HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 5, 1991A G E N D A
ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 5, 1991
7:30 P.M.
INVOCATION ACTION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb,
Harbicht and Young All Present
MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meetings of
February 19, 1991 Approved
MOTION: Read all ordinances and resolutions by title
only.and waive reading in full. Adopted
PRESENTATION -of Resolution,to Supervisor Pete Schabarum
by Mayor Young
RESOLUTION NO.'5573, honoring Peter F.
Schabarum for his commitment and friendship
to the ,City of Arcadia.
PRESENTATIONS to Supervisor Pete Schabarum from:'
Los Angeles Turf Club - Art Hershey
Arcadia Republican Women's Club - Jean _Cope
Chamber of Commerce - Eloise Ward
PRESENTATION of'Proclamation to Jim Parker and Richie
Mauch of Arcadia Red Cross
ADMINISTRATION of Oath of Office to Jim Kuhn,, Parking
Place Commission
1. PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of objections to the proposed
abatement of weeds, rubbish and refuse from
certain private properties in the City.
Adopted
Public Hearing Closed;
Approved
2. PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of a Building Code variance for an public Hearing Closed-
addition without permits at 315 W. Norman Avenue Approved
(Mr. and Mrs. B.L. Corley, owners).
AGENDA 3/5/91
3.
PUBLIC HEARING
ACTION
Consideration of Text Amendment 91 -001, proposing
to change the setback requirements, and the window
restrictions in the C -0, C -1, C -2 and C -M com-
Public Hearing Closed;
mercial zones.
Denied - Eliminate
20' rear setback
requirement
4.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
a. Recommendation from the Personnel Board to
establish the classification of Community
Service Officer.
Approved
b. Recommendation from the Recreation and.Parks
Commission to provide financial assistance for
high school softball diamond renovation.
Approved
5.
Time reserved for those in the audience who
wish to address the City Council (five -.
minute time limit per person).
William Lewis
6.
RECESS CITY COUNCIL
7.'
MEETING OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
a. ROLL CALL: Agency Members.Ciraulo, Fasching,
Gilb, Harbicht and Young
All Present.
b. MINUTES of the meeting of February 19, 1991
Approved
c. ADJOURN to 7:00 p.m., March 19, 1991
8.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL
9.
CONSENT ITEMS
a. Consideration of revised•CDBG (Community
Development Block Grant) allocation for
17th year funds.
Approved
b. Ratification: Retention of Attorney Benjamin
Kaufman as co- counsel with City Attorney.-
United States v. Montrose(Potlatch- Simpson
claims).
Approved
C. Recommendation to renew agreement with Liebert,
Cassidy & Frierson for labor relations and
personnel legal services.
Approved
-2- AGENDA 3/5/91
10. CITY MANAGER AGENDA
Woolard -Report re:
Report and recommendation regarding tree preserva- endangered and indige-
tion ordinance. nous trees and range
of penalties
11. CITY ATTORNEY
ORDINANCE NO. 1932, amending Sections 4112.1,
4113.9, 4113.10, 4113.11, 4113.12, 4113.13,
4113.15, 4113.16, 4113.17, 4113.18, 4113.19,
4124.1.3, 4124.2, 4131.5, 4131.6, 4131.7, 4133,
4133.1, 4133.2, 4133.3, 4133.4, 4133.6, 4133.8,
AND 4133.8.1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code to
increase the cost of impound fees and vaccination
requirements, deleting Division 3, of Part 3 of
Article IV regarding impound fees and deleting
Section 4113.9 authorizing sale of animals to
research institutions. Introduced
12. MATTERS,FROM STAFF
13. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS
14. ADJOURN to 7:00 p.m., March 19, 1991
Approved donation of $1,000 to student Bicentennial
Competition.
-3- AGENDA 3/5/91
k
gn
March 5, 1991
TO: ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DONNA L. BUTLER, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO THE MARCH 5
TREE PRESERVATION REPORT
Attached for the City Council's review and consideration are: (1) the March 5
Tree Preservation staff report; and (2) a memo dated February 22 from the
Arcadia Beautiful Commission commenting on the Tree Preservation report.
The Arcadia Beautiful Commission at its February meeting reviewed the
report and has made the following recommendation:
That the City adopt a tree ordinance saving all "mature trees more than
10' -0" tall or more than four inches (4 ") in diameter measured 3 1/2
feet above ground."
LASER IMAGED
/. G c�
/rleL rV'
V `u1
n
March 5, 1991
TO: ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL
E5
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM WOOLARD, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DONNA L. BUTLER, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
WILLIAM STOKES, ASSISTANT PLANNER
SUBJECT: TREE PRESERVATION REPORT
BACKGROUND
The City Council has directed staff to look into possible requirements which would
further strengthen tree preservation activities. As trees have matured throughout
the City, their importance in contributing to the quality and character of the City has
increased. The recently adopted General Plan acknowledges this growing
importance and states in the Land Use Element as an "Objective ", "To preserve,
where feasible, mature native trees on both commercial and residential properties."
The Land Use Element also calls for an "Action Program" which will "Continue to
encourage the preservation of mature trees as a part of the subdivision and
development of both residential and commercial properties."
EXISTING CITY TREE PRESERVATION ACTIVITIES
Four of the City's homeowner associations (Highland Oaks Association, Rancho
Santa Anita Property Owner's Association, Santa Anita Oaks Association and Santa
Anita Village Association), have long recognized the importance of tree preservation
and have had tree preservation requirements incorporated into their design overlay
resolutions since the associations were formed. The trees specifically identified in
each of these areas are: oak, sycamore, liquidambar, magnolia and pine trees, with
trunk diameters larger than six inches measured three feet above the grade.
For several years, the Planning Commission has required new single - family
subdivisions to submit tree preservation plans so that as many mature trees could be
saved as reasonably possible in the new development. In some instances sidewalks
have been adjusted to save existing trees, and house plans are required to be reversed
or modified to save trees. However, factors inherent in the design of subdivisions
such as grade changes required for site drainage, the location of new streets and the
site of the building pad sometimes require the removal of mature trees.
The adoption of architectural design review requirements has provided the City with
the opportunity to review multiple - family residential, commercial and industrial
projects and to attempt to retain existing mature trees.
Tree Preservation Report
March 5, 1991
Page 1
LASER IMAGEn c, ,�
'�rrr' r,r/
In order to encourage mature trees for the future, the number of trees required in
new commercial and industrial project parking areas was doubled in 1988.
SUMMARY OF OTHER CITIES REQUIREMENTS
This report summarizes tree preservation regulations of various California cities.
