Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 2, 200345:0160 CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING September 2, 2003 The City Council and Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, September 2, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. in the Conference Room of the City Council Chamber. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Chang, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic ABSENT: None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None. 1. STUDY SESSION is SIGN Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator, explained in detail types of signs and REGULATIONS code enforcement problems and /or design issues related to signage which included excessive window signs; non - permitted portable signs and not professionally designed; banners without permits; banners exceeding the approved time period; pennants, flags and other types of attention getting devices; change of copy on a sign without securing design review approval which frequently includes excessive non - English translation of the business identification; and, signs whose size and design are inconsistent with building architecture, style, color or material. It was noted that current sign regulations were adopted in the late 1960's and with some exceptions there have been only a few substantive changes since that time. Ms. Butler noted the scope of changes that staff would like to see addressed in a revised zoning ordinance with regard to window, wall, projecting signs, free - standing signs, monument signs, internally illuminated boxed signs, neon signs, marquees, banners, decorative banners, portable signs and sign designs. The proposed changes are set forth in the September 2, 2003 staff report. In addition, the revised code should include specific illustrations that note how signs are measured, examples of sign types and sign heights. With regard to window signs it was noted that the City no longer can legally regulate content of a sign, including English versus non - English language on the sign. Because of that, staff recommended that window signs be eliminated. Currently the City's sign regulations state "no more than 1/3 of the sign area of each sign may contain a non - English translation of the business identification; the remaining sign area identification shall be set forth in the Roman alphabet, English language and include Arabic numerals." LASER IMAGED 912/03 cp 45:0161 Following presentation staff recommended that the City Council authorize staff to hire a planning consultant to prepare new sign regulations for the City. Considerable discussion ensued with regard to the use of non - English language on the signs. Some members would like to know how other cities deal with this issue. Arcadia has certain standards that have to be recognized and it is up to the Council to figure out what those standards are and try to implement them. Following discussion, by Council consensus, direction was given to staff to draft a tough but legal sign ordinance. 1b. R -0 &R1 At the direction of the City Council, the Development Services Department conducted a ZONING survey of 15 cities with regard to floor area ratio (FAR), lot coverage and architectural design REGIAATIONS review. Floor area ratios vary from none up to a maximum of 50 %. Maximum allowable lot (FAR &Design , coverage varies from 35% up to a maximum of 60 %. Regarding design review, seven (7) of Rerw) the cities surveyed either had design review procedures or at a minimum, design review standards. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is generally defined as the combined gross floor area of all floors in all buildings and structures on a lot including basements, enclosed covered porches and patios, enclosed carports, garages and storage sheds. Some cities exclude basements, garages, unfinished attics, unenciosed porches, decks, balconies and garages and storage sheds from this definition. In other cities the FAR is based not on living area, but rather on the total building envelope area enclosed by the exterior walls. Considerable discussion ensued. Some members felt that Floor Area Ratio is not the solution to solve construction problems throughout the City. Design review could be the solution as opposed to FAR. City Manager Kelly noted that the City has no guidelines for design review and any area without an architectural review board would have to establish one. The goal is to achieve a more harmonious design. The City Council could adopt design review for single - family projects as it did for multi - family or commercial industrials, stay within the general boundaries and define some boundaries that most property owners or architects could stay within. In response to a Council question staff noted that the City has very specific design criteria that is handled by City planners. Having design guidelines will assist the planners in being able to comment on designs. There are also two architectural consulting firms available to critique projects. It was noted, if a modification is necessary then the project would be presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. Staff noted, in 2002, sixty-five (65) new single - family dwellings and 282 single - family additions and alterations were approved. And, based on last years workload there is definitely room to have standards that can apply to single - family dwellings, which will enhance the process and give staff more tools to work with. Considerable discussion ensued. Some members favored citizen's involvement in the design review process and were comfortable with imposing some design review standards similar to current standards for multi- family dwellings. Others felt that staff did a good job on multi - family design review and should be in charge of the single- family design review process also. 03DAM1932AJ 2 9/2103 45:0162 Following discussion it was MOVED by Councilmember Marshall, seconded by Councilmember Segal and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to IMPLEMENT design review standards for all single family residential projects that are not currently subject to an Architectural Review Board, similar to current design review for multi - family residential projects. AYES: Councilmembers Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: Councilmember Chang ABSENT: None It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Councilmember Segal and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to DEFER any discussion about Floor Area Ratio. AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None The City Council RECESSED at 7:00 p.m. and RECONVENED in the Council Chambers for the Regular Meeting at 7:05 p.m. INVOCATION Reverend Terry Keenan, The Santa Anita Church PLEDGEOF Carol Libby, Centennial Celebration Commissioner ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Chang, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic ABSENT: None 2. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS None. ORD. & RES. It was MOVED by Councilmember Segal, seconded by Councilmember Marshall and READ BY CARRIED that ordinances and resolutions be read by title only and that the reading in full be TITLE ONLY WAIVED. AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None PRESENTATIONS 3. CERT. OF Mayor Kovacic presented The Mayor's Certificate of Appreciation to volunteers who helped APPRECIATION with Arcadia's 100th birthday celebration on August 5, 2003. John Reuter, who was dressed (Reuter, Mr. & as Lucky Baldwin; Don and Bonnie Nelson, the publishers of the City's book, "Visions of Mrs. Nelson, Arcadia: A Centennial Anthology'; Jeremiah Wang, who assisted with the Historical Museum Wang & Mixer; and, Terry Miller Arcadia's unofficial, official photographer. Mayor Kovacic also Miller) expressed appreciation to each and every one of the volunteers who helped with various birthday celebration events and made the August 5, 2003 a truly great day in the life of the City. 3 9/2/03 45:0163 4. OATH OF OFF. The newly appointed Arcadia Beautiful Commission Member, Eileen Hubbard, was not (Hubbard) present this evening. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5a. ORDINANCE Consideration of the report and recommendation to introduce Ordinance No. 2183 amending NO. 2183 certain sections of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to specific Development Services (Development Department fees and adopt Resolutions Nos. 6386, 6387, 6388, 6389, 6390, 6391, and 6392 Svcs. Dept. establishing revised Development Services Department fees for Engineering, Business Fees) License, Architectural Design Review, Administrative Citations, Planning, Building and (INTRODUCED) Outdoor Dining fees. RESOLUTION NOS. 6386, The Administrative Services Department has conducted a cost allocation study to review the 6387, 6388, fees charged by various departments throughout the City. The fees adjustment in the 6389, 6390, proposed resolutions bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of the respective service or 6391 & 6392 program involved and are not being imposed for general revenue purposes, but instead to (DSD Fees — partially recover the cost of providing said services. Engineering, Bus. Lic., ADR, In reviewing the code, It was noted that several fees including final parcel maps, final maps Admin. and refuse fees were actually listed in the Arcadia Municipal Code. Most of the City's fees Citations, are established by resolution that enables the City Council to amend fees when necessary to Planning, Bldg. cover the costs of providing the services. In order to allow for these codes to be more easily Outdoor Dining) revised, staff recommended that the code be amended by Ordinance No. 2183 to establish (ADOPTED) these fees by resolution of the City Council. Proposed changes to the fees based on the Cost Allocation Study performed for the City are set forth in September 2, 2003 staff report. Some fees have been increased; some are proposed to remain the same, while other fees have been decreased. The Development Services Department proposed changes include a fee of $25.00 to cover the processing costs . of a new Business License, and an increase to the Administrative Citation Schedule of Fines for certain violations of the Arcadia Municipal Code. With regard to building fees it was noted that City Council Resolution No. 5952 adopted in 1996, sets forth building fees. The Development Services Department recommended that a new Resolution No. 6391 be adopted setting forth the building fees. There are no changes to the fees; however, language in the resolution has been revised to reflect changes in the code sections and omissions and clarifications In the fee schedule. In addition, wording has been added to require reimbursement to the City for plan reviews completed on development projects by outside consultants. Mayor Kovacic OPENED the public hearing. No one came forward to address the City Council. It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Councilmember Marshall to CLOSE the Public Hearing. It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Councilmember Segal and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 2183 entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL.OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 8020.8; 9116.4, 9118.4, AND 9295.11 AND ADDING SECTION 6211.2.1.1 TO THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES "; and, 9/2/03 45:0164 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6386 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING CERTAIN FEES RELATING TO ENGINEERING SERVICES "; and, ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6387 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA REVISING CERTAIN FEES RELATING TO BANNERS ON POLES AND ESTABLISHING CERTAIN FEES RELATING TO NEW BUSINESS LICENSES "; and, ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6388 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW FEES "; and, ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6389 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF' ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION SCHEDULE OF FINES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE AND DESIGNATING CONTINUING VIOLATIONS SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES '; and,' ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6390 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING FEES RELATING TO FILING FEES, EXTENSION FEES AND APPEAL FEES FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, TEXT AMENDMENTS, ZONE CHANGES, VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, TENTATIVE MAPS, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS, PARCEL MAP WAIVERS, FINAL MAPS, ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATIONS, MODIFICATIONS, R -2 AND R -3 MODIFICATIONS, HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION APPEALS, HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS, TEMPORARY BANNER PERMITS, AND COVENANTS AND REPEALING IN ITS ENTIRETY RESOLUTION NO. 5953 "; and, ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6391 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA SETTING FORTH FEES RELATING TO BUILDING CODE APPEALS, FIRE CODE APPEALS, BUILDING PERMITS, BUILDING PLAN REVIEWS, GRADING PLAN REVIEWS, GRADING PERMITS, PLUMBING PERMITS, PLUMBING PLAN REVIEWS, ELECTRICAL PERMITS, ELECTRICAL PLAN REVIEWS, REFUSE, MECHANICAL PERMITS, MECHANICAL PLAN REVIEWS, RELOCATION AND REMOVAL PERMITS, DEMOLITION PERMITS, REPROOFING PERMITS, SIGN PERMITS, SWIMMING POOL PERMITS AND FIRE EXTINGUISHING AND ALARM PERMITS AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 5952 IN ITS ENTIRETY"; and, ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6392 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA REVISING THE APPLICATION FEE RELATING TO INCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING ". AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Jim Clouet, South Coast Air Quality Management District, introduced himself as the liaison to the Western San Gabriel Valley cities. Mr. Clouet explained In detail the agency, its plans and its new initiatives. AQMD is a government agency responsible for leading this region to compliance with state and federal clean air standards. 5 . 9/2/03 45:0165 J.J. Fan 1023 Bungalow Place, expressed concerns with regard to a lack of lighting on Live Oak Avenue between Second and Six Avenues. He felt that the poor lighting Is extremely hazardous and will result in a tragedy. 6. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS CHANG Councilmember Chang referred to an article in the Pasadena Star News on August 15 about (Arcadia) Arcadia, titled "Still Gracious After 100 Years ". He also referred to an article written by Mayor Kovacic in the "Letters to Editor" section of the Pasadena Star News, which was very well written. He felt the reason that Arcadia is the finest city to live in is, its very good school district, safe community, excellent staff and good redevelopment programs. (Water Dept & Dr. Chang referred to a letter from an Arcadia resident complimenting Water Department PD Employees) employees, Henry Sornoso and Greg Borrow; and, Police Department employee, Paul Van Der Hoorn. (Heritage Park) Dr. Chang reminded, everyone who is eligible, to apply for the first affordable senior housing project in Arcadia. The Heritage Park affordable senior housing project is the first project of its kind that the City has actively participated €in. WLIO Mayor Pro tem Wuo congratulated the recipients of the Mayor's Certificate's of Appreciation. (Cart. Recipients) (Schools) Mayor Pro tem Wuo urged parents to drive carefully and follow traffic rules around the schools. He wished everyone a great and safe school year. . MARSHALL Councilmember Marshall announced that through the generous donations of citizen's, (Miniature organizations, clubs and businesses in the community she achieved her goal of having a Float) Rose Parade miniature float model built. She expressed her personal thanks to anyone that contributed. (Schools) Ms. Marshall reiterated Mayor Pro tem Wuo's comment with regard to the opening of the schools and she too urged drivers to be careful and follow the rules for the safety of all children. (Chandler) Ms. Marshall expressed condolences to Roger and Jane Chandler on the passing of Roger's mother, Dorothy Chandler. (Certificates & In response to Ms. Marshall's question, City Manager Kelly stated that the certificates and Proclamations) proclamations issue is under study; staff is looking at alternative graphics to present to Council at a future date. (Food for Ms. Marshall shared a food for thought. "A house is not a home unless it provides food and Thought) warmth to the soul as for the body". SEGAL Councilmember Segal reminded everyone that the City's Centennial Celebration Grand Ball (Grand Ball) will be held September 13 at the Arboretum. (Live Oak) Councilmember Segal would like to make a motion to table the meeting with developers of the property off of Live Oak near the Par -3 Golf Course until the City Council resolves the redevelopment issues and considers if that property is an appropriate relocation site for some potential relocatees. Council concurred. 6 9/2/03 45:0166 KOVACIC Mayor Kovacic encouraged Arcadians to use their combined Recreation Department, Library (Brochure) and Museum brochure as their guide to having a great fall season in Arcadia. 7. THE CITY COUNCIL RECESSED TO ACT AS THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL PRESENT: Agency Members Chang, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic ABSENT: None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None. 8. CONSENT ITEM 8a. MINUTES It was MOVED by Agency Member Marshall, seconded by Agency Member Segal and (Aug. 19, 2003) CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPROVE the Minutes of August 19, 2003 Regular (APPROVED) Meeting. AYES: Agency Members Chang, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None ADJOURNMENT The meeting of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency ADJOURNED to September 16, 2003 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers Conference Room. THE CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED 9. CONSENT ITEMS 9a. MINUTES APPROVED the Minutes of the August 19, 2003 Regular Meeting. (Aug. 19, 2003) 9b. FINAL TR. MAP APPROVED the Final Map of Tract No. 53968 for a six (6) unit residential condominium NO. 53968 project at 1211 South Golden West Avenue. (1211 S. Golden West Ave.) . 9c. COMM. ORG. ACCEPTED the donations from community organizations in support of the Summer Reading DONATIONS Program for children at the Library. (Summer Reading Prog. — Public Library) 9d. ACCEPT APPROVED the receipt of the $1,000 grant funds awarded to the Arcadia Public Library GRANT Foundation by the Oak Tree Charitable Foundation for literacy materials at the Library. (Literacy Materials — Councilmember Chang expressed appreciation to the Oak Tree Charitable Foundation for its Public Library) donation of the $1,000 grant to the Arcadia Public Library Foundation. 