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