The key areas observed in each ordinance were the species and size of trees that are
protected, development and maintenance standards, as well as the enforcement
measures. A number of ordinances were reviewed and out of those, the cities that
were most complete and unique in their preservation plan were used as examples.
There are 561 cities within the State of California. According to "The California
Planner's 1990 Book of Lists ", 87 cities (15.5%'0) have Tree Preservation Ordinances
(see attached lists). Tree preservation regulations range from very broad
preservation of all trees of a certain size (i.e., Los Gatos) to the preservation of only a
certain species (e.g. oaks) with very detailed preservation and maintenance
requirements (i.e., Santa Clarita).
TYPES OF TREES PRESERVED
General
As individuals and governing bodies become increasingly aware and concerned
with environmental issues, there is a growing desire to protect and preserve a
variety of tree specimens through protection legislation. These laws seek to preserve
the natural aesthetic resources which add distinction and character to the
community.
Different names and categories have been used by local agencies in order to classify
and preserve significant trees. Titles such as Indigenous Tree, Heritage Tree, Historic
Tree, Specimen Tree and Significant Tree have been employed in city ordinances as
sub - categories for trees which have been designated for preservation. These trees
could be distinct in age, rare in quantity, unparalleled in size, a cultural landmark or
even hold some sort of local historic value. Attached is a list of cities and the types of
trees that each of these cities protect.
As an example, the City of Los Gatos' ordinance preserves anything under the
category of "Tree ". Their ordinance defines a tree as and woody perennial plant
over 10' at maturity with primary focus on oaks, bay, eucalyptus, sycamore redwood
and pine. This definition governs every tree in the city, regardless of age, cultural
importance or historic significance. However, their regulations only address trees
with a circumference of 35" or more on residential property and 12" or more on
commercial or industrial properties or vacant and abandoned lots.
Tree Preservation Report
March 5, 1991
Page 2
LASER IMAGED. c .J
fir►' Ifto
Most cities surveyed did not attempt this broad approach to tree preservation, but
rather focused on s ecific trees.
Specific Trees
Various cities have targeted specific trees as the embodiment of their tree
preservation plan. The tree most identified specifically for preservation is the oak.
Oak trees are seen as a substantial and unique part of our Western heritage, along
with coast Redwoods and Giant Sequoias. There are some 15 species of the genus
Quercus (oak) are indigenous to California. Oak trees "specifically" slated for
protection by each local agency, may in fact be the species that are most commonly
found within their community.
In each tree preservation ordinance reviewed, the trees protected are identified
individually by species and by common name. The city of Thousand Oaks, for
example, protects all species in their ordinance by stating that Any oak tree of the
genus quercus shall be protected by such guidelines, including but not limited to the
Quercus lobata (Valley Oak), Quercus agrifolia (California Live Oak), and Quercus
dumosa (Scrub Oak), regardless of size.
OAK TREE MAINTENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
In reviewing the various tree preservation ordinances, the issue of development
standards and tree maintenance were only applied to the preservation of oak trees.
Unlike most other trees found in our urban environment, oak trees are especially
sensitive to changes in their natural environment or soil condition. While younger
oak trees appear to be able to adapt to changes more easily, mature oaks, possibly 100
years old or more, stand less of a chance due to their already established, elaborate
root system. The root system is based upon the trees adaptation to its particular site
conditions. It is the life support of the tree!
Whether it be from the compaction of soil by supporting a structure or by damage to
the root system through trenching, mature oaks are simply less tolerant than other
trees to environmental changes incurred through development or home
improvements.
The treatment and care of oak trees has proved to be especially unique. Because of
this, many cities have provided informational brochures and hand -outs to
developers and property owners, with separate and essential guidelines for the
treatment and care of the oak. Knowledgeable groups such as the California Oak
Foundation, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and certified
arborists are good sources for this information.
Tree Preservation Report
March 5, 1991
Page 3
LASER IMAGED r_ j
M
M
The City of Thousand Oaks retains a contract employee called an Oak Tree
Preservation Consultant, an oak tree expert who conducts field inspections and
prepares reports on requests to prune, relocate or remove native oak trees.
Regulations pertaining to the preservation, care and maintenance of oak trees range
from very general requirements (Glendale - 5 pages) to very specific regulations
which include long term maintenance, care, etc. (Thousand Oaks - 47 pages).
Permits and Appeals
All the cities surveyed require permits for removal of trees; and three cities,
Thousand Oaks, Santa Clarita and Visalia require permits for pruning oak trees.
Each City has various ways of processing the permits. In three of the City's surveyed
permits are processed by the Planning Director. In Thousand Oaks the removal of
three or less trees is processed by the Planning Director; four or more trees go to the
Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council. In the other cities,
permits are processed by other departments such as Parks and Recreation, Public
Services and City Manager's office.
Processing times range from 15 days up to 45 days (four cities had no time frames set
forth in their ordinance). Appeals go to either the Planning Commission (4) or to
the City Council (3).
Each city has specific standards and findings which are set forth in their ordinance to
permit the removal of "designated" trees. The following are some examples of
these standards:
1. That the tree is so damaged or diseased that it cannot be effectively preserved,
or its presence is a threat to other protected trees. (Based on arborists report)
2. That the applicant has demonstrated that the retention of the tree would pose
a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the inhabitants of the property in
question.
3. That the applicant has demonstrated that reasonable and necessary access to
the property cannot be obtained if the tree is preserved.
4. That the applicant has demonstrated that retention of the tree prevents all
reasonable use of the property on which it is located.
5. That is is necessary to remove the tree(s) to allow construction of
improvements or otherwise allow economic or other reasonable enjoyment
of the property.
Tree Preservation Report
March 5, 1991
Page 4
LASER IMAGED
Li
05
M
6. That good forestry practices, as evidenced by the report of the City's landscape
consultant justify the removal of the tree.
7. That the removal or relocation of the oak tree(s) proposed is necessary as
continued existence of such tree(s) at present locations impairs the planned
improvement or proposed use of the subject property to such an extent that
alternative development plans cannot achieve the same permitted density
and that the cost of such alternative would be prohibitive.
8. That the oak tree(s) proposed for removal or relocation interferes with utility
services or streets and highways, either within or outside of the subject
property, and that no reasonable alternative to such interference exists other
than removal of the tree(s).
9. That the removal of the oak tree(s) proposed will not result in a significant
depreciation of property values in the vicinity of the proposed construction or
proposed use.
Most of the cities, as conditions of approval for allowing tree removal, require the
applicant to replace the trees with new trees to be located on the site. The
replacement is usually based on a ratio figure ranging from 1 to 1 to 4 to 1
replacement. If it is not feasible to replace the trees on the subject property, some
cities require the property owner to donate trees to the city to be planted in other
areas or in city parks.