9/2103 45:0167 9e. CONTRACT AUTHORIZED the City Manager to EXECUTE a contract change order in the amount of CHANGE $50,000 to West Coast Arborists for the replacement and planting of 100 aging and ORDER problematic trees. (Removal & Replace Trees) 7 AWARD AUTHORIZED the City Manager to enter into a contract with Gentry Brothers, Inc. in the CONTRACT amount of $33,519 for the Construction of Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk on Centennial Way. (Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk Const. — Centennial Way) 9g. CONTINUE See below. EMERGENCY - ACTION (Underground Tanks — City Service Ctr. & Fire Stations 105 & 106) THE PRECEDING CONSENT ITEMS 9a, b, 'c, d, a and f APPROVED ON MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SEGAL,' SECONDED BY COUNCILMEBMER MARSHALL AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None 9g. CONTINUE Consideration of the report and recommendation to determine continuation of emergency EMERGENCY action with regard to earlier adoption of Resolution No. 6385 which authorized an emergency ACTION contract to remove underground tanks and install above ground tanks and /or related facilities (Underground at the City Service Center and Fire Stations 105 and 106. Tanks — City Service Ctr. & In response to a Council question staff noted that the tanks at the service center are fifteen Fire Stations years old and the tanks at fire station 105 three or four years old. It was noted that the 105 & 106) underground tanks are steel, double walled and not very thick. The.above ground tanks are made out of steel and concrete and lot thicker: It was also noted that it is not a normal practice in bidding a construction project for Public Works to keep the materials that are being replaced and resell them separately. It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Councilmember Segal and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to DETERMINE continuation of emergency action with regard to Resolution No. 6385 adopted August 19, 2003, which authorized an emergency contract to remove underground tanks and install above ground tanks and /or related facilities at the City Service Center and Fire Stations 105 and 106. 9/2/03 45:0168 AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Segal announced the tragic passing of a seven (7) year old; the daughter (In Memory of and sister of one of the Arcadia High School football players. Her name was Rachel Spate Rachel Spate) and she was killed in a car accident last Wednesday. A memorial service and funeral will be held on Thursday morning. And all day Thursday, at the Richter's residence, they will be receiving people. This is a very tough time for this family and our condolences go out to them. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Kovacic adjourned the meeting in memory of Dorothy Chandler. "The City of Los (In Memory of Angeles had a Dorothy Chandler, even named a music center after her, but Arcadia also had Dorothy their own Dorothy Chandler who was just as great and just as gracious. Dorothy Chandler Chandler) passed away on August 27th at Arcadia Methodist Hospital after living a full and rich life. Born into a farming family in British Columbia, her first adventure took her to Vancouver where she worked as a telephone operator. While in Vancouver she married Stanley Chandler and together they embarked on a 54 -year journey that began in Ucluelet on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Stan was in the marina section of the Canadian Air Force and the Chandler's took up residence off base where their son Roger was bom in 1944. Ucluelet is know known as the whale watching capital of the world, but during the war it was a remote fishing village and Dorothy and Stan traded with local Indians for fish and other supplies. After the war they started building six hundred square feet houses in the Vancouver area and sold them for $1,500 to Canadian Veterans. In February 1950 while in Vancouver they were blessed with a daughter, Gail Louise. Cold winters drove the Chandler's to friendly and warm Temple City, California. Stan continued his construction career and Dorothy was a full time homemaker and a part time cafeteria worker for the San Marino School District. In 1962 the Chandlers moved to Sixth Avenue in Arcadia and later to Norman where they lived for many years. in their retirement Stan and Dorothy lived both in Sierra Vista, Arizona and Santa Barbara. After losing her husband in 1997 Dorothy moved back to Temple City where she became active with trips and events at the Arcadia Community Center. Dorothy frequently accompanied her son Roger, a former City colleague of ours and former Arcadia Mayor to many City events. She was specially fond of attending opening day at Santa Anita. Dorothy was known for telling incredible stories to anyone ready to be entertained. She was a special lady and loved deeply by those who knew her. She loved life, loved her family and friends and had a smile for everyone. Dorothy is survived by her son Roger and his wife Jane, her daughter Gail and Gall's husband Manuel, grandsons, Gregory, Jeffrey and Damian and granddaughter Hillary. In lieu of flowers donations may be made in Dorothy's memory to the Ruth and Charles Glib Arcadia Historical Museum, Post Office Box 60021, Arcadia, California, 91066. ADJOURNMENT At 8:20 p.m. the City Council Regular Meeting ADJOURNED to September 16, 2003 at 5:00 (Sept. 16, 2003) p.m. in the Council Chambers Conference Room for a Regular Meeting to conduct the business of the City Council and Arcadia Redevelopment Agency and any Closed Session necessary to discuss personnel, litigation matters or evaluation of properties. ATTEST: Try A. ovacic, Mayor Ulune D. Alford, City k 9 9/2/03 - .1S IT j MEMORANDUM Development Services Department September 2, 2003 TO: William R. Kelly, City Manager FROM: Don Pen n, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director Donna C Butler, Community Development Administrators SUBJECT: ARCADIA SIGN REGULATIONS �`` SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to address potential changes to the sign regulations that Development Services Department staff believes would, along with the sign design guidelines, enhance signing within the City. The current regulations were adopted in the late 1960's and with some exceptions there have been only a few substantive changes since that time. The Development Services Department is recommending that the City Council authorize staff to hire a planning consultant to develop new sign regulations for the City. DISCUSSION Signs are by the City's definition: "Any figure, character, outline, delineation, announcement, declaration, demonstration, illustration, emblem, words, numerals or letters or attention attracting display or device painted, posted or affixed on any surface used to attract attention to the premises or to advertise or promote the interest of any person, activity, business or enterprise when the same is placed so that it is clearly visible "to the general public from an out -of -doors position," with the exception of non- commercial natural floral and plant displays. Types of Signs Currently the Arcadia Municipal Code allows: 7 -03 #2 rpt signing — DSD Page 1 LASER IMAGED September 2, 2003 ,;�I? r Wall signs Projecting signs Freestanding signs Marquee signs Window signs Portable signs Directional signs (including pole and monument signs) Temporary Banners Auxiliary Signs such as time and temperature signs Issues The most common code enforcement problems and/or design issues related to signing are: • excessive window signs; • portable signs without,permits and not professionally designed; • banners w/o permits; • banners exceeding approved time period; • pennants, flags and other types of attention getting devices; • change of copy on a sign without securing design review approval which frequently includes excessive non- English translation of the business identification, i.e., one third /two- thirds proportion; and 0 signs that the size and design are inconsistent with building architecture style, color or, materials An issue that will have to be addressed as part of new signing regulations is the matter of content. Currently the City's sign regulations state "no more than 1/3 of the sign area of each sign may contain a non - English translation of the business identification; the remaining sign area identification shall be set forth in the Roman alphabet, English language and include Arabic numerals." At a recent' Designing and Implementing Effecting Zoning Ordinance" UCLA extension seminar (February, 2003), the instructors emphasized that new sign regulations cannot regulate the content of a sign. In addition, the City Attorney notes that a sign ordinance cannot regulate signs based on their content, nor can it contain provisions favoring commercial speech over non - commercial speech. Also, a sign ordinance that permits the display . of registered logos and service marks cannot require that they be altered, i.e., color. In reviewing recently adopted sign regulations of some cities, it was noted that all references to "languages" and sign copy have been removed or modified. South Pasadena's new ordinance (January 2000) reads: "The provisions of this Division do not regulate the message content of signs (sign copy), regardless of whether the message content is commercial or noncommercial." 7 -03 #2 rpt signing - DSD Page September 2, 2003 r RECOMMENDATIONS Signing types and designs have evolved throughout the years to be more creative and aesthetically appealing. As a result the Development Services Department is recommending that the city contract with a consultant to revise the zoning ordinance to better reflect these trends. The following are the scope of changes that the staff would like to see addressed in a revised zoning ordinance. The comments do not include recommended sizes, heights, etc. 1 2. Wall Signs — reduce the size of allowable wall signs. Current code allows a maximum of 2 sq. ft. per linear foot of building frontage. In addition limit the overall wall sign coverage to prohibit signs on multi- tenant buildings to run into one another. 7 -03 #2 rpt signing — DSD Page 3 September 2, 2003 Window Signs — prohibit. Because the City cannot regulate content, staff is recommending that window signs be eliminated. 3. Projecting Signs — allow a maximum of one (1) projecting sign per business, restrict the sign.to a specific square footage per face and reduce the allowable projection from the face of the building (currently 5' projection allowed). Projecting signs are typically signs perpendicular to the face of a building. 4. Free - Standing Signs — prohibit. Currently free standing signs are permitted on all lots regardless of size. The Development Services Department is recommending that the new code permit monument -type signs only. 7 -03 #2 rot signing - DSD Page 4 September 2, 2003 b ., 4 � tj 1 I . �-- �..:: -: 6. Specifically prohibit internally illuminated boxed signs (can signs) of any type. tL 0% .. 7. Neon signs — provide a definition for neon signs, eg. neon on buildings, is this a sign or architectural treatment? 8. Marquee, Canopy, Awning Signs — limit the height of lettering and logos and restrict the location of signing on the marquee, canopy or awning. 9. Banners — prohibit temporary building banners. Currently the code allows banners a maximum of 60 days per year. An alternative is to limit them to a total of 30 cumulative days per year and may restrict the use of banners to "Grand Opening "; "Change of Ownership" or "Storewide -type sale ". 7 -03 #2 rpt signing — DSD Page 6 September 2, 2003 10. Decorative Banners —This would bean addition to the code and would allow decorative banners on parking lot lighting poles for sites with a minimum amount of acreage, such as new automobile dealerships, large neighborhood centers, shopping malls, etc. 11. portable Signs — prohibit. Unfortunately the City's plan to allow portable signs has not been very successful. The location, design, etc. tend to be an issue and they are a constant code enforcement problem. 12. Sign designs, color and style to be consistent with building styles, materials and color. In addition to the above, the revised code should include specific illustrations that note how signs are measured, examples of sign types and sign heights, etc. CONCLUSION The Development Services Department staff is recommending that the City contract with a planning consultant to prepare a new sign ordinance that addresses the issues described above as well as any other changes that will enhance signing in the business community. Attachment: August 6 memo from City Attorney 7 -03 #2 rpt signing — DSD Page 7 September 2, 2003- 0. MEMORANDUM Office of the City Attomey Date: Aueus_ t_00 TO: DONNA B 'SRVS.DIR. BUTLER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT D ELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR _ /J FROM: STEPHEN P. DEITSCH, CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: GUIDELINES FOR DRAFTING SIGN ORDINANCES This memorandum summarizes some of the more important legal considerations planners should be aware of when drafting sign ordinances. Since most sign ordinances are challenged on constitutional grounds, this memorandum necessarily discusses constitutional requirements. However, I have ordinance t provide practical legally advice and examples to assist you in developing an defensible and easy to administer. The constitutional requirements for drafting a defensible sign ordinance can be summarized in the following rules: I. A City's interest in sign regulation must be expressly stated in the ordinance. egulate signs based on their content, nor can it 2. A sign ordinance cannot r contain provisions favoring commercial speech over non commercial speech. 3. A sign ordinance cannot contain provisions that allow for standardless discretion by government officials. 4. A sign ordinance that permits the display of registered logos and service marks cannot require that they be altered. 5. A sign ordinance must comply with the provisions of the California Outdoor Advertising Act. These rules are discussed more fully below: -1- L A CITY'S INTEREST IN SIGN REGULATION MUST BE EXPRESSLY STATED IN THE ORDINANCE. In order to be valid, a sign ordinance must seek to implement substantial governmental interests. Traffic safety and aesthetics, have been accepted by courts as substantial interests justifying sign regulations. Thus, at a minimum, these substantial interests should be identified in every ordinance. Other justifications specific to the City of Arcadia should also be included. For example, a sign ordinance for the City may seek to maintain the City's historic image as home to a race track, thus justifying certain aesthetic requirements for signs near the race track. Moreover, so long as the sign ordinance contains these substantial interests in its statement of purpose a court will not require the City to prove the ordinance was enacted to further these interests if the ordinance is challenged. 2. A SIGN ORDINANCE CANNOT REGULATE SIGNS BASED ON THEIR CONTENT NOR CAN IT CONTAIN PROVISIONS FAVORING COMMERCIAL SPEECH OVER NON COMMERCIAL SPEECH. Sign regulations must not abridge the freedom of speech guaranteed by both the California and United States Constitutions. However, freedom of speech is not absolute and cities may regulate the time, place or manner under which signs are permitted. These regulations cannot be based on the content of the sign or the messages they display unless the City has very compelling reasons for doing so. In practice, however, almost all content -based regulations are struck down if challenged. Thus, provisions that require a government official to determine whether a particular sign is permitted by requiring that the official look at the sign's content are, in almost every case, impermissible. In fact, ordinances that provide exemptions for temporary political signs, directional signs or official governmental signs and notices have been struck down by the courts for this reason. The following provisions are additional examples of impermissible content -based signs;, 0 automobiles sold." p It special signs: -2- a Merchandise sales and special events. b. Grand Op enin s or Going out of business sales." 29 M Each of these regulations, taken from actual sign ordinances, are most likely impermissible and should be revised to eliminate their reliance on regulating content. Alternatively, it may be advisable to simply describe various es of land uses and according to their physical characteristics and then simply list the typ that may display such signs. A. A sign ordinance may contain content based regulations if they serve a compelling governmental interest and are narrowly tailored to serve such interests. I mentioned that a City must have very compelling reasons for regulating signs based on their content. At least one case has held that a ciry's interests in traffic safety and aesthetics, while substantial, does not rise to the level of being compelling. However, certain content based signs may be sufficiently compelling to survive legal a challenge. For example, one court has recognized a city's interest requiring nature, all u ines e s be identified. Moreover, certain businesses, by very that is content based. I believe importance to the public that they may require signing that certain directional signs, which are by definition, content- based, serve such compelling interests and could survive assuring cal safe an and other signs g traffic ry permits directional signs for the purpose of n stoffices, government buildings) identifying certain criti ish to permit cal buildings (i.e. hospitals, p may be entirely permissible. Nevertheless, should the City of Arcadia w these or other content -based signs that it finds compelling enough to regulate, I recommend that the City's interests be specified explicitly in the regulation. Thus, for example, a provision permitting directional signs for hospital complexes might read as follows: 0 and3f =ice -3- B. A sign ordinance may not provide greater protection to commercial speech than it does to non commercial speech. A sign ordinance that contains greater restrictions on non commercial speech than commercial speech will also be invalidated. Courts have held that such provisions turn the first amendment on its head. To counter such arguments, a sign ordinance should contain separate definitions for "commercial speech" and "non commercial speech." Moreover, a "substitution clause" or a provision that permits the substitution of non commercial messages anywhere that commercial messages are permitted should also be included to assure that non commercial speech is not impermissibly treated.' When included, an argument that the City's ordinance unduly restricts a substitution clause is free speech can be countered by pointing out that the City's ordinance permits non commercial messages on every sign permitted. Thus, for example a business owner who wishes to display a sign indicating his opposition to war may be directed to place such a non commercial message on his own sign. Moreover, a substitution clause can also be used to counter arguments hat strict restrictions or prohibitions on billboards do not leave open ample alternatives to display non commercial messages. C A sign ordinance may make distinctions between on -site commercial signs and off-site commercial signs. Cities may allow on -site commercial signs while prohibiting off -site commercial signs. However, if a city decides to permit off -site signs, non commercial messages must be permitted to the same extent as commercial messages. Further, the City cannot regulate what type of non commercial messages are placed on signs. D. A sign ordinance cannot regulate foreign language text. in Asian American Business Grou v. City of Pomona, a California trial court that on- premises signs of commercial or invalidated an ordinance requirin g manufacturing establishments which had advertising copy in a foreign language devote at least half the sign to advertising copy in English. The ordinance further required that the address be displayed in Arabic numerals of a certain height.