Loading...
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