If the City Council should decide to proceed with an oak tree ordinance, there are
several issues which the Council needs to consider.
Homeowners Associations
As noted, four of the city's homeowners associations have tree preservation
requirements. If the City approves a City -wide 'Native Tree" ordinance which
preserves such trees as oaks, sycamores, liquidambars, pines, etc., the review by the
City should replace the homeowner association's approval requirement. The
homeowners associations should still review and act on the architectural plans, and
comment on any impact on existing "native trees ". However, the determination for
tree preservation should be the sole responsibility of the City based upon the criteria
set forth in the tree preservation ordinance. For the equal application of City -wide
regulations, the City should be the sole administrator of the requirements
If the City adopts an oak tree protection ordinance only, again, the determination for
tree preservation should be the sole responsibility of the City based upon the criteria
set forth in the tree preservation ordinance. In regards to the other specific trees
identified in the homeowners association regulations, the homeowners association
should still review and act on applications for removal. The associations should
Tree Preservation Report
March 5, 1991
Page 5
LASER IMAGED
6.&
also allow for tree removal when reasonable alternatives are not feasible and
require replacement of the same type of species or other species at a number and size
which will be reasonable and foster the continuation of the species within the
community.
Arborist
If tree regulations are adopted which include the protection of the oaks, the
Planning Department would recommend that the City consider hiring, on a
consultant basis, an arborist who specializes in oak trees because of the special needs
and maintenance requirements of oak trees. The arborist would assist the Planning
Department in reviewing plans for either the removal, replacement or
development around existing oak trees.
The costs for the consultant could be paid by the applicant as part of the permit
process.
Brochures
Several of the cities we contacted provide brochures on the care and maintenance of
oak trees to all interested persons. If the City adopts an oak tree preservation
ordinance, the Planning Department would recommend that the City provide
similar brochures to properly educate the public.
ENFORCEMENT OF TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE
The different city ordinances reviewed have varied policies and requirements in
their enforcement procedure. However, all are consistent in that any person who
violates any of the provisions of the code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
In several cities, persons removing trees are not only subject to misdemeanor
charges but are required to replace trees. Replacement ratios range from 1 to 1
replacement up to a maximum ratio of 4 to 1 in proportion to the size of the tree(s)
removed (where feasible). The maximum size replacement tree listed in any
ordinance was a 36" box.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION
Oak trees are significant historical, aesthetic and ecological resources. While young
oak trees are very tolerant and adapt well to their landscape environment, the
mature native oak trees do not tolerate many changes once grown. Unfortunately,
many oak trees have succumb to urban development and although efforts have
been made to save oaks, many times these efforts have been in vain because of lack
of knowledge in the care and maintenance of oaks.
Tree Preservation Report
March 5, 1991
Page 6
LASER IMAGED
AV
On
En
Unlike sycamores, pines and other trees now common to this area, oaks are very
slow growing and very sensitive to changes in their environment.
Because of the special needs of oak trees, the Planning Department is
recommending that the City Council adopt a city -wide oak tree preservation and
maintenance ordinance and continue the existing subdivision and design review
tree preservation activities.
An oak tree ordinance would have to address the following:
1. Species and size of trees to be protected (subject to the regulations)
2. Permit process for pruning and removal (but includes exceptions for
emergencies, health and safety factors)
3. The permit process; administration, appeals, cost, etc.
4. The homeowners associations authority and responsibilities with respect to
tree preservation
5. Standards for the removal (which balance tree protection with private
property rights)
6. Replacement of tree(s) which are removed
7. Need for arborist's report
8. Tree protection measures to ensure proper development around trees.
9. Standards and specifications for tree location, replacement and new planting.
10. Establishment a replacement ratio which provides for a variety of mature,
specimen, and young plants.
11. Enforcement provisions
If the City Council determines that it would be appropriate to adopt a "native" or
"specified" tree ordinance, or an ordinance addressing all trees, the Planning
Department would recommend that the scope of the ordinance address the
preservation of trees as follows:
1. The preservation of trees other than oaks be limited to front yard areas and
street side yards on a corner lot. Trees located in front and street side yard
areas are the most visible and add to the overall aesthetics of a neighborhood.
Tree Preservation Report
March 5, 1991
Page 7
LASER IMAGED
�J
%W *00
Also trees located in these areas generally do not restrict additions on houses,
construction of pools or other improvements on the property, and
2. The preservation of all oak trees (when reasonable) on the entire lot.
Any tree ordinance adopted by the City should be flexible enough to allow property
owners to remove trees subject to replacement of the tree(s) with other trees of
reasonable size, numbers and type. The ordinance should be reasonable in its
application so as to avoid persons openly violating the code because compliance
with the strict application of an ordinance would be impossible or would
substantially restrict their use of the property.
A tree preservation ordinance will not eliminate the problem of persons
indiscriminately removing trees over the weekend. However, it is staff's hope that
increased community awareness through newsletter articles and handout brochures
will substantially reduce the incidences of indiscriminate tree removal and
excessive trimming.
When such instances occur, the penalty provisions of the regulations will seek to
obtain not just a monetary penalty but require reintroduction of the species to the
site through the replacement regulations.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The City Council may direct staff to initiate a Text Amendment for:
1. Oak tree only preservation and maintenance ordinance,
2. "Native" Tree Ordinance covering specified trees, such as oaks, sycamores,
pines, palms, etc. However, oak trees would still be a separate ordinance in
order to address not only the preservation but the maintenance of oak trees; or
3. Tree preservation ordinance for all trees which exceed a specific diameter, as
measured from a designated height above grade level.
The Council may also direct staff to take no action.
APPROVE
George J. Wa/tts
City Manager
Tree Preservation Report
March 5, 1991
Page 8
LASER IMAGED
C `Y
n
m
SUMMARY OF TREE PRESERVATION SURVEY
The Planning Department surveyed the following nine cities regarding their tree
preservation ordinances:
LA VERNE
Their ordinance does not affect residential properties less than one acre is size
Type of Trees: Deodar Cedar, Camphor Tree, Coast Live Oak, Engelmann Oak,
California Sycamore and Southern California Black Walnut and
"Heritage Groves" and "Heritage Trees" as identified and
declared by the City Council
Processing: Permits must be secured from the Community Development
Department's Director or designee for trees with a caliper of 4" or
greater
Time Frames: 45 days for review
Findings: Specific findings must be made per the tree preservation
ordinance and replacement trees may be required
Penalties and
Replacement: Misdemeanor of not more than $1,000 (per violation) and /or not
more than six months in jail. Replacement is required at 4 to 1
(for every one tree removed they are required to replace said tree
with four trees). Replacement tree is in proportion to size of tree
removed.