(Asian American B usiness Grouo v. Citv of Pomona (1989) 716 F.Supp 1328.) I The ordinance may provide: "in each instance and under the same conditions under which this chapter permits any sign or commercial message, a non commercial message or sign may substituted." M Storeowners challenged this ordinance on First Amendment, Due Process and Equal Protection grounds. The court held that the ordinance did not regulate commercial speech but regulated noncommercial speech. As such, the Ordinanc e had t tal m eet the standard of strict scrutiny - meaning it had e st. A lth o u g h serve a compelling the City of Pomona argued and be narrowly tailored to meet that intereres to facilitate that the ready identification of cornmercit structures to purposes because was compelling, the court disagreed that the regulations served succh h urp the City did not similarly require all businesses to have signs. THAT 3. A S OW FOR TANDARDLESSS DISCRETION ALL CRETION Y GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. A sign ordinance which bject ve criteria tria officia will with discretion to deny a sign permit on the be invalidated. For example, ordinances basis of ambiguous or subl that permit the denial of a permit if the structure or sign has a harmful or detrimental effect upon the health or welfare of the " general public or the aesthetic quality of the community grant to city officials are in violation e denial o the First unbridled discretion Amendment. Thus, a sign ordinance should contain specific standards for the a permits. Moreover, the ordinance should avoid using the permissive "may" and instead, indicate that a permit "shall" be granted or "shall" be denied upon in the specified criteria. specified should contain a specific time limits within which a permit A. Sign ordinanc application must be processed and approved. While the failure to include a time limit for the processing of a sign permit application and review of the denial o menSent t ch allenges wre outinel y made context a otherFi�st ordinance, such First A Amendment cases. Further, in Baby Tam & Co. Inc. v. City of Las Vegas the Ninth z The failure to include a time limit was raised and dismissed in the Outdoor Systems case because no cases were cited in support of this issue. More recently, Best Best & Krieger successfully defended the City of Ontario from a siar challenge the City's sign mil e ordinance. The plaintiff tried to argue that sign ordinances, like ad r cations The t o trial and appeal contain time limits under which City official must process an app court agreed with the City's position that such requirements have not been extended to sign ordinances. -5- Circuit found that "it is well - settled" that "[a] decision to issue or deny a license must be made within a brief, specified and reasonably prompt period of time." ( Baby Tam y Co. Inc v City of Las Vegas (9th Cir. 1998) 154 F.3d 1097.) Additionally, Baby Tam requires that the ordinance contain a provision for prompt judicial review of a City's denial of a permit application. Although Babv Tam involved a challenge to an adult- oriented licensing ordinance, I would advise out of caution, that a sign ordinance should contain similar provisions. I would be happy to provide you with several the Baby Tam regulatory options to assure the City's ordinance complies with requirements. B. Sign ordinances should not contain vague terms and provisions. Sign ordinances may be unenforceable if they are found so vague as to be unconstitutional. A law is void on its face if it is so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. Further, where criminal penalties are imposed, courts have required a greater degree of specificity or clarity. Examples of vague provisions are provided below: lo cation in which Ithey are placed The phrase "unnecessary confusion, clutter or other unsightliness" may be found vague by ovisionrtby viewing making use opfra` numerical standard c which o when reached, would p would constitute clutter. "All unofficial signs are.prohibited The phrase °unofficial signs" will be found vague if not defined. Thus, the definition section of this ordinance should be amended to define and describe "unofficial signs." prohibited Again, the phrase "garish and flourescent colors" should be defined using objective criteria. 6 DISPLAY OF 4 REGISTERED L AND SERVICE MARKS CANNOT REQUIRE THAT THEY BE ALTERED. In B lockbuster Video v Citv of Tempe, the Ninth Circuit held that cities may not require alteration of service marks on signs. (B lockbuster Video v City of T empe (9th Cir. 1998) 141 F.3d 1295.) In this case, the City of Tempe's Design Review Board denied two video stores the right to use their service marks. For one store it was their signature red channel letters. For the other it was their standard blue awning service mark. The City argued that both stores had to comply with the sign programs approved by the City's Design Review Board for the commercial center. The Ninth Circuit held that the federal Lantham Act prohibited cities from requiring alteration of a registered marks. Thus, the City of Tempe could not require one video store to use different colored channel letters that deviated from the store's service mark. However, the City could preclude the other video store from constructing an awning, even though the awning represented the store's service mark because the Lantham Act does not require cities to allow businesses to display their registered marks. Thus, if a city ordinance permits logos and other service marks on signs, it may not request that these be altered to comply with other aesthetic requirements, including individual design review approvals. 5. A SIGN ORDINANCE MUST COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ACT. The California Outdoor Advertising Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, §5200 et seq.) regulates sign advertising visible from public highways. The Act generally applies only to (1) advertising displays to be placed within view of highways located in unincorporated areas of the state and (2) displays within 660 feet of, and visible from, an interstate highway. Business and Professions Code §5408.1 has further expanded the Act's application to advertising displays beyond 660 feet if they are designed to be viewed primarily by persons traveling on an interstate or primary highway. The Act does not apply to displays that "advertise the business conducted or services rendered or goods produced or sold upon the property upon which the advertising display is placed...." (Bus. & Prof. Code, §5272(d).) The Act further provides that no advertising displays may be placed or maintained in the areas covered by the Act, except for directional and official signs, for sale signs, on -site signs, and signs of interest to the traveling public. (Bus.& Prof. Code §5405.) -7- Advertising displays are permitted in certain industrial and commercial areas, as long as commerciaUindustrial activities are the primary activities in the zone. (Bus.& Prof. Code §5205.) Cities are prohibited from compelling removal of advertising displays protected by the Act without providing compensation.' Nevertheless, The Outdoor Advertising Act authorizes cities to remove advertising displays without compensation in particular circumstances. No compensation is required for displays that meet all the following requirements: (1) the display is located within an area shown as residential on a local general plan, or within an incorporated or unincorporated area shown as agricultural on a local general plan, as of the date an ordinance or regulation is enacted or becomes applicable; (2) the display is located within an area zoned for residential or agricultural use, on the date on which the removal requirement either is adopted or becomes applicable to the area; (3) the display is not located within 660 feet from the edge of the right -of -way of an interstate or primary highway with its copy visible from the highway, nor placed or maintained beyond 660 feet from the edge of the right -of -way of an interstate or primary highway with the purpose of its message being read from the main - traveled way; (4) the display is not required to be removed because of a special zoning district whose primary purpose is the removal or control of signs; and (5) the display is allowed to remain in existence fora period of time set forth in an ordinance enacted or amended after January 1, 1983, and after giving notice of the removal requirement. The latter provision authorizes an amortization schedule for removal of billboards based on the fair market value at the time a "Notice of Removal' is provided. (Bus. & Prof. Code §5412.1.) 3 Section 5412 of the Act provides: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, no advertising display which was lawfully erected anywhere within this state shall be compelled to be removed, nor shall its customary maintenance or use be limited, whether or not the removal or limitation is pursuant to or because of this chapter or any other law, ordinance or regulation of any governmental entity, without payment of compensation. This section applies to all displays which were lawfully erected in compliance with state laws and local ordinances in effect when the displays were erected if the displays were in existence on November 6, 1978, or lawfully erected after November 6, 1978, regardless of whether the displays have become nonconforming or have been provided an amortization period." SM A.' Constitutional Concerns. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that local regulations imposing restrictions on outdoor advertising are a constitutionally valid means of advancing the substantial governmental interests of traffic safety and aesthetics. ( Metromedia Inc. v. San Diego (1981) 453 U.S. 490.) Nevertheless, local regulations concerning the placement or removal of billboards implicate two separate constitutional concerns`. (1) Free Speech. Because billboards are a well- established medium of communication, free speech concerns are implicated. In Metromedia Inc. v. San Dietro a plurality of the U.S. Supreme Court held a municipal ordinance regulating outdoor advertising display signs to be unconstitutional. The Metromedia ordinance generally prohibited outdoor display advertising with two kinds of exceptions: (1) onsite signs; and (2) signs falling within 12 specified categories ranging from bus stops and historical plaques to temporary political signs. The Court held that although a city may value commercial speech concerning on -site activities more than commercial speech concerning off -site activities, it may not prohibit someone from displaying their own non commercial ideas or those of others. Further, because the ordinance permitted 12 non commercial messages to be conveyed, the city must also allow billboards conveying other non commercial messages. Thus, any new billboard ordinance that provides for the development of new billboards must be carefully drafted. Although it may distinguish between on -site and off -site commercial speech, it may not foreclose non commercial protected speech. (2) Taking of Property without Just Compensation Conversely, an ordinance that seeks to remove existing billboards must assure that removal is undertaken according to constitutional principles. Under established California law, an ordinance prohibiting existing billboards may be enforced as a constitutionally valid exercise of the state's police power which does not require compensation if a reasonable amortization period for discontinuance of the use is provided. ( Metromedia at 882.) California cases have established that nonconforming uses, such as billboards that no longer meet an ordinance's requirements, and are not protected by the Outdoor Advertising Act, may be eliminated by one of two methods. ( Tahoe Regional Planning Aaency v. King (1991) 233 Ca1.App.3d 1365.) Cities can eliminate nonconforming billboards immediately by paying just compensation or they can require their removal without compensation following a reasonable amortization period. Whether a particular amortization period is reasonable is a factual determination and the burden of proof is on the person challenging the ordinance to show its invalidity as to their property. In determining the reasonableness of an amortization schedule, courts will look at several relevant factors including the amoiuit of investment or original cost, present actual or depreciated value, remaining useful life, the term of the lease under which the sign is maintained, and the harm to the public if it remains beyond the amortization period. ( City of Salinas v Rvan Outdoor Advertising (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 416.) Amortization periods in the cases I reviewed ranged from 10 months to 5 years. B. Recommendations for Billboard Regulations. Thus, the development of a billboard ordinance and corresponding amortization program should include the following: (1) An inventory of all billboards in the City; (2) A determination of those billboards that are subject to compensation pursuant to the California Outdoor Advertising Act; and (3) For those billboards not protected by the Outdoor Advertising Act, the development of an ordinance that protects constitutionally protected speech and includes a reasonable amortization period developed by assessing relevant factors, including the amount of investment or original cost, present actual or depreciated value, remaining useful life, the term of the lease under which the use is maintained, and the harm to the public if it remains beyond the amortization period. 6. A SIGN ORDINANCE MUST COMPLY WITH OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE RELATED TO ON- PREMISES ADVERTISING DISPLAYS. Business & Professions Code §5491 prohibits cities from compelling removal or abatement of on- premises advertising displays without the payment of just -10- c ompensation. On- premises advertising displays are defined as "any structure, housing, sign, device, figure, statuary, painting, display, message placard, or other contrivance, or any part thereof, that has been designed, constructed, created, intended, or engineered to have a .useful life of 15 years or more, and intended or used to advertise, or to provide data or information in the nature of advertising...." Section 5495(d) further provides that a city 'is not required to provide compensation for removal of nonconforming signs if the display is allowed to remain in existence for a period of 15 years from the date of adoption of the ordinance or regulation. A city is also exempt from the compensation requirements if the ordinance or regulation creating the nonconforming advertising displays affects displays located within established redevelopment areas. (Bus. & Prof. Code §5498.) A sign ordinance must comply with the following provisions: (1) Any city. adopting or amending any ordinance or regulation that regulates or prohibits the use of any on- premises advertising display that is more restrictive than existing law, shall include provisions for the identification and inventorying of illegal and abandoned advertising displays. (Bus.& Prof. §5491.1(a).) An identification and inventory is not required if a city has undertaken and completed an identification and inventory of illegal and abandoned advertising displays not more than three years prior to the date on which the ordinance or regulation is adopted or amended. (Bus.& Prof. §5491.1(d).) (2) Upon the completion of the required identification and inventory, the city shall consider at a public hearing with the opportunity for public comment, whether there is a need for the ordinance or regulation that prohibits the use of any on- premises advertising display to take effect. (Bus.& Prof. §5491.1(c)(1).) (3) Any applicable amortization schedule may not expire until at least six months after the date on which the city confirms that there is a continuing need for the ordinance or regulation to take effect, unless the amortization period specified in the ordinance is for a longer term, in which case the remaining term shall apply. (Bus,& Prof. §5491.1(c)(2)(A).) 4 Section 5491 provides that no on- premises display... shall be compelled to be removed or abated, and its customary maintenance, use, or repair shall not be limited, whether or not removal or limitation is required because of any ordinance or regulation of any city ... without the payment of just and fair compensation." - 11 - (4) Until the city provides that there is a continuing need for the ordinance or regulation to take effect, the new ordinance shall not apply to a change of copy, change of color, maintenance, or repair made to a sign which conformed to the prior ordinance runless those changes, maintenance or repairs involve a change in location or structure of the sign. (Bus.& Prof. §5491.1(c)(2)(B).) (5) A city'may also impose reasonable fees upon all owners or lessees of on- premises business advertising displays for the purpose of covering its actual cost of inventorying and identifying illegal or abandoned advertising displays. (Bus.& Prof. §5491.2.) (6) Notwithstanding the requirements noted above, a city may elect to remove, without compensation, any on- premises advertising displays which meet any of the following criteria: a. The advertising display was erected illegally without first complying with all ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of its construction. (Bus.& Prof. §5497(a).) b. The advertising display was lawfully erected, but its use has ceased or the structure has been abandoned for a period of not less than 90 days. (Bus.& Prof. §5497(b).) C. The advertising display has been destroyed by more than 50 percent and the destruction is other than facial copy replacement and the display may not be repaired within 30 days of the date of its destruction. (Bus.& Prof. §5497(c).) d. Any advertising display whose owner, outside of a change of copy, requests permission to remodel the display, or expand or enlarge the building or land use upon which the display is located, and the display is affected by the construction, enlargement, or remodeling, or the cost of construction, enlargement, or remodeling of the advertising display exceeds 50 percent of the cost of reconstruction of the building. (Bus.& Prof. §5497(d).) e. Any advertising display whose owner seeks relocation thereof and relocates the advertising display. (Bus.