we're sustaining the appeal or. denying the
appeal - I guess denying the appeal. I'm going to vote against
the wall. .
Mr. Mayor?
Mrs. Young?
Mr. Harbicht brought up several things that I had in mind and
I agree. I have not had any compelling reasons why a high fence
should go up. I do feel that the 4 foot fence would be a suit-
able fence, but I would also be willing to go along with higher
gate posts, because I feel that to operate automatic gates
properly, they will need some extra support at that point. I
agree that the bushes are as bad a problem as fences and,
certainly, I would like to challenge the upper Rancho Homeowners
Association to "bird dog" some of their bush corners, because
some of them are very bad. And I've spent the last 2 days
driving around that area looking at these problems. Now, this
has come to light and I think that if you do not "bird dog" it
somebody else is going to for you and you will probably have to
cut down a lot of bushes. The ordinance on that says that land-
scaping located with 25 feet of an intersection shall not exceed
3 feet in height. So that's something, certainly, to keep in
mind. But,' I'm sorry this had to come up because we cannot
approve something just because another fence was approved at
another time. We were not here at that time, nor did we hear
20
CHANDLER
LOJESKI
CHANDLER
HARBICHT
some of it if it had been brought to us. So I, too, would have
to deny the appeal. Oh, I have one more thing to say. As far
as that chain link fence goes, we have a copy of a building
inspector's report in 1968 where that was called to the atten-
tion. I do not feel that that should be compelling for the
current owner and I agree with Mr. Harbicht that the Planning
commission should not have muddied the waters with that issue.
Dr. Lojeski, do you have a comment?
A couple of comments. I think, you know, the important thingl
tonight is, as I'm Sharing the same thoughts with my other
fellow council members, this is one of those unfortunate things
that comes to us. We've got to make the ugly decision, it
seems, where there's been all of these flip-flopping. One body
approves it, one disapproves it, somebody appeals, they approve,
it again. You know, it's gone around the circle a few times.
And the important thing to realize tonight in front of us is
only the consideration of the height of the subject reqUested
fence. Nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with'
whether rose bushes are to be planted on it. It has nothing to
do with whether it's a chain link material. It has nothing to
do whether it's brick pilasters, wrought iron, whatever. We're
solely, simply looking at the appropriateness of extending the
height of a fence greater than 4 feet. After visiting the
intersection, after looking at the property, after sitting at
all the corners and reviewing what goes on, particularly from
a traffic standpoint, I tend to agree. We've got a traffic
situation there that becomes a real burden. This whole thing
can be really put to bed, and I feel if the applicant is willing
to lower from his original request of 6 feet to 5 feet, an
additional foot may be appropriate. If not, the applicant can
always go back to the Architectural Review Board and I think the
Homeowners Association Architectural Review Board understands
who should look at this, how the vote should be taken, how the
hearing should be conducted in a better fashion. So everyone I
is noticed. All of the members of the Board - or, excuse me,
the Architectural Review Board are there. The applicant is
there and everybody presents their case. Everybody I snow
looking in the orange bushel for oranges. They're not looking
at apples, pears and everything else that are out there. And
I think this is basiga11y the problem that occurred here. And
I think with that information, with the information of going
there, with the information tonight of how other fences and
other walls and things become structured, it's real easy for me,
for Mr. Gilb, for Mrs. Young and the rest of us to say, well,
gosh, you know, we weren't on the Council, it never came in
front of us. I think you could see how things can happen.
Unfortunately, it's the system we live in and it's, you know,
how far do some individuals wish to take the law as they inter-
pret it. And I would like to see the applicant do one of two
things: either (1) simply lower his concept and his idea to 4
feet and it's a moot point, or go back to the Architectural
Review Board, if he likes the 5 foot situation, with that kind I
of a design and I would hope that the Architectural Review Board
would then review it, review it in a very open, practical fash-
ion and not pre-judge just simplistically because the wall or
the fence or the bush or whatever may be higher than 4 feet.
There may be, at that meeting and under those circumstances,
what would be considered compelling reasons rather than just
blanketly saying we will not or would not accept any requestl
that comes in front of us for any variance or any modification,
you know. It's a messy situation and unfortunately we've got
to make the decision tonight. So, that's the only comments I
have.
Mr. Harbicht?
Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that the Council...
.21
GILB
I
'WOOLARD
GILB
MILLER
GILB
IMILLER
GILB
CHANDLER
HARBICHT
YOUNG
CHANDLER
I ROLL CALL
HARBICHT
CHANDLER
I HARBICHT
YOUNG
HARBICHT
Before you make the motion, I want to ask a question, Bob,
please. At the ,Planning Commission hearing we got clear to the
end of the discussion and this chain link fence removal was
really thrown in an a remark just before the motion was made.
There was 'never any discussion at the table about it and then
the Commission said, yes, we want the chain link fence removed
then. That's the way it got. So then I talked to Mr. Woolard
about it and Mr. Woolard said that they had the direction - I've
looked at the Minutes that we have received and the Minutes
didn't -,I said, Mr. Woolard, that's not what was said. And Mr.
Woolard said, well, ... 'Bill can explain exactly the reason,
but it was,that the Planning commission try to remove the fence,
I think was,- was that the wording, Bill? So that - because he
was talking - would you tell them what you and I were discussing
about this chain link fence in regard to the legal (inaudible).