Appeals: With ten days to the Planning Commission - 5 day notification
to everyone within 300' of the subject property.
Type of Trees: Any type of oak tree exceeding 2" in diameter at a point 4 1/2'
above grade
Processing: For 3 or less trees, the Director of Planing and Community
Development. Four or more trees requires going to the
Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council
Time Frames: Normally 15 days, however no minimum time cited
Summary Tree Preservation Survey
February, 1990
Pagel
LASER IMAGED
6J
VAW
Findings: Specific findings must be made per the tree preservation
ordinance and replacement trees may be required
Penalties and
Replacement: Misdemeanor with requirement for restitution, replacement or
donation of or replanting of 2 or more oak trees of reasonable
equivalent size and value
Appeals: No time period spelled out however if there is removal of 3 or
less trees, this issue is appealed to the Planning Commission
with recommendation forwarded to the City Council for action.
GLENDALE
Type of Trees:
Processing:
Time Frames:
Findings:
Penalties and
Replacement:
Appeals:
VISALIA
Indigenous oak and sycamore trees 8" or more in diameter
measured 36" above grade
Permits must be secured from the Director of Parks and
Recreation
None specified
Specific findings must be made per the tree preservation
ordinance and replacement trees may be required
None listed
No time frame listed, however, may be appealed to City Council
Type of Trees: All oaks
Processing: Permits must be secured from the Public Services Director and
permits are also required for pruning any limb with a diameter
of 2" or greater
Time Frames: 7 days for review
Findings: Specific findings must be made per the tree preservation
ordinance and replacement trees may be required
Summary Tree Preservation Survey
February, 1990
Page 2
LASER IMArFD
LJ
Penalties and
Replacement: Misdemeanor of not more than $1,000 (per violation) and /or not
more than six months in jail. May also have a penalty
assessment no greater than the maximum fine allowable for the
violation. May require up to three 24" box trees to substitute for
the removed tree.
Appeals: To the City Council within 5 days
•:
Type of Trees: All oak trees with a circumference of 17 "+ measured 4 1/2'
above the root crown and all sycamore trees with a
circumference of 25 "+ measured 4 1/2' above the root crown.
Processing: Permits must be approved by the Planning Director
Time Frames: None listed
Findings: Specific findings must be made per the tree preservation
ordinance and replacement trees may be required
Penalties and
Replacement: Misdemeanor
Appeals: To the Planning Commission
LOS GATOS
Type of Trees: Any woody perennial plant over 10' at maturity with primary
focus on oaks, bay, eucalyptus, sycamore, redwood and pine.
Only trees with circumference of 35 "+ on residential property
and 12 "+ circumference on vacant or abandoned lots or
commercial and industrial properties. Circumference is
measured from 3' -0" above grade
Processing: Permits must be submitted to the Director of Parks, Forestry and
Maintenance Services and approved by the Planning Director
Time Frames: None listed
Summary Tree Preservation Survey
February, 1990
Page 3
LASER IMAGED
,%W NOO
Findings: Specific findings must be made per the tree preservation
ordinance and replacement trees may be required
Penalties and
Replacement: Misdemeanor and could be pay the cost of buying and planting a
new tree
Appeals: None listed
Type of Trees: All oaks trees with a diameter of 6" or greater measured 4 1/2'
above natural grade
Processing: City Manager or his /her designee for removal of three or less
trees, must go to Planning Commission for removal of 4 or
more trees
Time Frames: None listed
Findings: Specific findings must be made per the tree preservation
ordinance and replacement trees may be required
Penalties and
Replacement: Misdemeanor may require replacement or payment of a feet or
donation of boxed tree to be used elsewhere
Appeals: To Planning Commission then City Council
Type of Trees: "Heritage Oaks" 36 "+ in diameter measured at 4 1/2' above grade
and other trees determined by the Director or Commission
which are unique, but not less than 25" in diameter.
Processing: Hearing officer, Director or Commission may process permit
Time Frames: Approximately 20 days
Findings: Specific findings must be made per the tree preservation
ordinance and replacement trees may be required
Summary Tree Preservation Survey
February, 1990
Page 4
LASER IMAGED
� u
Penalties and
Replacement:
Appeals:
NOTES:
n
En
None mentioned. However may require replacement of 4 to 1
ratio minimum 15 gallon trees or may requirement replacement
of one 36" box container or larger for each oak to be replaced.
Within 15 days to the Commission
Several cities have regulations requiring protection of oak trees during the
replacement period to insure that the trees will not die.
Several cities have expiration dates on the permits issued and although
several cities mention a fee, the fees are not listed in the ordinance.
Summary Tree Preservation Survey
February, 1990
Page 5
LASER IMAGED
�; J
The California Planner s I99^ Sock,! LsW
Jurisdictions with `so
Tree Preservation Ordinances
Tree preser, :a- :cn ordinances are designed to preserve a community's older, larger, stately
trees with special value. Such trees may be of a certain species, certain diameter, or may be
concentrated in a certain area W ma. ritain aesthetic features, A heritage tree ordinance is a
particular type of tree preservation ordinance that is intended to preserve historically signifi-
cant trees it given areas Urban. foresters encourage authors of such ordinances to prevent
possible counterproductive results that may occur when older, decadent trees are preserved to
the exclusion of yc,— ,-ger, heap -hy trees. In such circumstances, an unbalanced quantity of
younger trees are re . cved so as to preclude a full, healthy stand of trees for the long range
future. The following ±urisdlctions reported having such ordinances.
CITIES
AGOURA H S
ANAHEIM
ARROYO GRA.
ATASCADFR^
ATHERTON
AUBURN
BELL GARDENS
BELMONT
BRISBANE
CLAYTCN
CLOVERDA:,F.