& Prof. §5497(e).) -12- f. Any advertising display for which there has been an agreement between the owner and the city for its removal as of any given date. (Bus.& Prof. §5497(f),) g. The advertising display is a temporary display. (Bus.& Prof. §5497(g).)' h. Any advertising display which is or may become a danger to the public or is unsafe. (Bus.& Prof. §5497(I).) i. Any advertising display which constitutes a traffic hazard not created by relocation of streets or highways by acts of the city. (Bus.& Prof. §5497(I).) 7. Finally, no city may require the removal of any on- premises advertising display on the basis of its height or size if special topographic circumstances would result in material impairment of visibility of the display to the owner's or user's ability to adequately and effectively continue to communicate with the public through the use of the display. (Bus.& Prof. §5499.) Under these circumstances, the owner or user may maintain the advertising display at the business premises and at the location necessary for continued public visibility at the height or size at which the display was previously erected. A California Appeals Court has determined that a sign ordinance which generally prohibited freestanding pole signs, but permitted numerous types of shorter freestanding pole signs, including commercial signs, regulated signs based on their height and size. Thus, several business owners were entitled to retain their freestanding pole signs because proposed replacement signs would not be visible from an adjacent freeway. (Denny's v. City of Agoura Hills (1997) 56 Cal.AppAth 1312.) Should you have any questions concerning the information contained in this memorandum or would like advice on specific sign issues, please feel free to contact me. 5 Business & Professions Code '5499.1 et sue. also contains requirements for the abatement and removal of signs once the amortization period has lapsed. These requirements generally include, declaring, by resolution, that a particular sign is a public nuisance and must be abated; sending written notice to the property owners regarding amortization and a proposed hearing on the removal and abatement of the sign; posting hearing notices on the property; holding public hearings; and maintaining an itemized written report of the costs of abatement. -13- September 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council STAFF REPORT Development Services Department FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Doti Butler, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 2183 amending certain sections of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to specific Development Services Department fees and Resolutions Nos. 6386, 6387, 6388, 6389, 6390, 6391 and 6392 establishing revised Development Services Department -fees for Engineering, Business License, Architectural Design Review, Administrative Citations, Planning Building and Outdoor Dining fees Recommendation: Introduce Ordinance No. 2183 and Adopt Resolutions Nos. 6386, 6387, 6388, 6389, 6390, 6391 and 6392 SUMMARY The City of Arcadia establishes and /or modifies fees for City services and applications on an as needed basis by way of resolution. A Cost Allocation study was recently completed by the Administrative Services Department and based on the recommendations in the study, the Development Services Department is proposing revisions to fees charged by the Development Services Department in conducting activities within the department. The Development Services Department is recommending introduction of Ordinance No. 2183 to establish the authority to charge a fee for the processing of new Business Licenses and amends certain sections of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to specific Development Services Department fees. In addition, Resolutions Nos. 6386, 6387, 6388, 6389, 6390, 6391 and 6392 propose revisions to the fees for Engineering, Architectural Design Review, LASER IMAGED Page t DSD Fees September 2, 2003 -7p - `Z�l.. Planning, Building and outdoor dining and create a fee for processing new Business Licenses as well as revise the City's administrative citation fines. The Development Services Department is recommending introduction of Ordinance No. 2183 and adoption of Resolutions Nos. 6386 through 6392. DISCUSSION The Administrative Services Department has conducted a cost allocation study to review the fees charged by various departments throughout the City. The fees proposed in the attached resolutions bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of the respective service or program involved and are not being imposed for general revenue purposes, but instead for partially recovering the cost of providing said services. In reviewing the code, it was noted that several fees including Final Parcel Map, Final Map and Refuse fees were actually listed in the Arcadia Municipal Code. Most of the City's fees are established by resolution that enables the City Council to amend fees when necessary to cover the costs of providing services. In order to allow for these codes to be more easily revised, staff is recommending that the code be amended by Ordinance No. 2183 to establish these fees by resolution of the City Council. The attached table reflects the proposed changes to the fees based on the Cost Allocation Study performed for the City. As noted in the table, some fees have been increased, some are proposed to remain the same, while other fees have been decreased. Business License Processing Fee The Development Services Department is proposing a fee of $25.00 to cover the processing costs of a new Business License. New Business Licenses require approval of Planning, Fire, Redevelopment (when in the Redevelopment area) and in some cases, review by Public Works Services to determine compliance with Industrial Wastewater Discharge requirements. Ordinance No. 2183 provides the enabling legislation to charge this fee and Resolution No. 6387 establishes the $25.00 fee to partially recover the cost of processing a new Business License. During fiscal year 2002 -03, there were 908 new applications for business licenses. This fee does not apply to Business License renewals. Administrative Citation Fines The Development Services Department is also proposing to increase the Administrative Citation Schedule of Fines for certain violations of the Arcadia Municipal Code. A study was conducted in June 2003 reviewing citation fines from other cities within the area. The City's current fines are $65 /per violation for Page 2 DSD Fees September 2, 2003 the first violation notice, $130 /per violation for the second violation notice and $195 /per violation for the third violation notice. Since January 2002, the City has issued 142 citations. During the past few years, the City has seen an escalation in code violations and an increase in the lack of response from property owners in resolving the code violations. As a result more citations have been issued. It should be noted that the City may charge administrative fines that are independent of any costs or expenses incurred by the City in investigating or prosecuting the underlying code matter. The punitive nature of the administrative fine renders the general cost assessment rules inapplicable. Government Code Sections 25.132 subdivision (b) and Section 36900 subdivision (b) provide that fines may not exceed $100.00 for the first violation, $200.00 for the second violation and $500.00 for any subsequent violations within a one year period. The Development Services Department is recommending that the fines be increased to what is allowable by the government code, as set forth above. Of nine (9) cities surveyed four (4) charge the maximum fees. Building City Council Resolution No. 5952 adopted in 1996 sets forth building fees. The Development Services Department is recommending that a new Resolution No. 6391 be adopted setting forth the building fees. There are no changes to the fees; however, language in the resolution has been revised to reflect changes in the code sections and omissions and clarifications in the fee schedule. In addition wording has been added to require reimbursement to the City for plan reviews completed on development projects by outside consultants. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Pursuant to Section 15273(1) of the CEQA guidelines, rates, tolls, fare and charges are exempt from CEQA if the purpose of said fee is to cover the cost of operating expenses. FISCAL IMPACT The new fees will enable the City to recover a majority of the cost of providing the referenced services. The exact amount of increased revenue is unknown at this time because it is dependent on the number of applications filed. Page 3 DSD Fees September 2, 2003 RECOMMENDATION That the City Council Introduce Ordinance No. 2183 amending Sections 8020.8, 9116.4, 9118.4 and 9295.11 and adding Section 6211.2.1.1 to the Development Services Department fees. That the City Council adopt the following resolutions: Resolution No. 6386, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California establishing certain fees relating to Engineering Services. Resolution No. 6387, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California revising certain fees relating to banners on poles and establishing certain fees relating to new Business Licenses. Resolution No. 6388, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California establishing revised Architectural Design Review fees. Resolution No. 6389, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California amending the Administrative Citation schedule of fines for certain violations of the Arcadia Municipal Code and designating continuing violations subject to Administrative Remedies. Resolution No. 6390, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, setting forth fees relating to filing fees, extension fees and appeal fees for General Plan Amendments, Text Amendments, Zone Changes, Variances /Conditional Use Permits, Tentative Maps. Tentative Parcel Maps, Parcel Map Waivers, Final Maps, Administrative Modifications, Modifications, R -2 and R -3 Modifications, Homeowner Association Appeals, Home Occupation Permits, Temporary Banner Permits and Covenants and Repealing in its entirety Resolution No. 5953. Resolution No. 6391, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California setting forth fees relating to Building Code Appeals, Fire Code Appeals, Building Permits, Building Plan Reviews, Grading Plan Reviews, Grading Permits, Plumbing Permits, Plumbing Plan Reviews, Electrical Permits, Electrical Plan reviews, Refuse Fees, Mechanical Permits, Mechanical Plan Reviews, Relocation and Removal Permits, Demolition Permits, Reroofing Permits, Sign Permits, Swimming Pool Permits and Fire Extinguishing and Alarm Permits and Repealing Resolution No. 5952 in its entirety. Page 4 DSD Fees September 2, 2003 " Approved by: Resolution No. 6392, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California revising the application fee relating to Incidental Outdoor Dining per City Council Ordinance 2045. William R. Kelly, City Manager Attachment: Table of Proposed Changes Ordinance No. 2183 Resolutions Nos. 6386 through 6392 Page 5 DSD Fees September 2, 2003 PROPOSED CHANGES TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES (Not including Building) PERMIT TYPE CURRENT FEE PROPOSED FEE Plannin Zone Change $2,000 $2,000 (this includes costs for publication and mailings Text Amendment $1,500 $1,700 (this includes costs for p ublication and mailin s General Plan Amendment $2,000 $1,670 Time Extension Request $100 $105 Tentative Tract Map (TM) – SFR $1,463 + $89 /lot $1,430 for the first 5 lots plus $30 for each additional lot (this includes costs for publication and mailin s Tentative Tract Map (TM) – Condo $1,463 + $89 /lot $1060 for each application (this includes costs for p ublication and mailings TM appeal to CC $500 $500 TM extension $100 $105 Tentative Parcel Map/Waiver $965 – map $700– waiver $1060 (this includes costs for publication and mailings Tentative Parcel Map appeal to CC $500 $500 Tentative Parcel Ma extension $100 $105 Final Tract Ma $250 $180 Conditional Use Permit Ranges from $700 up to $1,825 (fee is based on lot size) Ranges from $840 up to $1,290 (the fee increases $45 for each additional 5,000 sq. ft. or ortion thereof . CUP revisions $700 $840 CUP appeal to the City Council $500 $540 CUP time extension fee $100 $105 Zoning Variance Ranges from $700 up to $1,825 (fee is based on lot size) Ranges from $985 up to $1,435 (the fee increases $45 for each additional 5,000 sq. ft. or portion thereof). Health Oak'Tree Encroachment $210 $200 Oak Tree Removal $350 $540 — Healthy Administrative Modification $150 $195 Adm. Mod. appeal to MC $500 $500 Adm. Mad. appeal to PC $500 $540 Adm. Mod. appeal to CC $500 $540 Modification for banners $63 $105 Modification - Regular $500 $540 Modification R -2 and R -3 $1,100 $600 Mod. extension Regular and MF $100 $105 Modification Appeal to PC $500 $540 Modification Appeal to CC $500 $540 — Temporary Banner 0 $15 ' Costs for publication is $1.10 /line – average notice is 160 lines – average noticing is 60 properties –the average costs for a typical mailing inc. publication is $228 1 9/2/03 PERMIT TYPE CURRENT FEE , PROPOSED FEE ADR — Sin $45 $220 ADR —new commercial /industrial $200 $1,225 ADR — alterations, remodelcom /ind $150 $405 . ADR — New multiple-family $200 $510 ADR — MFalterations /additions $150 $245 ADR appeal to PC $230 $540 ADR appeal to CC $156 $210 HOA.ARB Appeal to PC $310 $540 HOA AIRS appeal to CC $210 $210 Restaurant — outdoor dining $90 $180 Business License Banners on Poles $50 $165 Business License Issuance Fee 0 $25 Home Occupation Permit $25 $25 Home Occupation Permit w /hearin $50 $185 Engineerin Street Vacation $2,000 $2,000 Record Map Check — Final Map and Final Parcel Ma $25 per lot $100 + $25.00 /lot Public Improvement Plan Check $25 Based on actual costs I Code Services Administrative Citations 1 st Violation 2 nd Violation 3` Violation $65 $130 $195 $100 $200 $500 Covenant Preparation (attorney) $75 $215 2 This fee is proposed by Development Services Department 2 9/2/03 RESOLUTION NO. 6386 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING CERTAIN FEES RELATING TO ENGINEERING SERVICES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Based on the cost allocation study performed by the Administrative Services Department, the fees set forth in this Resolution are necessary for the purposes set forth in this Resolution and said fees do not exceed the estimated costs for providing the service; the fees set forth in this Resolution bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of the respective service or program involved; the fees bear a fair and reasonable relationship to the benefit the payer obtains from paying the fees or the burden caused; and the fees are not being imposed for general revenue purposes, but instead for partially recovering the cost of providing said services. Said fees are to cover the costs of the engineering services set forth below and said fees do not exceed the estimated costs for providing the service. SECTION 2. City Council Resolution No. 5985 which sets forth current fees is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby establishes the following fees: LASER IMAGED 6386 Ke ENGINEERING SERVICE FEES 1. Street Vacation $2,000 2. Off -site Improvement Plan The applicant shall reimburse Checking the City for 100% of actual costs and expenditures incurred by the City relative to said project 3. Copies and Reproduction $26.50 — Plans and Specifications 4. Copies and Reproduction — Misc. 8 '/2 x 11" and 8 '' /z" x 17" $1.00 per sheet 15" x 20" $2.00 per sheet 18" x 24" $2.50 per sheet 24" x 36" $3.00 per sheet 30" x 36" $3.50 per sheet 24" x 36" Mylar Original $5.00 per sheet -2- 6386 SECTION 4. Pursuant to Sections 9116.4 and 9118.4 of the Arcadia Municipal Code there is hereby established a Final Map and Final Parcel Map approval fee of $100.00 plus $25.00 per lot. SECTION 5. Any provisions set forth in City Council Resolution No. 5985, or any other resolution adopted prior to this Resolution, which are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 6. . This Resolution shall take effect upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 2183. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 2nd day of September , 2003. /s/ GARY A. KOVACIC Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: n ��. P. kw Step en P. Deitsch City Attorney -3- 6386 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6386 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 2nd day of September, 2003 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Chang, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None e � 9S. s del > f .. t . . J City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 0 RESOLUTION NO. 6387 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA REVISING CERTAIN FEES RELATING TO BANNERS ON POLES AND ESTABLISHING CERTAIN FEES RELATING TO NEW BUSINESS LICENSES. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Based on the cost allocation study performed by the Administrative Services .Department, the fees set forth in this Resolution are necessary for the purposes set forth in this Resolution and said fees do not exceed the estimated costs for providing the service; the fees set forth in this Resolution bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of the respective service or program involved; the fees bear a fair and reasonable relationship to the benefit the payer obtains from paying the fees or the burden caused; and the fees are not being imposed for general revenue purposes, but instead for partially recovering the cost of providing said services. Said fees are to cover the costs of the Business License services set forth below and said fees do not exceed the estimated costs for providing the service. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 6211.2.1.1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, there is hereby established a Business License Processing fee of $25.00. Said fee is to cover the administrative costs for processing a new business license LASER IMAGED -1- 6387 `� "I f application; does not exceed the estimated costs for processing a business license and bears a reasonable relationship to the cost of the respective service involved. SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 4912.6.1(b)(1) of the Arcadia Municipal Code there is hereby established a permit and inspection fee for banners on poles in the amount of $165.00. SECTION 4. Any provisions set forth in any resolution adopted prior to this Resolution which are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 5. The fees set forth in Section 2 of this Resolution shall take effect upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 2183. The fees set forth in Section 3 of this Resolution shall take effect upon the adoption of this Resolution. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] -2= 6387 Passed, approved and adopted this 2 nd ATTEST: N City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: P. �ky Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney -3- day of September ,2003. /s/ GARY A. KOVACIC Mayor of the City of Arcadia 6387 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA' ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 63 87 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 2nd day of September, 2003 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Chang, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None City Clerk of the City of Arcadia Cf RESOLUTION NO. 6388 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW FEES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Based on the cost allocation study performed by the Administrative Services Department, the fees set forth in this Resolution are necessary for the purposes set forth in this Resolution and said fees do not exceed the estimated costs for providing the service; the fees set forth in this Resolution bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of the respective service or program involved; the fees bear a fair and reasonable relationship to the benefit the payer obtains from paying the fees or the burden caused; and the fees are not being imposed for general revenue purposes, but instead for partially recovering the cost of providing said services. Said fees are to cover the costs of the Architectural Design Review services set forth below. SECTION 2. City Council Resolution No. 5424, which sets forth certain Architectural Design Review fees, is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 3. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9295.11, there is hereby established the following fee scheduled for Architectural Design Review. LASER IMAGED -I- M-1 5p A. Prior to the City's commencement of its review of new multiple family projects for design review, the project applicant shall deposit with the City the sum of $510.00. B. Prior to the City's commencement of its review of plans for proposed alterations or additions to existing multiple family for design review, the project applicant shall deposit with the City the sum of $245.00. C. Prior to the City's commencement of its review of new commercial /industrial projects for design review, the project applicant shall deposit with the City the sum of $1,225.00. D. Prior to the City's commencement of its review of plans for proposed alterations or additions to existing commercial or industrial buildings for design review, the project applicant shall deposit with the City the sum of $405.00 E. Prior to the City's commencement of its review for proposed signs, the project applicant shall deposit with the City a sum of $220.00 with the exception that the deposit for applications for design review of portable signs shall be $50.00. F. In addition to the above, the applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs associated with design review performed by the City's architectural and landscape design consultants prior to final approval of the design review. -2- 6388 SECTION 4. The City shall deduct and retain from the above deposits the actual costs incurred in the course of the design review. The City's fees shall be determined by multiplying the hourly wage rate of each employee by the number of hours, or portion of an hour, each employee spends on said review, plus 485% of the amount determined by such computation. If the actual costs of performing the design review exceed the deposit, the applicant shall pay the balance due upon demand. The City shall not complete its action any outstanding balance has been paid. If the actual costs of performing the design review is less than the amount of deposit, said unencumbered portion shall be refunded to the applicant following the City's action on the design review. SECTION 5. For an appeal to the Planning Commission from an architectural design review decision rendered by the Community Development Administrator or the Modification Committee, there is hereby established a fee of $540.00; provided, however, that the fee shall be one -half of said amount if said appeal has been filed in conjunction with another appeal pertaining to the same project. For an appeal to the City Council from an architectural design review decision rendered by the Planning Commission, there is hereby established a fee of $210.00; provided, however, that the fee shall be one -half of said amount if said -3- 6388 appeal has been filed in conjunction with another appeal pertaining to the same project. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 2nd day of September , 2003. /s/ GARY A. KOVACIC Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney -4- 6388 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6388 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the . City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 2nd day of September, 2003 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Chang, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None . ,�, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 5 S .I RESOLUTION NO. 6389 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION SCHEDULE OF FINES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE AND DESIGNATING CONTINUING VIOLATIONS SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The administrative citation fine amount is hereby amended for violation of any section of the Arcadia Municipal Code; except that continuing violations of any section of the Arcadia Municipal Code pertaining to building, plumbing, electrical or other similar, structural or zoning issues are not subject to administrative citations or administrative citation fines. The administrative citation fine amount for a first violation of any section of the Arcadia Municipal Code (except for a continuing violation pertaining to building plumbing, electrical or other similarly structural or zoning issue) is one hundred ($100.00) dollars. SECTION 2. Except as otherwise specifically set forth in Section 1 above, the fine amount for a second violation of the same Arcadia Municipal Code section by the same person within a twenty-four (24) month period following the date of an administrative citation shall be two hundred ($200.00) dollars. 1 LASER IMAGED 6389 qo SECTION 3. Except as otherwise specifically set forth in Section 1 above, the fine amount for a third and subsequent violation of the same Arcadia Municipal Code section by the same person within a twenty-four (24) month period following the date of an administrative citation shall be five hundred ($500.00) dollars. SECTION 4. More than three (3) separate violations for the same or a similar offense within a period of nine (9) months shall constitute a continuing violation for purposes of applying Section 1400 et seq. of the Arcadia Municipal Code regarding administrative remedies. SECTION 5. Any fine amount imposed pursuant to Article I, Chapter 4A of the Arcadia Municipal Code and this Resolution shall be deemed delinquent if not paid in accordance with the terms and provisions of Article I, Chapter 4A. Any person who fails to pay to the City the amount of any fine imposed pursuant to the provisions of Article I, Chapter 4A of the Arcadia Municipal Code and this Resolution on or before the date that the fine amount is due shall be liable for the payment of an additional delinquency penalty. The delinquency penalty shall be ten percent (10 %) of the amount of the fine due the City, or ten percent (10 %) of the amount of the portion of a fine remaining unpaid to the City. Interest shall accrue on all delinquent fine amounts, exclusive of delinquency penalties, at the rate of one -half of one percent (1/2 %) per month, pro rata, of the total delinquent -2- 6389 fine amount, from the date the fine amount becomes delinquent until the date that all delinquent fine amounts are paid to the City. SECTION 6. This Resolution supersedes Resolution No. 6087 adopted on December 1, 1998 as of the effective date of this Resolution No. 6389. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 2nd da of September 2003. /s/ GARY A. KOVACIC Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: ? P [�- Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney -3- 6389 4-1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6389 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 2nd day of September, 2003 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES:. Council Members Chang, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None City Clerk of the City of Arcadia L, RESOLUTION NO. 6390 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING FEES RELATING TO FILING FEES, EXTENSION FEES AND APPEAL FEES FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, TEXT AMENDMENTS, ZONE CHANGES, VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, TENTATIVE MAPS, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS, PARCEL MAP WAIVERS, FINAL MAPS, ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATIONS, MODIFICATIONS, R -2 AND R -3 MODIFICATIONS, HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION APPEALS, HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS, TEMPORARY BANNER PERMITS, AND COVENANTS AND REPEALING IN ITS ENTIRETY RESOLUTION 5953 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Based on the cost allocation study performed by the Administrative Services Department, the fees set forth in this Resolution are necessary for the purposes set forth in this Resolution and said fees do not exceed the estimated costs for providing the service; the fees set forth in this Resolution bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of the respective service or program involved; the fees bear a fair and reasonable relationship to the benefit the payer obtains from paying the fees or the burden caused; and the fees are not being imposed for general revenue purposes, but instead for partially recovering the cost of providing said services. Said fees are to cover the costs of the planning services set forth below and said fees do not exceed the estimated costs for providing the service. LASER IMAGED 6390 RP SECTION 2. City Council Resolution No. 5953, which sets forth certain planning fees, is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 3. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Sections 9275.2.2 the fees for Conditional Use Permits shall be as follows: Size of Property Single Use Base Fee Under 5,000 s . ft. $840 5,000 -9,999 $885 10,000- 14,999 $930 15,000- 24,999 $975 25,000- 34,999 $1,020 35,000- 44,999 $1,065 45,000 - 54,999 $1,110 55,000- 64,999 $1,155 65,000- 74,999 $1,200 75,000- 84,999 $1,245 85,000 and over $1,290 Properties with multiple use — fee is based on square footage of proposed use including required parking computed at 350 square feet per required space. For proposed revisions to existing conditions of approval the base fee shall be $840. If it is determined by the Development Services Director or designee that the proposed project is so complex that. additional costs will be incurred over and above the base fees set froth above, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to reimburse the City for 100% of the actual and reasonable costs and expenditures incurred by the City relative to said project. Said reimbursement agreement shall be in a form and substance approved by the City Attorney, and shall be executed prior to the City deeming the application complete. -2- 6390 SECTION 4. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9291.2.2, the fees for Variances shall be as follows: Size of Property Single Use Fee Under 5,000 s . ft. $985 5,000 -9,999 $1,030 10,000 - 14,999 $1,075 15,000- 24,999 $1,120 25,000- 34,999 $1,165 35,000- 44,999 $1,210 45,000 - 54,999 $1,255 55,000- 64,999 $1,300 65,000- 74,999 $1,345 75,000- 84,999 $1,390 85,000 and over $1,435 SECTION 5. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Sections 9275.2.9 and 9291.2.8 there is hereby established an appeal fee for Conditional Use Permits and Variances of $540.00. SECTION 6. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Sections 9275.2.14 and 9291.2.12 there is hereby established an extension fee for Conditional Use Permits and Variances of $105.00. SECTION 7. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Sections 9292.2.8 there is hereby established an Administrative Modification fee of $195.00. SECTION 8. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9292.2.11 there is hereby established an appeal fee for Administrative Modifications -3- 6390 appealed to the Modification Committee of $500.00; an appeal fee of $540.00 for appeals to the Planning Commission; and an appeal fee of $540.00 for appeals to the City Council. SECTION 9. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9292.1.10 there is hereby established a Modification fee of $540.00. A fee for modifications for the construction and conversion of multiple - family dwellings in the R -2 and R- 3 zones is hereby established in the amount of $600.00. The fee for banner modifications shall be $105.00. SECTION 10. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9292.1.14 there is hereby established an appeal fee for Modifications appealed to the Planning Commission of $540.00; an appeal fee of $540.00 for appeals to the City Council. A fee for appeals of R -2 and R -3 Modifications to the City Council is hereby established in the amount of $540.00. SECTION 11. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9292.1.17 there is hereby established a time extension fee for regular Modifications and R -2 and R -3 Modifications in the amount of $105.00. SECTION 12. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9293.2.1 the fee for a Zone Change shall be $2,000. If it is determined by the Development Services Director or designee that the proposed project is so complex that additional costs will be incurred over and above this fee, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to reimburse the City for 100% of the actual and -4- 6390 reasonable costs and expenditures incurred by the City relative to said project. Said reimbursement agreement shall be in a form and substance approved by the City Attorney, and shall be executed prior to the City deeming the application complete. SECTION 13. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9293.2.1 there is hereby established a filing fee for a Text Amendment in the amount of $1,700.00. If it is determined by the Development Services Director or designee that the proposed project is so complex that additional costs will be incurred over and above this fee, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to reimburse the City for 100% of the actual and reasonable costs and expenditures incurred by the City relative to said project. Said reimbursement agreement shall be in a form and substance approved by the City Attorney, and shall be executed prior to the City deeming the application complete. SECTION 14. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9115.3 there is hereby established a Tentative Map and Vesting Tentative Map fee for a single - family residential subdivision in the amount of $1,430.00 for the first five (5) lots plus $30 for each additional lot over five. The Tentative Map and Vesting Tentative Map fee for a condominium project shall be $1,060.00. SECTION 15. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9115.9(c) there is hereby established an appeal fee for Tentative Maps and Vesting Tentative Maps in the amount of $500.00. -5- 6390 SECTION 16. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9115.12 there is hereby established a time extension fee for Tentative Maps and Vesting Tentative Maps in the amount of $105.00. SECTION 17. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Sections 9117.4 and 9118.6(c) there is hereby established a Tentative Parcel Map, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Parcel Map Waiver fee in the amount of $1,060.00. SECTION 18. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9117.9(c) there is hereby established an appeal fee for Tentative Parcel Map and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map fee in the amount of $500.00. SECTION 19. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9117.12 there is hereby established a time extension fee for Tentative Parcel Maps and Vesting Tentative Parcel Maps in the amount of $105.00. SECTION 20. Pursuant to procedures to amend the General Plan adopted from time to time by the City Council the filing fee for a General Plan Amendment shall be $1,670. If it is determined by the Development Services Director or designee that the proposed project is so complex that additional costs will be incurred over and above this fee, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to reimburse the City for 100% of the actual and reasonable costs and expenditures incurred by the City relative to said project. Said reimbursement agreement shall be in a form and substance approved by the City Attorney and shall be executed prior to the City deeming the application complete. -6- 6390 SECTION 21. There is hereby established the following fee schedule for the reprocessing of applications on appeal before the City Council, which the City Council refers back to the Planning Commission. The reprocessing fee shall be the estimated costs as determined by the Development Services Director for staff time, materials and additional public hearing notices, and in no case shall such amount be more than the original application fee. SECTION 22. There is hereby established an appeal fee for a Homeowner Association's action appealed to the Planning Commission in the amount of $540.00 and an appeal fee in the amount of $210.00 for appeals to the City Council. SECTION 23. There is hereby established a filing fee for a Final Tract Map in the amount of $180.00. SECTION 24. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9704 there is hereby established a tree removal permit fee in the amount of $285.00 and a tree encroachment permit fee in the amount of $200.00. SECTION 25. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9285.9, there is hereby established a Home Occupation Permit fee in the amount of $25.00 and a fee in the amount of $185.00 for Home Occupation Permits which require a hearing before the Home Occupation Board. -7- 6390 SECTION 26. There is hereby established a fee in the amount of $215.00 for preparation of a covenant by the City Attorney as required in various land use actions. SECTION 27. This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption. SECTION 28. The City Council hereby finds that the fees specified in this Resolution will not produce an amount in excess of that estimated to fund the operation of the City of Arcadia Planning Division. SECTION 29. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 2nd ATTEST: I SN ®O ALFM City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P._Deitsch City Attorney day of September ,2003. /s/ GARY A. KOVACIC Mayor of the City of Arcadia -8- 6390 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6390 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 2nd day of September, 2003 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Chang, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 0 RESOLUTION NO. 6391 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA SETTING FORTH FEES RELATING TO BUILDING CODE APPEALS, FIRE CODE APPEALS, BUILDING PERMITS, BUILDING PLAN REVIEWS, GRADING PLAN REVIEWS, GRADING PERMITS, PLUMBING PERMITS, PLUMBING PLAN REVIEWS, ELECTRICAL PERMITS, ELECTRICAL PLAN REVIEWS, REFUSE, MECHANICAL PERMITS, MECHANICAL PLAN REVIEWS, RELOCATION AND REMOVAL PERMITS, DEMOLITION PERMITS, REROOFING PERMITS, SIGN PERMITS, SWIMMING POOL PERMITS AND FIRE EXTINGUISHING AND ALARM PERMITS AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 5952 IN ITS ENTIRETY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Based on the cost allocation study performed by the Administrative Services Department, the fees set forth in this Resolution are necessary for the purposes set forth in this Resolution and said fees do not exceed the estimated costs for providing the service; the fees set forth in this Resolution bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of the respective service or program involved; the fees bear a -fair and reasonable . relationship to the benefit the payer obtains from paying the fees or the burden caused; and the fees are not being imposed for general revenue purposes, but instead for partially recovering the cost of providing said services. Said fees are to cover the costs of the building services LASER IMAGED -1- 6391 221' set forth below and said fees do not exceed the estimated costs for providing the service. SECTION 2. City Council Resolution 5952 is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 3. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 8130.2, the fee for filing an appeal of the Building Code shall be $500.00. SECTION 4. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 8130.2 the fee for filing an appeal of the Fire Code shall be $500.00. SECTION 5. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Sections 8130.10 and 8130.11, there is hereby established the following fee schedule for filing an application for a building permit and plan review: BUILDING PERMIT FEES Total Valuation I Fee Issuing Fee Supplemental Issuing Fee $1.00 to $500.00 $501.00 to $2,000.00 $40.25 $14.10 $40.65 $40.65 for the first $500.00 plus $4.20 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00 -2- 6391 r $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $25,001 to $50,000 $50,001 to $100,000 $100,001 and up OTHER INSPECTIONS $103.65 for the first $2,000.00 plus $16.70 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $487.75 for the first $25,000.00 plus $12.75 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $806.50 for the first $50,000.00 plus $8.35 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 $1,224.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $6.90 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof. 1. For an extra inspection made necessary due to work not $52.15 being ready at the time specified or due to work not corrected after prior written notice 2. For an inspection for which no fees are herein $52.15 prescribed, per hour (time consumed per hour with a minimum charge of 1 hour) 3. For inspections outside normal business hours, per hour $52.15 (time consumed per hour with a minimum charge of 2 hours) PLAN REVIEW FEES When plans are required to be submitted by the Building Code, a plan review fee equal to 65 percent of the building permit fee shall be paid at the time of submitting plans and specifications for review. -3- 6391 I' When approved plans are revised, a supplemental plan review fee shall be paid to the City in an amount equal to $52.15 per hour (time consumed per hour with a minimum charge of one [1] hour) or the actual cost to review the plans when the plans are reviewed by an outside City plan check consultant. When plans are required to be submitted for compliance with the State Energy Conservation Regulations, an energy plan review fee equal to 20 percent of the building permit fee shall be paid at the time of submitting the plans and specifications for review. When plans are required to be submitted for new commercial, industrial and multiple family buildings, a fire department plan review fee equal to 9.75 percent of the building permit fee shall be paid at the time of submitting the plans and specifications for review. SECTION 6. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 8130.38, there is hereby established the following fee schedule for the plan checking fee for filing an application for a grading plan: GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEE Volume I Fee 50 cubic yards or less 51 to 100 cubic yards 101 to 1,000 cubic yards 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $40.25 $50.25 $60.30 $70.45 $70.45 for the first 10,000 cubic yards plus $28.20 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. -4- 6391 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards 200,001 cubic yards or more Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans, per hour (time consumed per hour with a minimum charge of 1 hour) $324.25 for the first 100,000 cubic yards plus $16.90 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. $493.25 for the first 200,000 cubic yards plus $8.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. $52.15 When grading plans are reviewed by an outside consultant, a grading plan review fee shall be paid to the City based on the actual costs to review the plans. SECTION 7. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 8130.38 there is hereby established the following fee schedule for filing an application for a grading permit: GRADING PERMIT FEES Volume I Fee Issuing Fee $40.25 Supplemental Issuing Fee $14.10 50 cubic yards or less $42.20 -5- 6391 51 to 100 cubic yards 101 to 1,000 cubic yards 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards $50.50 $50.50 for the first 100 cubic yards plus $19.90 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof. $229.60 for the first 1,000 cubic yards plus $16.95 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. $382.15 for the first 10,000 cubic yards plus $76.205 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof $1,068.40 for the first 100 cubic yards plus $42.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. OTHER INSPECTIONS 1. For an extra inspection made necessary due to work not $52.15 being ready at the time specified or due to work not corrected after prior written notice 2. For an inspection for which no fees are herein $52.15 prescribed and for emergency inspections, per hour (time consumed per hour with a minimum charge of 1 hour) 3. For inspections outside normal business hours, per hour $52.15 (time consumed per hour with a minimum charge of 2 hours) SECTION 8. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Sections 8230.2 and 8230.3, there is hereby established the following fee schedule for filing an application for a plumbing permit: H 6391 PLUMBING PERMIT FEES PERMIT ISSUANCE I . Permit issuance fee for each permit. $40.25 2. For issuing each supplemental permit. $14.10 UNIT FEE SCHEDULE 1. For each plumbing fixture or.trap or set of fixtures on $11.30 one trap (including water drainage piping, and backflow protection therefor). 2. For each building sewer connection on property, $28.25 including for each dwelling unit in a multiple - family development 3. Rainwater systems, per drain (inside building) $11.30 4. For each private sewage disposal system (where $84.75 permitted) 5. For each water heater and/or vent $14.10 6. For each gas piping system of one to five outlets $14.10 7. For each gas piping system over five outlets, per outlet $2.80 8. For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor $22.65 including its trap and vent, excepting kitchen -type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps 9. For installation, alteration, or repair of water service $11.30 piping and/or.water piping to one (1) fixture 9a. For repiping an existing domestic water supply and By building distribution system permit valuation 10. For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each $11.30 fixture 11. For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter $17.00 including backflow protection devices therefor 12. For atmospheric -type vacuum breakers not included in Items 1: 1 to 5 $14.10 Over 5, each $ 2.80 -7- 6391 13. For each backflow protective device other than atmospheric -type vacuum breakers: 2 inches and smaller $14.10 Over 2 inches $28.25 14. For each swimming pool piping (including spas and hot $24.55 tubs) 15. For each swimming pool "P" trap $ 9.85 16. For each swimming pool, spa and hot tub water heater $36.95 (including gas piping) 17. For each sewer cap and/or cesspool fill $14.10 OTHER INSPECTIONS 1. For an extra inspection made necessary due to work not $52.15 being ready at the time specified or due to work not corrected after prior written notice 2. For inspection of plumbing facilities for which no fees $52.15 are herein prescribed, per hour (time consumed per hour with a minimum charge of 1 hour) 3. For inspections outside normal business hours, per hour $52.15 (time consumed per hour with a minimum charge of 2 hours) PLUMBING PLAN REVIEW FEES For plumbing plans which require plan review, a plan review fee equal to 65 percent of the plumbing permit fee shall be paid to the Building Official at the time plans are submitted for review. SECTION 9. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Sections 8340.5 and 8340.6, there is hereby established the following fee schedule for filing an application for an electrical permit: ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES PERMIT ISSUANCE 1. For the issuance of each permit $40.25 -8- 6391 2. For issuing each supplemental permit $14.10 SERVICES 1. For residential service of 600 volts or less and not over $14.10 400 amps in rating, including one meter each Ia. For residential service of 600 volts or less and over 400 $56.35 amps in rating, including one (1) meter PA 3. 9 5. For one commercial service 200 amps or less, including $28.50 one meter each For each commercial service 200 amps to 1,000 amps, $56.35 including one meter each For commercial services over 600 volts or over 1,000 $141.35 amps in rating, including one meter each For each additional meter For each distribution panel NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION $14.10 $14.10 In addition to the fees for permit issuance and services as outlined above: 1. For each new single, duplex and multiple - family $0.05 dwelling for each square foot of gross floor area 2. For buildings accessory to new residential buildings $0.04 constructed in conjunction with those residential buildings for each square foot of gross floor area OTHER CONSTRUCTION 1. For receptacle, switch, lighting outlets First 20, each $1.40 Additional, each $0.90 -9- 6391 2. For lighting fixtures, sockets or other lamp devices First 20, each $1.40 Additional, each $0.90 3. For pole or platform mounted lighting fixtures such as tennis courts, parking lot standards and walkway lighting fixtures, including any foundation First 6 $5.65 Additional, each $2.80 4. For fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets $5.65 for same, not exceeding 1 hp in rating, each 5. For nonresidential appliances and self - contained $5.65 factory wired appliances not exceeding 1 hp, kw or kva, each 6. For electrical apparatus, conduits and conductor for $14.10 which a permit is required, but for which no fee is specified, each NOTE: For other types of air conditioners and other motor driven appliance having larger electrical rating, see POWER SCHEDULE POWER SCHEDULE For motors, generators, transformers, rectifiers, converters, capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioning and heat pumps, cooking or baking equipment and other apparatus, as follows: Rating in hp, kw, kva or kvar: 1. Up to and including 1, each 2. Over 1 and not over 10, each 3. Over 10 and not over 50, each 4. Over 50 and not over 100, each 5. Over 100, each NOTE: For equipment having more than one motor, $ 6.90 $14.10 $35.35 $70:55 $113.00 -10- 6391 �l transformer, heater, etc., the sum of the combined ratings may be used. NOTE: These fees include all switches, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats, relays and other directly related control equipment. BUS WAYS For trolley and plug -in busways, each 100 feet or fraction $8.40 thereof SIGNS Signs, outline lighting and marquees: 1. For one sign, outline lighting and marquee supplied $56.35 from one branch circuit, each 2. For additional branch circuits, each $5.65 CARNIVALS, CHRISTMAS TREE LOTS, SALES LOTS, ETC. 1. For electric generators and electrically driven rides, $14.10 each 2. For mechanically driven rides and walk through $6.90 attractions with lighting, each 3. For a system supplying booth lighting, each $6.90 4. For Christmas tree lots, sales lots, etc., each $28.25 -11- 6391 TEMPORARY POWER 1. For temporary service pole or pedestal installed in $53.55 conjunction with temporary buildings, each 2. For temporary service pole and one distribution system $28.25 for construction sites, each 3. For additional distribution panels installed in $14.10 conjunction with temporary power poles, each SW MNIING POOLS, SPAS, HOT TUBS, ETC. 1. For not more than one sub -panel, three motors, $61.35 integral lighting fixtures and all wiring and lighting for operation of same NOTE: For additional electrical outlets or equipment, see OTHER CONSTRUCTION or POWER SCHEDULE. OTHER INSPECTIONS 1. For an extra inspection made necessary due to work not $52.15 being ready at the time specified or due to work not corrected after prior written notice. 2. For an inspection for which no fees are herein $52.15 prescribed, per hour (rime consumed per hour with a minimum charge of 1 hour) 3. For inspection outside normal business hours, per hour $52.15/hour (time consumed per hour with a minimum charge of 2 hours) -12- 6391 ELECTRICAL PLAN REVIEW FEES For electrical plans that require plan review, a plan review fee equal to 65 percent of the electrical permit fee shall be paid to the Building Official at the time plans are submitted for plan review. SECTION 10. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Sections 8430.3 and 8430.4, there is hereby established the following fee schedule for filing an application for a mechanical permit: MECHANICAL PERNUT FEES 1. For the issuance of each permit $40.25 2. For issuing each supplemental permit $14.10 UNIT FEE SCHEDULE 1. For the installation or relocation of each forced -air or $17.00 gravity -type furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance, up to and including 100,000 Btu/h 2. For the installation or relocation of each forced -air or $21.30 gravity -type furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance, over 100,000 Btu/h 3. For the installation or relocation of each floor $17.00. furnace, including vents 4. For the installation or relocation of each suspended $17.00 heater, recessed wall heater or floor mounted unit heater 5. For the installation, relocation or replacement of each $8.50 appliance vent installed and not included in any appliance permit -13- 6391 6. For the regular repair of, alteration of, or addition to $17.00 each heating appliance refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls regulated by this code. 7. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or $17.00 compressor to and including 3 horsepower, or each absorption system to and including 100,000 Btu/h 8. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or $31.10 compressor over 3 horsepower to and including 15 horsepower or each absorption system over 100,000 Btu/h to and including 500,000 Btu/h 9. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or $42.50 compressor over 15 horsepower to and including 30 horsepower or each absorption system over 500,000 Btu/h to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h 10. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or $63.70 compressor over 30 horsepower to and including 50 horsepower or each absorption system over 1,000,000 Btu/h to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h 11. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or $106.10 compressor over 50 horsepower or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h 12. For each air - handling unit to and including 10,000 $12.80 cubic feet per minute, including ducts attached thereto NOTE: This fee shall not apply to an air - handling unit which is a portion of a factory assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere in this Code 13. For each air - handling unit over 10,000 cubic feet per $21.30 minute, including ducts attached thereto -14- 6391 14. For each evaporative cooler other than portable type $12.80 15. For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct $8.50 16. For each ventilation system which is not a portion of $12.80 any heating or air conditioning system authorized by a permit 17. For the installation of each kitchen hood which is $12.80 served by mechanical exhaust, including ducts for such hood 18. For the installation or relocation of each domestic- $21.30 type incinerator 19. For the installation or relocation of each commercial $84.75 or industrial -type incinerator 20. For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated $12.80 by this code but not classed in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in this Code 21. For the installation of ducts to an existing comfort $8.50 heating/cooling system, per system 22. For the installation of a factory built fireplace, $12.80 including ducts attached thereto OTHER INSPECTIONS 1. For an extra inspection made necessary due to work not $52.15 being ready at the time specified or due to work not corrected after prior written notice 2. For an inspection for which no fees are herein $52.15 prescribed, per hour (time consumed per hour with a minimum charge of 1 hour) -15- 6391 3. For inspections outside normal business hours, per hour $52.15 (time consumed per hour with a minimum charge of 2 hours) MECHANICAL PLAN REVIEW FEES For mechanical plans that require plan review, a plan review fee equal to 65 percent of the mechanical permit fee shall be paid to the Building Official at the time plans are submitted for plan review. SECTION 11. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Sections 8632.4, 8633 and 8642 there are hereby established relocation and removal fees as set forth below: RELOCATION AND REMOVAL FEES RELOCATION EXAMINATION FEE A relocation examination fee is established in the amount of $14.10 for each one hundred (100) square feet or fraction thereof of floor space, whether usable or not, contained within the building proposed to be relocated. RELOCATION PERMIT FEE Relocation permit fee shall be $22.65 per one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) valuation, or fraction thereof of the building to be relocated. For the purpose of computing such fee, valuation shall include the reasonable cost of moving such structure and the reasonable value of all new construction, alterations, additions, repairs, replacements and foundations in connection therewith. 1. For the issuance of each permit $40.25 2. For issuing each supplemental permit $14.10 REMOVAL PERMIT FEE (EXPORT) The fee for filing an application for a removal permit shall be $296.65 (route inspection fee and owner and mover bonds shall also be collected). -16: 6391 1. For the issuance of each permit $40.25 2. For issuing each supplemental permit $14.10 SECTION 12. