Loading...
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_ •