COLMA
CONCORD
CORTE MADERA
COTA7
COVINA
CUPERTINO
CYPRESS
DALY C?TY
DANVT',LF
FA? R F.kX
FC LSC M
FREMONT
GLEN ^A:_F
84
GRASS VALLEY
HFA: .DSKRG
R:L�S
:ftV::v'E
LA VERNF
:-AG'-'NA BEACH
LARKSP' R
L: -77- OAK
L'VERMCRE
:ACS ANGELES
1,03 GATOS
M F NIA P ARK
".`CNRCVTA
MOORPARK
MORAGA
MCRGAN H :LL
"CUNT A:N VIEW
`7VADA CITY
*,CVATO
C Aid. -AND
^,J A:
PAC ?FICA
PALMDALE
A:.OS VFRDES FSTA =S
PASO ROBLES
PLEASANT HILL
PO RTOLA
PO W AY
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REDWOOD CITY
ROCK1-1N
ROSEVTLLE
ROSS
SACRAMENTO
SAN CARIAS
SAN GABRIEL
SAN JOSE
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
SAN LUIS OBISPO
SAN MARINO
SAN MATEO
SANTA BARBARA
SANTA CLARITA
SANTA CRUZ
SANTA "ROSA
SARATOGA
SA USALITO
SC07N VALLEY
SIERRA MADRE
SIMI VALLEY
SOLANA BEACH
SONORA
THOUSAND OAKS
TIBURON
TURLOCK
VACAVILLE
VICTORVILLE
VISALIA
WALNUT CREEK
WATSONVILLE
WOODSIDE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
MONTEREY COUNTY
PLACER COUNTY
SACRAMENTO COUNTY
SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
SONOMA COUNTY
VENTURA COUNTY
YOLO COUNTY
LASER IMAGED
February 22, 1991
To: Arcadia City Council
From: Arcadia Beautiful Commission
Re: Tree Preservation ordinance
Arcadia Beautiful Commission read and reviewed the memorandum
from the Planning Department concerning the proposed Tree
Preservation ordinance. We feel that it is of the ultimate
importance to set standards within the city of Arcadia to
protect all mature trees not only because trees add to the
aesthetic appearance and atmosphere of the city, but also
because the shade provided by trees conserves power and regulates
temperatures and because trees exchange carbon dioxide for
oxygen to help clean the air.
Since the city of San Marino is in the same geographical area and
is physically and culturally similar to Arcadia, we felt that the
ordinance adopted by them in 1987 might be more relevant to our needs
and more applicable to our problems than the ordinances from the cities
in your memorandum. We have included a copy of that ordinance along
with this memo.
The Arcadia Beautiful Commission would also like to make the following
specific suggestions:
Type of trees: All mature trees more than 10 ft. tall
or more than 4 in. in diameter
measured 3 1/2 ft. above ground.
Processing: Permits to be obtained from the
Planning Department.
Time frame: 15 days for normal processing.
Findings: Specific findings must be made per the
tree preservation ordinance and replacement
trees will be required as determined by the
Planning Department.
Scope of ordinance: Apply to all properties, including residential,
commercial, industrial, vacant and such
properties undergoing demolition.
Penalties: Penalty for infraction may be monetary and/
or the donation of a similar boxed tree.
(see San Marino ordinance... 23.9 -4, e)
Appeals: To Planning Commission, then to
City Council.
Note: As suggested in the Planning Department report, a separate
oak tree preservation ordinance, addressing not only
preservation but also maintenance, may be desirable.
LASER IMAGED N
� j
*Moe ORDINANCE NO. 936
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARINO,
CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE CITY CODE BY ADDING SECTION 23.9 -4
AND SECTION 23.30 TO CHAPTER 23 OF THE CITY CODE AS IT
PERTAINS TO REGULATING THE REMOVAL OF TREES FROM R -1 AND C -1
USE ZONES.
WHEREAS, mature trees are an aesthetic asset to the
community as a whole; and
WHEREAS, mature trees help in energy conservation; and
WHEREAS, uncontrolled and indiscriminate destruction of trees
would have a detrimental effect on the general public welfare by
impacting the value and character of the community; and
WHEREAS, for the reasons stated herein, the City Council
finds that it is in the interest of the City to adopt Ordinance
No. 936 implementing regulations for the removal of trees in the
City.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARINO, CALIFORNIA DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. A new Section 23.9 -4 is hereby added to Chapter 23
of the City Code to read as follows:
SEC. 23.9 -4 PRESERVATION OF-TREES: R -1 USE ZONES
(a) DEFINITIONS
(1) "Mature" trees means any variety of tree that is
four inches (4 ") or more in diameter when measured at a
point four feet six inches (41611) above the natural
grade.
(2) "Damage" means any action taken which causes
injury, disfigurement or death to a tree. This
includes, but is not limited to, cutting, poisoning,
drilling, underwatering or transplanting.
(3) "Deadwood" means limbs, branches or a portion of a
tree void of green leaves during a season of the year
when green leave should be present.
(4) "Class 1 Tree "'refers to a tree, on a list adopted
by the City Council containing tree species, requiring
special protection due to aesthetic value, replacement
difficulty and other similar factors.
(5) "Front, rear and side yards" shall be as defined in
Section 23.1 of Chapter 23 of the City Code.
-1- LASER 1!V!ArE0
i Aw
(6) "Removal" means the physical removal of a tree or
action- '.eading to the death of a gee through
poisoni Ej, damaging or other acti'.
(b) RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to remove,
transplant, or trim or prune more than twenty percent
(20 %) of the live foliage, any mature tree located in
the front yard or minimum side yard in the R -1 Use Zone
without first obtaining a permit from the city.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to remove,
transplant, or trim or prune more than twenty percent
(20 %) of the live foliage, any mature Class 1 tree
located anywhere on a parcel in the R -1 Use Zone
without first obtaining a permit from the city.
(3) It shall be unlawful for any person to damage or
cause to be damaged any mature tree in the front yard
area, or any Class 1 tree in the side or rear yard area
of any parcel in the R -1 Use Zone.
(4) It shall be unlawful for a person to trim or prune
more than ten percent (10 %) of the live foliage, an oak
tree without first obtaining a permit from the city.
(c) EXEMPTIONS
(1) No permit is required for the removal or trimming
or pruning of a tree damaged by a storm, fire or other
natural disaster and determined to be dangerous by the
city manager, police officer, fire fighter, or code
enforcement officer.
(2) Trees that do not exceed four inches (4 ") in
diameter when measured at a point four feet six inches
(4' 611) above natural grade may be removed or
transplanted without a permit.
(3) Trees that must be removed by order of any public
agency having jurisdiction are exempted from the permit
requirement.
(4) Normal and routine trimming or pruning which does
not result in damage or death to a tree, or does not
result in the loss of more than twenty percent (20%) of
the live foliage and limbs, is allowed without a
permit. Removal of deadwood is allowed without a
permit.
(d) PERMIT PROCESS
(1) The city manager shall prepare an application for a
tree removal permit, which shall contain all
-2-
LASER IMAGED r; .,
informat%lwon necessary for the city —Manager, or his
designee, to determine whether the standards for
issuance of a permit have been satisfied.