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 8652, there is hereby established the following fee schedule for filing an application for a demolition permit: DEMOLITION PERMIT FEES Square Footage of Building Fee 500 square feet or less $22.65 501 to 1,000 cubic yards $42.50 1,001 to 3,000 cubic yards $70.55 3,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $98.80 10,001 square feet or more $226.05 1. For the issuance of each permit $40.25 2. For issuing each supplemental permit $14.10 SECTION 13. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 8130.10 there is hereby established the following fee schedule for reroofing permit: REROOFING PERMIT FEES REROOFING The fee for filing an application for a reroofing permit shall be the same as required for a building of equivalent valuation as determined by the following: -17- 6391 Type of Reroofing I Evaluation (cost per square) 1. Fiberglass Shingles (20 year warranty) $130.00 2. Laminated Fiberglass Shingles (25 to 30 year warranty) $150.00 3. Laminated Fiberglass Shingles (40 and 50 year $170.00 warranty) 4. Heavy Weight Concrete Tile $325.00 5. Lite Weight Concrete Tile $375.00 6. Lite Weight Perlite Shakes $325.00 7. Fiber Cement Shakes $325.00 8. Pressure Treated Wood Shakes $325.00 9 Pressure Treated Wood Shingles $325.00 10. Steel Roofing Systems (Class `B ") $350.00 (Class "A ") $500.00 For plywood installation add $50.00 per square to the above figures. SECTION 14. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 8712 the fee for filing an application for a sign permit shall be the same as required for a building of equivalent valuation and shall also include a plan check fee which shall be 50 percent of the permit fee. SECTION 15. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 8540.2 there is hereby established the following fee schedule for filing an application for a swimming pool permit and plan review: SWEWM[ING POOL PERMIT AND PLAN REVIEW FEES The fee for filing an application for a swimming pool permit and plan review shall be the same as required for a building of equivalent valuation. The valuation shall be calculated at the rate of $208.95 per perimeter foot of the swimming pool and/or spa. 1. For the issuance of each permit $40.25 2. For issuing each supplemental permit $14.10 so 6391 OTHER INSPECTIONS 1. For an extra inspection made necessary due to work not $52.15 being ready at the time specified or due to work not corrected after prior written notice. 2. For an inspection for which no fees are herein $52.15 prescribed, per hour (time consumed per hour with a minimum charge of 1 hour) 3. For inspection outside normal business hours, per hour $52.15/hour (time consumed per hour with a minimum charge of 2 hours) SECTION 16. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 3121 there is hereby established the following fee schedule for issuance of Fire Extinguishing and Alarm permits and plan reviews: FIRE EXTINGUISHING AND ALARM PERMIT AND PLAN REVIEW FEES The fee for filing an application for the installation of fire extinguishing and alarm systems shall be the same as required for a building of equivalent valuation except that the plan review fee shall also include any fee charged to the City by an outside plan review consultant:. 1. For the issuance of each permit $40.25 2. For the issuance of each supplemental permit $14.10 SECTION 17. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 8020.8, there is hereby established the following Refuse Fee Schedule: -19- 6391 1. For the issuance of each building, demolition and $6.25 reroofing permit 2. For the issuance of each electrical, plumbing, $1.00 mechanical, sign, fire extinguishing, swimming pool and spa, fire alarm, grading and masonry wall permit SECTION 18. Neither the adoption of this Resolution nor the repeal hereby of any resolution shall in any manner be construed as affecting any fee, or the validity of any bond or cash deposit in lieu thereof, posted, filed or deposited pursuant thereto prior to the effective date of this Resolution, and all rights and obligations thereunder shall continue in full force and effect. SECTION 19. The City Council hereby finds that the fees specified in this Resolution will not produce an amount in excess of that estimated to fund the operation of the City of Arcadia Building Section. SECTION 20. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] -20- 6391 Passed, approved and adopted this ATTEST: aV jU NE 1) NYORD City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: q� R 1) -� Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 2nd day of September , 2003. /s/ GARY A. KOVA Mayor of the City of Arcadia -21- 6391 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6391 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 2nd day of September, 2003 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Chang, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None l' M" ZHINZ .CTiTa City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 22 RESOLUTION NO. 6392 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA REVISING THE APPLICATION FEE RELATING TO INCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Based on the cost allocation study performed by the Administrative Services Department, the fee set forth in this Resolution is necessary for the purposes set forth in this Resolution and said fee does not exceed the estimated costs for providing the service; the fee set forth in this Resolution bears a reasonable relationship to the cost of the respective service; the fee bears a fair and reasonable relationship to the benefit the payer obtains from paying the fee or the burden caused; and the fee is not being imposed for general revenue purposes, but instead for partially recovering the cost of providing said services. Said fee is to cover the costs of the cost of processing a request and any related site inspection relative to incidental outdoor dining and said fee does not exceed the estimated costs for providing the service. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9270.3, the application fee for businesses that apply for an incidental outdoor dining permit shall be $180.00. LASER IMAGED -1- 6392 3p SECTION 3. City Council Resolution 5903 is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTIONA. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 2nd day of September , 2003. /s/ GARY A. KOVACIC Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: 19 JUNE UL WOW City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney -2- 6392 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6392 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 2nd day of September, 2003 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Chang, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 3 °1 g' STAFF REPORT 'Development Services Department September 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council CL FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator Prepared By: Joseph Lambert, Associate Planner ,JL_ SUBJECT: Consideration of Final Map No. 53968 for a 6 -unit residential condominium project at 1211 S. Golden West Avenue. SUMMARY Tentative maps and final maps are required for all subdivisions that result in five or more parcels or condominiums. The City Council shall approve a final map if it conforms to all the requirements of the subdivision regulations of the Municipal Code and the State Subdivision Map Act. It is recommended that the City Council approve Final Map No. 53968 for a 6 -unit residential condominium project at 1211 S. Golden West Avenue. DISCUSSION Final Map No. 53968 has been reviewed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and the appropriate City Departments. Said map has been found to be in substantial compliance with the tentative map, as, approved by the Planning Commission on January 14, 2003, and is in compliance with the subdivision regulations of the Municipal Code and the State Subdivision Map Act. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of Final Map No. 53968. Attachments: 1. Land use map 2. Letter of compliance from Los Angeles County 3. Final Map No. 53968 Approved: ( =' Wq William R. Kelly, City Manager LASER IMAGED (fP ,� .d9a n .yam y-. ' nivj y ry rt l t f', I•wS y��S [[���ky��y'�"i� � � � t {, � ' �,a•�: , 7 � II 1 II ; iy f ,~ � k" Y rr � ry mm y�r�l I � { . I I I p i S � rF -.ter^' � � 1 = • '�i � 1. �r•X?'Gl gJi ,{IJ � ,,, ` _ I d 4 :. , �- to y �y�1 w lkSsF: fr Fin 1 1211 IS Golden West Ave' �1n to � f• :. r i � : is w a�t�:. 1 1. ail �' •Y i, I Tt1 q a �l ' I ;i III ,• l 4 i l , y♦ t N S. y�, �. A rc adia r �"� i7 t I r � • N too 0 100 Feet (917) (1'x40) ` ` (853) (901) (s31) D (93� I TE p (838 -852) {JA f ( 08 ) (9OOj ` Shopp'�g Centex (914) 5 (922) ' (910) 'service Station 1 '942) (930) (928 v' �' (t 221 m j $ urtit a pts. (1221) Z (1220) j � C G (1223) M1 b-unit apts. (1227) �L l 1 0 rcad�a > Ci — , 1 + I (1240) _ (1238) 1 _ 1 (1236) 1 1 1 (1234) 1 _ (1232) Temple City -1 Temple CUY S 1211 S Golden IiVest Ave Development Services Department IAA T1V153968 Engineering Division RWa-Wby. R S.GCn akZ January, 2003 l�CORp°nw4s°'}0�� JAMES A. NOVES, Director July 22, 2003 ' Mr. Phillip A. Wray City Engineer City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 -6021 Dear Mr. Wray: TRACT NO. 53968 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE ALHA.MBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331 Telephooe:(626) 458 -5100 w Jadpw.org ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: P.O. BOX 1460 'ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802 4460 IN REPLY REFER TO FILE: LD -2 The enclosed subject tract map has been reviewed by Public Works for mathematical accuracy, survey analysis, title information, and for compliance with the Subdivision Map Act. It is ready for your examination and certification as to compliance with the conditional approval and applicable City Ordinances. The City Council or Advisory Agency should make the findings required by the State Environmental Quality Act and the Subdivision Map, Act. After your approval and the approval of the City Council or Advisory Agency, the map should be returned to Land Development Division, Subdivision Mapping Section, for filing with the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk's Office. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Armando Aguilar of our Subdivision Mapping Section at (626) 458 -4915. Very truly yours, JAMES A. NOYES Director of Public Works DENNIS HUNTER (J Assistant Division Engineer Land Development Division JK:ca P:VLDPUB \S U BDI VS NIMAPPINGIFO RM SITRACT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 7o Enrich Lives Through Effective and Caring Service" Enc. LOT 8.006 S FT. SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS TRACT NO, 53968 IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A SUBDIVISION CF A PORTION OF LOY - 1, IN BLOCK "B" OF SANTA ANITA LAND COMPANY'S TRACT, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 5, PAGE 137 OF MA ?S, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES WNER'S STATEMENT ME HBUHY STATE THAT W ARE THE ONAXIM OF M AM INTERESTED IN ME VACS Mm.0ED WTMN ME SACh'M ON SHOW qY MIS MM. WMm THE USTNUW BORDEN UNE% NC Wi CONSENT TO ME PREPNUIIw AND Fvxc OF SAN MAP AND SHSDI DEXTER IMLSTMENT, LLC. A CALIFORNIA UWIED JA$UTY COMPANY DY: NANAONC MEMBER STATE OF CNIFCNNA ) COUNTY FF IM AN(E 1£ 155 ON _ BEFORE W. ME UNDERSGI A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID VAX, PERSONALLY APPEARED PEREONALLY KNOW TO NE OR PROMM TO ME OR ME TAWS CF SARVACTCRY EDDEHCE TO BE ME PERSON WIDSE NAME 15 I SfAlE1 TO ME W MIN NSTPLMENT NC ACNNOY9ID(ED TO ME MAT HE= EAECLTED ME SNf IN NSA4ER WTHORTHD CAPACITY NID MAT BY HIS/HER SWATIRE ON ME NSTDMENE ME PERSON. OR ME ENTITY WOH WMAJF OF WY01 ME PERSON ACRID. E]EWTEO ME MSWUMFNT. NOTARY P c NAME PRINTED MY CONMMSIW EIDNES - MY %BNCWAL RACE OF BUSINESS IS IN IRS AAMESE COAT, GENERAL BANK, BENEFICIARY UNDER A SEED OF DNAST RECORDED FEBRUARY 25 2003 AS NSMIUIEIT n0. 03- 5M984. OF TIMOK RECORDS RVEYOR'S STATEMENT MS MM WAS PREPARED BY NE M LINDEN MY DIRECTOR AND 5 BASED UPON A R6p 91RWY IN 001 FORMANCE WM ME REgIppAFN15 OF ME 9JBUMSON, MAP ACT AND LWK ORDNANCE AT ME MMIEST OF SEATER INDESMENT. I IN .MME 2002 1 HQEDY STATE THAT THE COAL MM SJBSTAHTALLY CONFORMS TO ME CONSITSNALLY APPROWL TNT'11W MAP. MAT ME NOHWENTS OF ME CHARACTER AND L BONS . HEREON ME IN RACE: MAT SAID MIMIJIEMTS ARE SJFFIEENT TO EMABE ME SWAY M BE RETRACED. RARE➢ MELMFU. L5. 6999 EMRfiES: 9/30/05 CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE I HEMBY CERTFY THAT 1 MACE EAANNED THIS MAP; THAT IT CONFORMS 51BSTANUA Y TO ME IESNTATAE MM AMR ALL APFROTfD kTERATWS TEAEC6: MAT AL RION90NS CF SJBNMSION MONANCES OF THE Oh OF ARCADIA AF4PMARE AT ME TINE OF API OF ME TENTATIW MM HAW BEEN CTYRIED WM AND MAT I AN SA, S MAT ME MAP IS TEO MHl;u,Y OM C ECT 11TH RESPECT TO TTY FECMDS DAR GTY ENGINEER. PMUP BRAY LB 7305 EAPNES: 12/31/1(84 CITY TREASURER'c CERTIFICA%F 1 HEREBY CERTIFY MAT ALL SPECIAL ASSE MENR IEVEO UNDER ME AIRISMUMN, OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA TO WIIM ME LWD NCWOEO IN ME MMIN S EDMENON OR ANY PART THUS IS S.MJECT. AND MICM MAY BE PAID IN FJ . MADE UEM PAID N FULL STATE OF C.WFORNIA ) =NTY OF LDS ARCHES I SS ON _ BEFORE N[ ME UNDERSIGNED, A BOTANY PLBUC IN AND FOR SAO WAE, PER".OI APPEARED _ PERSONALLY KNOYN TO CIE OR PRIDED T) ME UN ME BASIS OF SA➢4ACTIRT EYAENCE TO 8E ME RRSON WNSE BANES AM "SCRIBED TO THE WISH NBTRUNENT .0 ACKNOILEOGED TO ME MAr THIN' EAEDJTEO ME SANE N MEN ALMOSZE0 CAPACITIES AND M PERSONS, ON THAT BY SMATHRES ON ME 6TTY UPON NOR DEHNF CF W. ME I KREM S ACIEDE ENEMTEDD ME INSMINERT. narARr Puarc — . C PRINTED MY L RANCIP C P N FSPX OF BUS IN LOS ADAGE EE C LC£ BUSINESS IS IN DS ANOEON1Y DATE &TY MEAS'AER - CITY OF PAC.'A PANNING IOMMISS ON CERTIFICATI MS IS TO (9ETFY MAT THE TENTAnW MM OF TRACT NO. 53988 WAS APPRODID AT A MEETING MELD ON ME I IM DAY OF JANUARY. 2003. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT MIS MAP LBSTANTALLY COMRJES WM ME PREMOU%r MPROWD TENTA7W MM. OA RE SEOETNlY OF TE PLAN'. COMMAI4W - Ott OF ARCADIA CCNDDNHMN NOTE THIS 419AM9W IS APPRDWO AS A CMBWNNM PMAECT FOR 8 NN$ ,MMSY ME OMENS OF ME UNITS O NR SPACE R HOID AN UNDIMDEO INTEREST N ME COMMON AREAS WIIW W N DARN. PRONCf ME N:Qv51AY ACCESS AND UMITY EASEMENTS FOR ME UNITS. BASE OF BENBNOi ME ffAAN05 SHOWI HEREON ME BASED W ME QRTERRE OF DUARTE ROAD SDBN AS N110MBDOE CN COACT MM 40. 34YI, N.B. 900- 42 -43. `IGNAT RF OMIC I .NS NOT S ME 9RIANRE W SNNA AN TA IAND COMPANY N1DEA OF AN EASEMENT FOR PSMINE PUIFbSES BY DEED RECORDED IN 8001C V97 PAGE 294, OF DEEDS HAS BEEN ONIH E PORSINNT TO M PRIZASOIS TF RCTOI E843B(e13AQ -NE) OF ME "UM" NM ACT, AS TIER INTEREST R ENON MAT IT CANNOT RIPEN INTO A RF AID SAID SOMATNE IS NOT IEOARI D BY ME t AmOY. SAID EASEMENT M B1AKET N MADAME RE SIGNAP 5) OF SOUTHERN CAIfORNIA EESON COMPANY, A CO80RATO1 HOJ EA OF AN EASEMENT FM FVB1C UTUTY RMU1]SFS BY 0® RECORDED IN BOON 372117 PAD: 311. O OFTCIK RECORDS HAS BEEN WTTED PIIREDAN TO SEUGH THE AS ME INTEREST` IB SICN MAi If RFEN INTOF ME A PEE. AND I MAP SAID T SGNATEE 19 NOT REWIRED BY THE LOCK ARDENCY.. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S CERTIFICATE I HEMHY gRTW THAT ME FEE REWIRED BY S'.CTW 9118.41E THE NUMHWA ftl`E HAS BEEN PAID TO ME 01 M ARCAOA DATE FRAHM DIMUOR - ON OF MCADIA CITY CLFRKc CERTIFICATE 1 HEREBY CERTIFY MAT ME CITY MMOL V ME CITY OF ARCADIA BY MOTION PASSED ON APWIODED ME ATTAOMED NAP. DAR CITY OETN - CITY OF ARLANA SCALE: 1'= 30' SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS TRACT NO.' 53966 IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES ®r cc was uan umir v awrww ra.na.. mmr mwwr am arw nar .Aa an, ax pfY]aWN�9 P Iq.M)I Y6 N'1f Y1 a raraww N10..¢xw, Y6 Y4w-U DUARTE ROAD .p A �- w Riwu wuaixo� a A �g NOT A PART OF O - M6 SUBgNStON 8 � erc w t- W m w z 2 w a r- N w 3 2 w 0 O c7 w im ra n NAOMI AVE J a ua.. uA R0.w]aa Y8 W-a-U I"MCAMS ME &:M-Y W ME LVip B c SB mwm BY MR um. JM�0 RPOasa�9.� _ IJ �1 a1 F FREEPOWL Arcadia Public Library September 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Janet Sporleder, Director of Library and Museum Services SUBJECT: Donations from community organizations in support of the Summer Reading Program for children at the Library Recommendation: Accept Summary: The annual Summer Reading Program at the Library is supported by community organizations and businesses. Their donations make it possible to schedule special programs and performers, to offer exciting weekly incentives and end -of- program rewards for reading, and to create fun activities for the children. Discussion Each year, the Library offers a Summer Reading Program designed to encourage children to enjoy reading and related activities. Children who participate in reading programs continue to build and develop essential reading skills that might otherwise be lost while school is out. The chosen theme this summer was Swing Into Your Library - It's a Jungle Out There! Graphics (including posters, bookmarks, reading logs and t- shirts), decorations, crafts and programs were designed the jungle and rain forest theme. As children read, they kept track of their time, earning rewards. A record total of 2,104 children registered this year for the program, an increase of 298 participants over last summer. They read a cumulative 55,036 hours. Major funds for the program are provided by the Friends of the Library and other businesses and organizations in the community also contribute both funds and goods. Cash donations were made by the following: Advantage Ford, Arcadia Chinese School, DBA Auntie Anne's Hand - rolled Soft Pretzels, Bade Construction Company, California Federal Bank, Lawry's Foods, Santa Anita Park, Sam's Club, and 3M. Thirty-six local eating establishments provided over 12,000 coupons for free food, from cookies to full meals. Gift certificates, free passes to movies and museums, games and toys were donated. Sav -On Drugs donated 2 skateboards, and a bicycle. A full list of the businesses and organizations is attached. Each donor was recognized with a thank you letter and certificate of appreciation. LASER IMAGED 3p With the generous support of the community, the Library was again able to offer an ., outstanding program for Arcadia's children this summer. The children were delighted and excited. And they read a lot of books as indicated by the fact that in July alone 48,719 children's books and other items were checked out! All gifts to the Library are subject to approval by the City Council pursuant to City Charter article VIII section 809 (d). Fiscal Impact The Library will experience an added $4,800 to its budget allocation. Recommendation: Accept the donations from community organizations in support of the Summer Reading Program for children at the Library Approved by: William R. Kelly, City Manager 9 4 1 c� " ° °RP ° =mm ° ° °° STAFF REPORT Arcadia Public Library September 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Janet Sporleder, Director of Library and Museum Services SUBJECT: $1,000 grant awarded to the Arcadia Public Library Foundation by the Oak Tree Charitable Foundation for literacy materials at the Library Recommendation: Accept Summary The Arcadia Public Library Foundation has received a grant from