Well, the Planning Commission's action was basically a denial
and you couldn't condition a denial, which is, I think, what
they were trying to do. On the other hand, we had this out-
standing notice of violation and it's a separate issue and
something that needed to be taken care of, which didn't come to
our attention until, unfortunately, 20 years after the original
notice was given to the property owner. So, we have sent out
a notice requiring that the chain link fence be abated.
If we make the motion here to sustain, or whatever we're going
to do, what the Planning .commission had, then we have to,
legally, go ahead and get the chain link fence removed, is that
correct?
Yes, a removal of the chain link fence' is really a staff
administrative enforcement issue. The Planning commission's
remark was nothing more than a remark.
OK. So that has nothing to do with this, then?
That's correct.
OK. Thank you. Go ahead, Bob.
Mr. Harbicht?
Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that the Council find that there is
no compelling reason to deviate from the Code, that to do so
would not promote uniformity of development, nor create an
unreasonable hardship, nor secure an appropriate improvement and
overrule the appeal and sustain the Planning Commission's denial
of Case No. MC89-074 and direct staff to prepare the appropriate
resolution incorporating the Council's decision and findings.
Second.
We have a motion and a second. May we have a roll call.
AYES: Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young, Chandler
Mr. Mayor?
Yes.
I'd like to continue this a moment longer on this question of
abating the 21 year old notice on the chain link fence. There's
just something wrong with this.
I agree.
I'm not sure what's the proper way to handle it.
like to have Council direct staff to, at least,
abeyance until we have an opportunity to ... Mr.
But I would
hold this in
Attorney?
22
MILLER
HARBICHT
GILB
HARBICHT
YOUNG
LOJESKI
GILB
LOJESKI
GILB
CHANDLER
HARBICHT
GILB
LOJESKI
GILB
All that's gone on, I think, is a letter, a warning letter,
which is the initial step on enforcement, from the Planning
Department. So, I don't think the Council should necessarily
take a vote on this particular aspect because it's not on the
agenda. But, your direction generally could be for us to
withhold enforcement at this time pending a review or whatever
other basis you think is feasible. Because, even though it's
a 20 year old letter, another way of looking at it, it's also
an ongoing violation. And when we become aware of those, we do
have an obligation to go forward. However, we can review the
situation and abstain from going further at this time, if that'sl
the Council's desire.
Well, I recognize that we have these obligations. I think, at
the same time, that as a city we can have some compassion here.
Another part of that - the applicant was_stating that he'd likel
to do one of two things - put up the wall or get approval to put
an electric gate on this chain link fence. Well, I don't think
you're going to get an electric gate on an illegal chain link
fence. You know, I'm just saying - so that's a problem - I
mean, the answer to the thing is some time that they should be
allowed, 6 months or whatever, to try to straighten this out
with the wall and so on and so forth. But, if we have a Code
enforcement on an illegal fence, we have to do something about
it, even though like I feel like just like you say that it was -
I think it was unfair the way it happened. so, I don't want to
just forget the chain link fence.
Well, I think that what I'd like to do, if there's no disagree-
ment on this as far as the other Council members, is direct
staff to put this on hold for the time being.
That's fine.
Why don't you put a time factor on it, like 6 months. Then, YOI
know that it's going to be reviewed again. That would give th
applicant enough time if they have to go back to the Archi
tectural Review Board or whatever, at least the thing will be
in the process and it will still be on the books with Code
enforcement. I mean, is that fair enough?
I think I agree with Dr. Lojeski. otherwise it's going to be
on hold for another 20 years.
That's right.
until somebody takes it off hold.
That's what Bob wanted.
Well, I guess maybe I'm saying that that's what it should be.
If that's what happens, that's maybe that's the way it should
~. I
:O~o:':h:::n:O:~~e :O:o:':I::::eh:::hw::a:~Sh:sw::I:m::o~~.~he
situation and everybody here understands that what's there is
not nice, it's not pretty.
Now, another thing is, in that 6 month period, this is 2 10tSJ
This lot doesn't have to be split. It's already 2 lots. The
could take the house down and develop 2 houses, which might
solve this problem. That's not impossible. This is a 70,000
foot lot. I mean 2 lots would make them 35,000 a piece and you
could put 2 houses on the corner without splitting, because it's
already 2 lots. So that might solve the problem. But I would
like to look at it in about 6 months rather than just leaving
that chain link fence up there until somebody remembers it when
23
YOUNG
GILB
LOJESKI
I CHANDLER
HARBICHT
I GILB
CHANDLER
GILB
CHANDLER
GILB
CHANDLER
I
I
I
we're all dead in 20 years, you know"
No, I agree to a time limit, too.
Loj eski.
I think 6 months.
Whatever you want, Dr.
I just threw 6 months out because at Christmas time there's
bodies that may have to be involved, let's, you know, let's be
reasonable.
Mr. Harbicht, you started this. How do you feel?
I think the feeling of the Council's clear.
Yeah, and I think we got 3 votes.
This is not on the agenda, it's just direction, so ...
OK.
Take it for what it's wo~th.
That's it.
All right. That's it on that issue.
24