(2) The city manager shall grant a permit only if he
determines:
(A) The tree constitutes a nuisance or hazard by
virtue of its condition, location, species,
proximity to existing structures, closeness to
walkways, or interference with utilities.
(B) The pruning or trimming of the tree of more
than twenty percent (20 %) of its live foliage, is
necessary to maintain or enhance the health or
appearance of the tree.
(C) The relocation of the tree will not damage the
tree or will not constitute a hazard or
interference with other structures or property.
(3) The city manager, at his sole discretion, and
inconsideration of such factors as the size, location,
type of tree, number of trees on the property, and the
number and type of trees in the surrounding
neighborhood, may require as a condition of a removal
permit the replacement of the tree at the applicant's
expense. The size, location and species of replacement
tree(s) shall be determined by the city manager with
consultation of the applicant.
Nothing in this Section shall preclude the city manager
from waiving conditions for tree replacement, or from
requiring that tree replacement exceed a one - for -one
basis.
(e) PENALTIES
(1) A violation of this Section shall be an infraction.
Each and every tree removed in violation of this
Section shall constitute a separate infraction.
(2) In addition to any penalties provided by subsection
(1) above, anyone who damages or removes, or causes to
damage or remove, any tree in violation of the terms of
this Chapter, is responsible for proper restitution and
may be required to replace the trees through the
donation or replanting of two or more trees of
reasonably comparable size and value. The number, size
and location of replacement trees shall be determined
by the city manager or his designee.
SECTION 2. A new Section 23.20 is hereby added to Chapter 23
of the City Code to read as follows:
-3- LASER IMAGED
+ :Y
SEC. 23.20 PPFSERVATION OF TREES: C -1 USE ZONES
(a) No tree with a diameter in excess -of four inches (41'),
when measured from a point four feet six inches (4'6 ") above
the tree's natural grade, shall be removed, or trimmed of
more than twenty percent (20 %) of its foliage and /or live
limbs, without having first obtained a permit from the city.
(b) A violation of this Section shall be an infraction.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the
manner prescribed by law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of
ATTEST:
City Clerk
December 1 1987.
R SEMARY . SIMMONS, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
I ;zl . .
STEVE L. DORS , City Attorney
-4-
LASER IMAGED
V
4
I, Keith R. Till, Deputy City Clerk of
California, certify that the foregoing
introduced at a Regular Meeting of the
held on the 23 day of November
passed and adopted by said City Counci
on the 9 day of December ,
vote:
the City of San Marino,
Ordinance No. 936 was
City Council of said City
1987, and was finally
1 at a Regular Meeting held
1987 by the following
AYES: Simmons, Hallum, Hammon, Crowley, Crowell
NOES: None
ABSENT :None
Deput City Clerk
City of San Marino, California
LASER IMAGED
CITY OF' SAN MARINO
+A„ CLASS 1 TREES
PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 336
Quercus Agrifolia
Quercus Ilex
Quercus Robua
Quercus Suber
Quercus Engelmaii
Quercus Falcata
Quercus Alba
Quercus
Cedrus Atlantica
Cedrus Deodara
Chamaerops Humilis
Erthea Armata
Erythea Edulis
Trachycarpus Fortunei
Washingtonia Robusta
Washingtonia Filifere
Canary Island
r iscus icUi;igiiicsa
Koelreuteria Bipinnata
Lagerstroemia Indica
Liquidamber Stryacif lua
Liriodendron Tulipifera
Magnolia Grandif lora
Olea Europaea
Pordocarpus Gracilor
Pordocarpus Macrophyllus
Platanus Racemosa .
California Live Oak
Holley Oak
English Oak
Cork Oak
Pasadena Oak
Red Oak Southern
White Oak
Southern Live Oak -
Virginia Oak
Clauca Blue Atlas Cedar
Deodar Cedar
European Fan Palm
Big Blue Hesper Palm
Guadalupe Palm
Windmill Palm
Mexican Fan Palm
California Fan Palm
Phoenix Carariensis -
Date Palm
n.. -a. T.. ..F Von
L%%A %- L/v � -.y
Chinese Lantern
Crape - Myrtle
Sweet Gum
Tulip Tree
Southern Magnolia
Common Olive
Fern Pine
Yew Podo Carpus
California Sycamore
LASER IMAGED
Y �
►IEM0RANDUM
Date: March 5, 1991
TO: ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JUNE ALFORD, CITY CLERKIle
PUBLIC HEARING - WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
On February 19, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5571
declaring its intention to provide for the abatement of noxious
weeds, rubbish, and refuse from certain private property in the
City. Resolution No. 5571 also set this date, March 5, 1991, as
the time and place to hear objections to the proposed removal of
such.
As required by the Government Code, the County Agricultural
Commissioner has mailed the appropriate notice to all property
owners involved (list attached).
Following the close of the public hearing, the following motion is
recommended:
MOVE TO DIRECT THE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER TO
ABATE THE NUISANCE BY HAVING THE WEEDS, RUBBISH, AND
REFUSE REMOVED.
(A representative of the City Fire Department and the County
Agricultural Commissioner's Office will be present to answer
questions, if any.)
JDA:mn
Attachment
LASER IMAGED " j
i`
L6
LOS ANGELES C,111NTY DECLARATION LIST 169
DATE 12
Z°
°Q
IN SEZ BY
VEE THEN PARCEL FE CY
,KEY,
7QNE_.CTTY ODE
CITY OF ARCADIA
STREET ADDRESS GTYCwaK
PARCEL 0_. KEY
1
1 =
02
1335
9735 NAORT AVE - Temple City /or County
5383
GQ2
02a
13
.'7
1 Q2
035
SANTA ANITA CANYON ROAD- Martin William
7 65.
❑a-
-
0
[113
fL
7 j+
'
°
02
1335
SANTA ANITA CANYON ROAD Marguerite Lilian5
45765
1302
Ql3
5
7
s r
132
035
HIGHLAND VISTA DRIVE- Robert E. Brown
5765
all
011
a
7
I�
02
035
HIGHLAND VISTA DRIVE- Helen F. Vida
51,5
030
010
9
7
�e !
02
u35 723
N.1ST STREET- Inter. Church/ Foursquare
5772
1306
030
a
7'
'91
j'
02
035
SAMA CLARA STREET Chandler Invest. Prop.
5713
OQS
Gab
1
7
�,°,
02
035
151 ALTA ST - Amir Zahir /Youssef Younaei
>!�Z4
011
2
'7
1
*02
035
ALTA STREET- Unit #1 - 135 E.