the Oak Tree Charitable Foundation for literacy materials at the Library. The funds will be used to purchase books, videos, and CDs that will be useful to English language learners. Discussion Each year since it was established in 1995, the Arcadia Public Library Foundation has applied to the Oak Tree Charitable Foundation for grant support. Every year they have made an award. Their funds have been used to purchase furniture, computers, audio - visual equipment, and new signage, and to help create the Jesse Vanlandingham Memorial Patio. This year's grant will be used to purchase literacy materials. For many area residents, English is a second language. Though there has always been a need for materials and programs to assist people learning to speak, read and write English, that need has grown as the demographics in the area have changed. More and more library patrons are asking for books, videos and tapes that will help them master English. The funds from this contribution will be used to purchase English-as-a- second- language (ESL) and literacy materials to meet this growing need. All gifts to the Library are subject to approval by the City Council pursuant to City Charter article VIII section 809 (d). Fiscal Impact The Library will experience an added $1,000 to its budget allocation. LASER IMAGED Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve the receipt of the $1,000 grant funds awarded to the Arcadia Public Library Foundation by the Oak Tree Charitable Foundation for literacy materials at the Library. Approved by: `"__J William R. Kelly, City Manager 'i( e, k MEMORANDUM Public Works Services Department September 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Dire or Prepared by: Thomas W. Tait, Field Se ices Ma ager SUBJECT: Contract Change Order— Removal and replacement of problematic trees Recommendation: Authorize a contract change order in the amount of $50,000 with West Coast Arborist Inc. for removal and replacement of problematic trees SUMMARY The 2003 -04 Capital Improvement Program provides for the replacement of 100 trees during the next year. The replacement of these trees is in concert with the Street Tree Master Plan and our long -term management and care program for all publicly owned trees. The City's current tree trimming services are contracted to West Coast Arborist Inc., (WCA). WCA provides the primary tree trimming services as well as for the majority of our tree removal, replacement and planting services. Similar to last year, staff is recommending that the City Council approve a contract change order in the amount of $50,000 to West Coast Arborist Inc. for the removal and replacement of aging and problematic trees. Our existing contract with WCA provides funding for tree trimming services, and allows for minimal tree removals and new tree planting. In order to proceed with the work as provided for in the CIP, it is necessary to add this work to our existing contract with WCA. DISCUSSION The City of Arcadia's Urban Forest consists of over 17,800 publicly maintained trees. The City's tree population is extremely diverse consisting of over 50 different species. City trees soften the hard lines of the urban infrastructure and are an integral part of our community's aesthetic appeal. The City's current tree program is proactive and in staffs opinion provides excellent tree care and maintenance of the City's existing Urban Forest. However, there are a number LASER IMAGED Mayor and City Council September 2, 2003 Page 2 of concerns about the aging and deterioration of the large majestic trees, problematic trees, root damage to hardscape, and tree vacancies. In order to address these issues, the City created a 20 -year program that would remove and replace identified aging and problematic trees. The City's existing tree maintenance program with West Coast Arborists, provides for the general upkeep of the existing tree stock, mitigates immediate public safety hazards, and allows for minimal tree replacement on a case -by -case basis. The existing program provides for some, but not all, pro- active and predictive maintenance efforts, such as the Annual Tree Replacement & New Planting Program in this year's Capital Improvement Budget, necessary to improve aesthetics, minimize long -term liability and facilitate the long -term sustainability of a vibrant Urban Forest in the City of Arcadia. Therefore, staff recommends utilizing West Coast Arborist's services in the removal and replacement of problematic trees by authorizing a contract change order in the amount of $50,000. This project will further our goal in maintaining the City's street tree population and follow through with the recommendations identified in the Street Tree Master Plan. CEQA This project is categorically exempt from the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15304. FISCAL IMPACT Funds in the amount of $50,000 were appropriated in the 2003 -2004 Capital. improvement Program. 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract change order in the amount of $50,000 to West Coast Arborists for the replacement and planting of 100 aging and problematic trees. Approved by: William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:TWT:dw q 1 1 STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: September 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Directo Philip A. Wray, City Engineer J Prepared By: Tim Kelleher, Senior Engineering Assistant SUBJECT: Award of Contract -- Construction of Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk on Centennial Way Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Gentry Brothers, Inc. in the amount of $33,519.00 SUMMARY As part of the fiscal years' 2003/2004 Capital Improvement Project budget, the City Council approved funds in the amount of $72,000 to construct sidewalk, curb and gutter, and handicap ramps on the north side of Centennial Way. Recently, staff received bids for the sidewalk project. Gentry Brothers, Inc. submitted the low bid in the amount of $33,519.00. Staff has analyzed the bid results, investigated Gentry Brothers' status, and is recommending that the City Council award the contract to Gentry Brothers, Inc. in the amount of $33,519.00. BACKGROUND Santa Anita Park typically generates a fair amount of patrons who utilize Foothill Transit and MTA bus service to get to and from the races. A primary bus stop is at the northeast corner of Centennial Way and Huntington Drive East. The normal pedestrian route is along the north side of Centennial Way because of the bus stop location, crosswalk across Huntington Drive West, and racetrack sidewalk to the entrance are all aligned to the north side of Centennial Way. Unfortunately, there is no existing sidewalk on the north side of Centennial Way and pedestrian traffic . is usually in the street. This project build pedestrian facilities aligned to the bus stop at the northeast corner and entrance of the racetrack. LASER IMAGED Mayor and City Council Staff Report September 2, 2003 Page 2 There are several issues, which have forced this project to be completed quickly. The recent completion of the Police Station building with the subsequent landscaping is a major factor. The landscaping for the police station is anticipated to begin soon and it would be advantageous to have the sidewalk completed prior to landscaping to avoid having to replace portions damaged during construction of the new sidewalk. Also, the City could lose a portion of the allocated funds unless used this fiscal year. The City has accumulated approximately $72,000 in Transportation Development Act local funds for which this project is eligible. If a portion of these funds is not used, they will be.lost this year. The balance of the funds may be reserved for future projects up to three (3) years from their allocation. DISCUSSION As previously mentioned, there is a need for sidewalk on the north side of Centennial Way due to the volume of pedestrian traffic. There is available funding from State funds for which this project is eligible, and it would be advantageous to complete the sidewalk prior to landscaping for the police station. There is one issue that has complicated the project. Currently there are mature Deodar trees along the north side of Centennial Way approximately nine feet (9') from the existing curb. The City's consulting arborist stated that constructing a sidewalk from the existing curb's location would cause damage to those Deodars. Consequently, the arborist's recommendation has required that the curb be reconstructed two -feet towards the center of the street to allow more space between the trees and the proposed sidewalk. There is adequate right -of -way to construct the new sidewalk two (2') feet into the street. The scope of this project will include curb and gutter, handicap ramps at each end of the sidewalk, a driveway approach for the police station, minor drainage facilities for the police station, sidewalk and asphalt concrete pavement. Bids for the project were opened on August 19, 2003. Four (4) qualified bids were received with Gentry Brothers, Inc. of Irwindale being the low bidder. The following are the bid results of the bid opening: Gentry Brothers, Inc. $33,519.00 E. C. Construction Co. $40,375.55 EGN Construction, Inc. $47,914.00 Nobest, Inc. $50,000.00 Staff has investigated Gentry Brothers, Inc. license and experience and has found both to be in good standing �� -,... y Mayor and City Council Staff Report September 2, 2003 Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The project is categorically exempt per Section 15301 Class 1(c) from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). FISCAL IMPACT Funds in the amount of $72,000 have been appropriated in the 2003 -2004 CIP budget to construct the sidewalk. The low bid being $33,519, there are adequate funds to cover the construction contract and contingencies. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Gentry Brothers, Inc. in the amount of $33,519 for the Construction of Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk on Centennial Way. APPROVED: �* William R. Kelly, City Manager DP:PW:TK:pa � 7 ,'s .3x714\ \1�i. =, I September 2, 2003 STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Direct Prepared by: Gary F. Lewis, General Sere' es anager SUBJECT: Recommendation: City Council to determine by at least a four -fifths (4/5) vote, that there is need to continue this emergency action SUMMARY On August 19, 2003, the City Council adopted Resolution 6385, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, authorizing an emergency contract to remove underground tanks and install above ground tanks and /or related facilities at the City Service Center and Fire Stations 105 and 106. Pursuant to Section 4 of Resolution No. 6385 and pursuant to the California Public Contract Code, the City Council is required at every Council meeting until project completion to determine that the emergency continues concerning the public works project to remove underground tanks and install above ground tanks and /or related facilities at the City Service Center and Fire Stations 105 and 106. The City Council is required to determine by at least a four -fifths (4/5) vote that there is need to continue this emergency action. DISCUSSION As provided for in Section 2842.5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code and in Sections 20168 & 22050 of the Public Contract Code, in the case of an emergency, the City Council may pass a resolution by at least a four -fifths (4/5) vote declaring that in the public interest and necessity demand the immediate expenditure of money to safeguard life, health or property. It is recommended that the City Council determine, by at least a four -fifths (4/5) vote, that there is need to continue this emergency action. LASER IMAGED 93, 9P Mayor and City Council September 2, 2003 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT Funds for this project are provided in the 2003 -2004 Capital Improvement Program Budget in the amount of $345,000. Funds have also been appropriated in the amount of $122,000, $64,000 from the Water Fund and $58,000 from the Capital Outlay Fund, for construction and contingencies for a total budget amount of $467,000. RECOMMENDATION ; City Council to determine by at least a four -fifths (415) vote, that there is need to continue this emergency action Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:GFL:dw Attachment: Resolution No. 6385 RESOLUTION NO. 6385 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AN EMERGENCY CONTRACT TO REMOVE UNDER- GROUND TANKS AND INSTALL ABOVE GROUND TANKS AND /OR RELATED FACILITIES AT THE CITY SERVICE CENTER AND FIRE STATIONS 105 AND 106 WHEREAS, California Senate Bill 989 and regulations promulgated thereunder ( "the Law ") require that all fuel pumps have a double walled fuel pump with a holding tank equipped to provide containment if the fuel pumps malfunction or leak; and WHEREAS, the Law further requires that all piping be upgraded to a full double wall piping containment system; and WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works submitted a Notice of Non - Compliance to the City of Arcadia on April 7, 2003 indicating that the City is required to bring into compliance with the Law by May 7, 2003 certain underground storage tanks located at the City Service Center at 11800 E. Goldring Road in the City of Arcadia; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2003, the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works extended to September 30, 2003 the deadline for the City to bring into compliance the underground storage tanks at the City Service Center; and 11 WHEREAS, the City believes that the City must also bring into compliance with the Law certain tanks located at Fire Stations 105 and 106, although these tanks have not been made subject to any notice of non - compliance by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works to date; and WHEREAS, the City has twice published a Notice Inviting Bids in order to accomplish bringing into compliance with the Law the tanks and related facilities at the City Service Center and Fire Stations 105 and 106, but has twice rejected the sole bid received on each occasion due to the high bid proposal and the lack of additional bidders; and WHEREAS, the City Council reasonably believes that it is necessary, based on a four - fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council, to declare an emergency in order to repair or replace the above described facilities at the City Service Center and Fire Stations 105 and 106 and to procure the necessary equipment, services and supplies for those purposes without giving notice for bids to let contracts, all in accordance with Section 1212 of the Charter of the City of Arcadia and Section 2842.5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: FA SECTION 1. Pursuant to Public Contract Code Sections 20168 and 22050, the City Council finds that an emergency exists with respect to the removal and installation of underground and above ground fuel tanks and related facilities (the "Project') at the City Service Yard and Fire Stations 105 and 106 for the following reasons and based on the following facts. The City of Arcadia is required to undertake and complete the removal and installation of fuel pumps and related facilities at the City Service Center by September 30 2003. In the event that the City fails to do so, the City is subject to the imposition of fines and to the prohibition of delivery of petroleum products into the subject facilities. Petroleum products at the subject facilities are critical for purposes of the City providing life and health related maintenance of City property, and of persons and property within the City of Arcadia. Bringing those facilities at the City Service Center and also those facilities at Fire Stations 105 and 106, into prompt compliance with the Law will protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing or eliminating the possibility of malfunction or leaks in the tanks and related facilities, which could cause severe health risks to the public and extensive damage to the soils and improvements on the real property upon which such facilities are located. The City has in good faith published notice inviting bids on two occasions in order to accomplish the Project, but has received and rejected unsatisfactory bids from a sole bidder on each occasion due to high bid price. The commencement and 3 completion of the Project at the City Service Center and Fire Stations 105 and 106 are estimated to take approximately four (4) to six (6) weeks, thereby prohibiting the City from having sufficient time to publish notice inviting bids for a third time in order to receive competitive bids and enter into contracts for the completion of this project by September 30, 2003 or a reasonably short period thereafter. Additional facts which constitute the basis for finding that an emergency exists are set forth in the recitals of this Resolution and in that certain Staff Report which accompanied this Resolution for presentation to the City Council. SECTION 2. By at least a four- fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council the City Council hereby finds and determines that there is an emergency which requires that City repair or replace the above described facilities at the City Service Center and Fire Stations 105 and 106, and take any directly related and immediate action required by this emergency, and procure the necessary equipment, services and supplies for these purposes, without giving notice for bids to let contracts. The City Council further finds and determines that the emergency will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids, and that the action is necessary to respond to the emergency. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby delegates to the City Manager, or his designee, the authority to order any action pursuant to this declaration of an emergency including, without limitation, the authority to enter into contracts to 0 accomplish the Project. The City Council further authorizes the City Manager to substitute another form of security in lieu of a payment bond if, in the determination of the City . Manager, it is not feasible or reasonable under the circumstances to require that the contractor provide to the City a payment bond in order to complete the Project. SECTION 4. The City Council shall review this emergency action at its next regularly scheduled meeting and at every regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council thereafter until the project is completed, in order for the City Council to determine by a four -fifths (415) vote, that there is need to continue this emergency action. SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 5 Passed, approved and adopted this ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attomey 19th day of August 2003. /s/ GARY A. KOVACIC Mayor of the City of Arcadia 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6385 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 19th day of August, 2003 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Chang, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None. ABSENT: None City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 7