5773
014
041'
6
7
1'31
j'
*02
C35
ALTA. STREET- Unit #2 - it
5773
a14
042
5
7
x';4+3
1'Z'
�2
035
ALTA STREET- Unit #3 - " "
5773
014
043
4
7
'13,
1'31
*GE
035
ALTA STREET- Unit #4 - " "
5773
034
044
3
7
I "!
"=
s02
035
ALTA STREET- Unit #5 - " "
5773
014
045
2
7
1 t3,',�
X02
035
ALTA STREET- Unit #6 - " "
5773
al4
046
1
7
*132
035
ALTA STREET- Unit #7 - 139 E.
5773
G14
047
0
7
='!
$02
035
ALTA STREET - Unit #8 - 11
5773
014
044
9
- 7
Z
81
*C2
1335
ALTA STREET- Unit #9 -
5773
034
049
8
7
241
:2+
sQ2
133
ALTA STREET_ Unit #10 -
5773
014
0513
4.
7
�zS
-'
G2
035
ALTA STREET- 138 E.
5773
aV
044.6
.
.7
1 -s%
=:
02
035
ALTA STREET "
5773
all
045
5
-7
1�ai
02
035
ALTA STREET
5773
017
046
4
7
OE
13 -5
ALTA STREET
5773
017
C47
3
7
C2
035
ALTA STREET
—��
5773
G12
1348 2 7
J�
Q2
03-S
T
A--STREET
5773
017
049
Z
r7
i�=1
02
035
ALTA STREET
5773
Q17
050.
7
7
02
035
ALTA STREET
4773
Q17
051.
6
7
02
� Ellsworth Dahlgren
5775
1225
1325
Q
7
3'+
,`';
02
a35
SAN LUIS REY ROAD- Maier Brewing Co.
5777
028
622
5
7
!�o,�
CE
035
801 Y HUNTINGTON OR- Soterios Bicos
5777
029
033
0
7
ACI
!=
02
035
1045 W HUNTINGTON DR - Maier Brewing
5777
036
002
2
7
i='.
Q2
035
LE ROY AVENUE - George P. Kolovos.
5784
0213
014
3
7
111
1=zi
QE
035
WMIF WAV- Albert O. /Douglas R. KnutGen
G7g5
002
087
2
7
= -
02
1335
WESTARIA & EL,,MONTE -Title Ins. & Trust CO5765
0213
1371
2
7
= ='
C2
035
WOODRUFF OR BRIAR Gate LN /Louis Nassaney
5 ?88
014
013
3
7
-�
02
035
EL C_A_PII�AN AVI NU13- Honda America Develop.
5789
021
1319
1
7
!�iy
37:
*GE
035
12!3Q9 E CLARK ST-Gifford Hill Cem. Co. 8532
615
001
7
7
; -f
*G2
1335
CLARK STREET - Livingston Graham Inc.
5.532
016
G01
5
7
402
035
(LARK STREET -
—�i
8. 35 2
016
O133
3
7
;sw
*02
035
CLARK STREET obi Cement Co.
8533
016
QJS
1
7
'A_!
6c
035
11826 THE WYE- Micro -Tek Assoc., Inc.
8532
616
007
9
7
j._';',;
,_.
02
035 11911
GOLDRING ROAD - Julia P. Contreras
8532
C16
all
3
7
!sei
San. Gab. Valley Water Co.
3.532
617
13a4 11 7 i"!
13 2
Q35
LA SAIZE STREET- Consolidated Rock Prod.
6532
017
009
5
7
i; :'j
1"51
13E
n35
LA SALLE STREET- Ricardo /Inez Contreras
8532
017
011
1
7
leol
(4; 02 035 -• LA SAFE STREET- Xavier Contreras 8532 017 018 4 7
�1 132 035 GOLDRING ROAD- Xavier /Guadalupe Contreras 8532 017 049 7 7
1 - - - -- -- - -- -
+ay+ 143
eol en .r
131; "I
lesl
• 76° 0)
1131 71
1341 +72
731 73
j 4�
• I771 '
LASER IMAGED
Y
Lii13
LQS ANGELES COUNTY QECLARATION LIST PARE
ZC70
D �Tr 1,_
-29
QC
.,-
IN SE-1 BY WEEO Y, THEY PARCEL
-
_ZONE
CITY CODE STRE=T AQDRE_55
PARCE(
_,4_Q, KEY
C2
C 3
GOLDRING ROAD
8 5- 3- c
G 3 7
054
7
7,
u=
X35
GOLDRING?OAn
A .S3c
Qy7
Q57
b
7
02
C3G
LA SALLE STREET- Kardashian Enterprises
8532
aj3
1105
7
7
-
CE
035
RANDOLPH STREET- If
853E
1113
G11
9
7
Qc'
1235
RANDOLPH STREET- Xavier Contreras
�52'c
013
1113
2
7
Ca
1235
RANDOLPH STREET- If If
a5?E
a18
019
1.
7
'
Q2
038
GOLDRING ROAD & KARDASHIAN AVENUE -Wang
Co8532
ala
1121
7
7
02
X735
853E
1119
G24
2
7
02
0 35
RANDOLPH STREET If 11
8532
G 19
025
1
7
M2.
ii : 5
GOLDRING ROAD " " "
152 E
C19
1326
a
7
j' 1
-'
02
G35_
RANDOLPH S
8532
G19
027
9
7
� J
=
CE
035
GOLDRING ROAD - Robert & Marliss Myers
11532
Q19
1123
8
7
-:
-
a2
1235
RANDOLPH STREET �� ��
S32
G19
029
7
7
=
*GE
035
1192a E GOLDRING NO A - Robert Parada
8532
1219
GSE.
7
7
-
i!
#Q2
1135
11920 E GOLDRING NO 8 Mario De Angelis853E
019
053
#02
035
11920 E 6 OLO RI NG NO C - Robert Parada
13532
113°
a54
5
7
1: 3'
*02
035
11920 E 6CLORINE NO D - Greg Brake
8E32131
c!'
aSG
4
7
' a�
! "
*(]2
035
11920 GOLDRING ROAD No. E - Luciano Contanzo
85=2
619
056
3
7
-'
..
*C2
035
RANDOLPH STREET - If
853
Ql -
057
2
7
27;
'Gc
035
11920GOLDRING ROAD No. F- Mario De Angelis
353E
0y°
1153
1
7
-.
�=
*02
1335
RANDOLPH STREET
3532
a3g
C59
a
7
E;
{a'
*02
a35
11920 GOLDRING ROAD No. G.- Robert Parada
8532
019•
06a
7
7
'
= +'
*02
C 3 5
RANDOLPH STREET If It It
a 53 E
a 19
Q 6l
6
7
•z
=.
02
635
LOWER AZUSA ROAD- E.O. Rodeffer
8545
Q24
1204
1
7
x=71
'-'•
0c
1135
LOWER AZUSA ROAD-
8545
C24
11125
a
7
-Lei 1
'-
J
:et
_
31i r
:3
Z1
-
73,
tl
7s1
y�
271
ski
3: t
'gal.
�'
67!
1!QI
Sol,
ILI
1
71
1
-11
esi
tea
�TI
-
LASER
IMAGED
a .3,5 Norm 47 l
March 5, 1991
TO: ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL
FROM: RUDY FRANTA, CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
SUBJECT: A REQUEST FOR A BUILDING CODE VARIANCE FOR 315 WEST NORMAN AVE.
Attached for your consideration is a letter from Mrs. and Mr. B. L. Coley,
the owners of the property at 315 W. Norman Ave who are requesting a building
code variance for an addition they did on their home sometime in the late
1950's. The work consisted of relocating an exterior wall , sliding lass
door and large picture window across the rear of their home, and some re ated
electrical work.
The Uniform Building Code (UBC) sections 301(a) and 305(a) requires a permit
and inspection for this type of work. Section 8030 of the Arcadia Munilcipal
Code states: "No person shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, ove,
improve, remove, convert, or demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintai any
building or structure or fixture attached thereto in violation of any f the
codes referenced by this Article in the City of Arcadia. Any such violation
is a misdemeanor punishable pursuant to Section 1200 of the Arcadia Municipal
Code. Building and electrical permits would have been required alon with
inspections for rough framing, rough electric, lath and/or drywall, glazing
and a final inspection.
The addition in question was constructed with a ceiling height of 6'-9" . The
U.B.C. requires a minimum ceiling height of 7'-0" for halls. Also the
sliding glass door and picture do not comply with U.B.C. (section 5406) or
Federal Safety Glazing Standards, which require safety glazing (teipered
glass, wire glass or plastic) in both fixed and moving panels of s iding
doors and in fixed panels exceeding 9 square feet in area with the ottom
edge less than 18 inches above the walking surface.
Section 102 of the U.B.C. states in part, "The purpose of this code is to
provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, properly and
public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction,
quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance df all
buildings and structures within this jurisdiction and certain equipment
specifically regulated herein" .
The 6'-9" ceiling height does not constitute a hazardous situation to the
health and well being of the occupants. However the glazing in the siding
doors and fixed panels is a major concern. The panels are very lar e and
pose a potentially hazardous condition which could result in a serious injury
or fatality to adults and/or children who may accidentally walk or fall
through the glass. The uninspected electrical work may also pose a potential
hazard.
If permits are going to be required, the work covered by said permits will
1
LASER IM GED �---
j
Y
have to comply with the codes presently in effect. In order to inspect the
work it will be necessary to provide some openings in the walls and ceiling.
RECOMMENDATION OF BUILDING DIVISION:
The Building Division recommends approval subject to the following condi -
tions:
1 . Secure the necessary permits from the Building Department
2. Install safety glazing to comply with the U.B.C.
3. Provide openings in the ceiling and walls as necessary to inspect
the framing and electrical work.
COUNCIL ACTION:
The City Council may:
1. Approve the requested variance subject to the conditions set orth
above.
2. Deny the request and require that the non-permitted constructs n be
removed and the building be restored to its original conditio1n.
2
LASER IMAGED
f p _5--.5o ,2- 0
4 / 9q / 9 -7--
March 5, 1991
TO: ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DONNA L. BUTLER, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: REVISED CDBG ALLOCATION FOR 17th YEAR FUNDS
On February 15, 1991, the Planning Department was advised by the Community
Development Commission that the City would receive an additional $8,722 in
CDBG funds for a total amount of funds of $246,972. The City Council must approve
the allocation of this additional money to a specific program.
The Council at its February 5, 1991 meeting approved the following four pro rams
for fiscal year 1991-92:
Housing Rehabilitation $165,775
Public Works Lighting Program #4 $ 42,000
Public Works Lighting Program #5 $ 17,475
Information and Referral Service $ 1,000
Administration $ 12,000
$238,250
The Planning Department would recommend that the additional $8,722 in I DBG
funds be added to the Housing Rehabilitation Program, increasing the total Housing
Rehabilitation funds to $174,497, This would enable us to assist one additional
family.
ACTION
The City Council should direct staff to prepare a revised 1991-92 Cost Summary,
including the additional $8,722 in the Housing Rehabilitation program.
APPROV
` D:
/ /
/ (,
George J. alts
LASER IMAGED
a
_.
d
ATTACHMENT III
Community Development Block Grant
, 1991-92 Cost Summary
Grant Wilber B-91-UC-06-0505
1 /5/91 (3) 17TH YEAR ALLOCATION s246,972 (11) ADDRESSES: (12) ,4 X OF FUNDS ALLOCATED TO
(1) DATE PROGRAM INCOME S —0— L/M NATIONAL OBJECTIVE S 175,_497 _ PUBLIC SERVICES
REPROGRAMMED FUNDS S _fl_
ARCADIA S/B NATIONAL OBJECTIVE S 59,475 (13) 5 X OF FUNDS ALLOCATED TO
(2) CITY TOTAL PROGRAM PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION
RESOURCES s246,972.
Program Nat_ Ant.
Category Program Name Project Location Project Description Project Amount Obj_ Dis_
(4) (5) (6) (7) -- — •- (8) --� (9) (10)
A Housing City Wide The City offers $7,500 in grants to low $ 174,497 L/M
Rehabilitation moderate income homeowners for
(Cont. project) necessary home improvements.
E Public Works First Ave. from Hunting- Conversion of 63 lights from series to $ 42,000 ' S/B
Lighting #4 . ton Dr. north to multiple circuit lights - this will
Colorado Bl. and along reduce the energy costs by 67%
Huntington Dr between
Santa Anita & Second
(C.T. 4308.01)
I- E Public Works Colorado P1 from Installation of new energy efficient $ 17,475 S/B
D Lighting #5 Huntington Dr to street lights
Cn
111 Colorado B1 (CT 4307.21)
K F Information and City Wide Provide funds to the Center for $ 1,000 L/M
D Referral Service Independent Living to continue their
mefforts in providing support services
® to-th-e-Citty- d-i sab l-ed-&-eid e-r-y-r-es ide-n-ts
G Administration N/A To provide for the overall administra- $ 12,000
' tion of CDBG funds I
ate_
•